Neisler & Inedit Holdings t/as Belle Property Noosa Coolum Marcoola v Anderson & Clark
[2025] QCAT 405
•17 October 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Neisler & Inedit Holdings t/as Belle Property Noosa Coolum Marcoola v Anderson & Clark [2025] QCAT 405
PARTIES:
SHANE ANDERSON
(applicant in Q2081-25)
LORI CLARK
(applicant in Q2081-25)
ELIZABETH NEISLER
(applicant in Q1470-25)
INEDIT HOLDINGS T/AS BELLE PROPERTY NOOSA COOLUM MARCOOLA
(applicant in Q1470-25)
v
INEDIT HOLDINGS T/AS BELLE PROPERTY NOOSA COOLUM MARCOOLA
(respondent in Q2081-25)
SHANE ANDERSON
(respondent in Q1470-25)
LORI CLARK
(respondent in Q1470-25)
APPLICATION NO/S:
Q2081-25 + Q1470-25
MATTER TYPE:
Residential tenancy matters
DELIVERED ON:
17 October 2025
HEARING DATE:
7 May 2025
HEARD AT:
Maroochydore
DECISION OF:
Magistrate Madsen
ORDERS:
1. I order that the RTA pay to the tenant the sum of $4,400 from the bond.
2. I order that the claim for compensation lodged by the applicant tenant be dismissed.
3. I order that the application for compensation lodged by the applicant lessor be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – RENTAL BONDS – where the agent applicant made an application for payment of bond for roof repairs
LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY LEGISLATION – OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES – OTHER MATTERS – where the tenant applicant made an application for compensation regarding a electricity bill incurred due to the lessor’s alleged failure to maintain the premises in good repair
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 419(3)
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Parties appeared in person
REASONS FOR DECISION
The tenant commenced proceedings for compensation arising from issues with the solar system installed at the premises that was not working. They commenced their proceedings on about 12 February 2025. The tenant seeks an order for the Bond.
The lessor commenced proceedings in the tribunal seeking compensation for roof repairs.
The lessor commenced those proceedings on or about 31 January 2025.
The lessor also claimed $1,400 for advertising and break lease costs.
A notice of unresolved dispute was received by the agent on 24 January 2025.
The tenant issued a notice to leave on 11 November 2024. They advised that they intended to vacate the property on 10 December 2024.
These two applications relate to the tenancy where there were some problems.
The Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the Act’) and the tenancy agreement include an obligation for the lessor to keep the premises in good repair. Cases in this area show that there is no breach of this obligation until the lessor has received notice of the defect and has failed to fix it.
The state of the premises at the start of the tenancy is relevant. The lessor is not in breach of any obligation to repair unless they have actual knowledge of the defect needing repair and had failed to have it fixed at the beginning of the tenancy. Although some issues were known at the start of the tenancy, it appears from the chronology that when advised of issues after the tenancy began the agent proactively managed the lessors’ obligations regarding the problems that arise.
Any claim for compensation must be made within six months after the applicant becomes aware of the breach.[1]
[1]Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 419(3). Submitting a form 16
effectively allows a claim for a breach known to the tenant in the previous six months. There is no jurisdiction to extend this time. It is clearly evident that the applicant tenant had raised concerns about the condition of the solar system on multiple occasions during various tenancies prior to the limitation date.
The time limit cannot be extended.
The Solar System
A significant problem occurred in relation to the solar system.
The solar system failed. Neither the tenant nor the landlord was aware of when this happened or how.
The tenant was completely unaware of the failure but had some notice of the problem.
The landlord became aware of the failure only after continued investigation of an electrical problem at the premises.
The result was that once the electrical problem and the solar system were resolved the tenant received a bill from that electrical supply for the electricity supplied to the premises.[2]
[2]By Origin.
The summary prepared by the tenant makes clear that Laurie was speaking to Origin about the bills on 23 February 2024.
The solar system was not fully repaired until 26 July 2024.
The tenant had been receiving estimated bills. They didn’t notice that the bills were for estimated consumption.
The estimated bills were received by the tenant for approximately two years. The tenant did not submit a request to their retailer for a reading.[3]
[3]The agent in fact in an email highlighted that the retailer had a responsibility to ensure that the actual
readings of metres are issued as frequently as required – Email 31 October 2024 to Lori.
In a comprehensive email dated 23 October 2024 the tenant explains in part:
(a)The issue of the meter not being read only became clear when we received the first large bill in February 2024.
(b)If Origin or Energex had performed even one actual metre reading during this period the issue with the malfunctioning solar system would have been identified much earlier, preventing the accumulation of charges.[4]
(c)Origin sent multiple emails with the subject line ‘we had to estimate your electricity bill’. Those emails went unnoticed.
(d)Proper communication from Origin about the option of a self-meter read could have helped identify the solar malfunction much earlier.
(e)It appears they assumed that the low power bills were reasonable given the potential credit from excess solar power being fed back into the grid, however this was not identified from a proper reading of any invoice from Origin, it seems this was assumed;[5]
(f)a reduction of 50% was requested from the ombudsman.[6]
[4]I beg to differ – the accumulation may not have happened to the same extent.
[5]Respectfully, I could not accept this even if I consider their explanation regarding the usage and occupancy. The bills were quite low – the amounts are set out in their summary which is document 15
[6]A reduction was allowed but not in the amount of 50%.
Prior to renewing the tenant specifically requested provisions addressing the ongoing electricity and solar issues be added to the agreement. The tenant maintains that due to time constraints the agent advised that it was not feasible to redraft the lease to include those terms before the renewal. He says he proceeded in good faith with the understanding that these issues would be handled fairly.[7] The changes were not made.
[7]Email 12 November 2024.
In fairness to the tenant, I cannot accept the decision to enter into a new tenancy without the requested changes. I understand the importance of the formal agreement being entered into, but I also understand the importance of a formal agreement being entered into which reflects the condition of the premises. The tenant did have rights he could pursue in that respect if he felt that the agent or the lessors were acting reasonably.
I can think of no fair nor reasonable basis which makes the landlord liable for something that the landlord was unaware of.
The energy and water ombudsman fairly and squarely put the responsibility on the owner or occupier. In a tenancy situation, the person best suited to determine whether or not there was an issue with the meter read was the tenant. They could have done a self-meter read.[8]
[8]Email 3 December 2024.
Equally, I can think of no fair nor reasonable basis which would require the landlord to contribute to the electrical consumption at the property by the tenant. At the end of the day, the tenants were receiving estimated bills which they didn’t notice were estimated[9]. If they did notice and act promptly perhaps the situation might have been resolved much more speedily.
[9] A consideration highlighted by the regulator in their decision about the an application by the tenant to remit the charges.
It is equally difficult to try and quantify the fair and reasonable value of the reduced consumption of electricity from a solar system that was properly working.
There were no special conditions that related to the solar system in the tenancy agreement. There were no conditions, for example, attributing any obligation in relation to monitoring the system. In effect the standard conditions were meant to regulate the situation and the standard conditions are deficient.
For example, typically these types of applications provide information and reporting by way of an application. Typically, the application reports information to the owner of the system. The owner of the system typically is the lessor. A condition which allows a tenant to have access to the application would allow a tenant the electrical consumption and the performance of the system.
Even, perhaps, basic information being provided to a tenant about how the system normally operates to monitor alerts emanating from the system – that didn’t happen.
Time Limits
An aspect of the issue in relation to the electrical bills involved a consideration of time limits.
The tenant in effect has six months from becoming aware of a problem which is possibly a breach of a tenancy to commence proceedings in the tribunal. If there is a breach of the tenancy that occurs outside of that time period, the tenant has no right to make a claim, and that time period cannot be extended.
It is self-evident that some of the bills received were received more than six months prior to the tenant becoming aware of the failure of the solar system.[10]
[10]The tenants’ overview of the dispute says that the entry condition report 20 May 2022 documented the faulty solar system.
Potentially they were aware of the solar system failure by 23 February 2024 which is when Laurie started speaking to them regarding billing issues.
Arguably, time became a problem from 1 May when Shane requested a clause in the lease.
It is a clear case that the electrical usage that forms the substantial part of the tenants’ claim for compensation arose out of time. It was their electrical usage and they should have been much more attentive, respectfully.
The application for compensation in relation to the failure of the solar system is refused.
The Roof
The tenant installed a temporary roof which became semipermanent.
No prior permission was sought to construct the roof. The tenant provided clear information to the agent about the matter of installation and offer to remove the roof.
There were a variety of emails about the roof.
Ultimately, I have been persuaded that it is not fair nor reasonable for the lessor to be compensated for the removal of the roof given that the tenant made a reasonable offer to remove it. I do not allow any compensation for the removal of the roof. In reaching that conclusion I have also considered that the tenant had promptly and properly complied with other requirements of the tenancy over a significant period of time.
The Break Lease Fee
It is not unusual to have a break lease fee where a tenancy terminates prior to the intended date.
The tenant did agree to the fee but not the additional obligations in respect of the fee to pay continuing rent.[11]
[11]Email 12 November 2024.
Notwithstanding that offer from the tenant, when I consider the overall circumstances, I do not consider that the payment to the lessor of the break lease fee and advertising, although reasonable, could properly be regarded as a fair and reasonable assessment of compensation.
The tenant was very cooperative with the lessor and very frank.
I think it is unconscionable to expect the tenant to pay the break lease fee in all of the circumstances of this tenancy.
This is a discretionary consideration consistent with the objects of the Act.
Order
I order that the RTA pay to the tenant the sum of $4,400 from the bond.
I order that the claim for compensation lodged by the applicant tenant be dismissed.
I order that the application for compensation lodged by the applicant lessor be dismissed.
0
0
1