Ogbonna v Tankard
[2018] ACAT 14
•21 February 2018
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
OGBONNA & ANOR v TANKARD & ANOR (Appeal) [2018] ACAT 14
AA 38/2017 (RT 335/2017)
Catchwords: APPEAL – residential tenancies – Tribunal ordered tenants to pay lessors amounts for damage to lessors’ property, cleaning, water consumption – appeal against some of those amounts – role of Appeal Tribunal – whether Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that Original Tribunal made errors of fact or law – whether an unendorsed special instruction in the residential tenancy agreement was void because it was inconsistent with a standard residential tenancy term
Legislation cited: Residential Tenancies Act 1997 ss 9, 10, standard terms 1, 2, 3, 55, 56, 57, 63, 64
Cases cited: Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72
Sarbandi v Sharif [2017] ACAT 57
Tribunal: President G Neate AM
Senior Member A AnforthDate of Orders: 21 February 2018
Date of Reasons for Decision: 21 February 2018
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) AA 38/2017
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL )
BETWEEN:
FLORENCE OGBONNA
First Appellant
OGECHI (BARBARA) OGBONNA
Second Appellant
AND:
GLENN TANKARD
First Respondent
DONNA TANKARD
Second Respondent
TRIBUNAL:President G Neate AM
Senior Member A Anforth
DATE:21 February 2018
ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
………………………………..
President G Neate AM
for and on behalf of the Tribunal
REASONS FOR DECISION
1.On 3 July 2013, Glenn and Donna Tankard (the lessors) leased their residential premises in the Canberra suburb of Forde (the property) to Florence Ogbonna and Ogechi (Barbara) Ogbonna (the tenants). The tenancy concluded in mid-January 2017.
2.The lessors claimed that the tenants breached clause 64 of the Standard Residential Tenancy Terms, replicated in the lease, which obliged the tenants to leave the property in substantially the same state of cleanliness and in substantially the same condition as the premises were in at the commencement of the tenancy agreement, fair wear and tear excepted.
3.The lessors made claims for seven specified types of damage plus cleaning costs and a final charge for consumption of water supplied to the property. The tenants denied each of the claims, contending in each case that there was “no damage” and no overdue water consumption invoice. The tenants did not provide any evidence to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Original Tribunal) in support of their claims,[1] but the lessors carried the onus of proof of their claims.
[1] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [8]
4.The Original Tribunal disallowed some of the lessors’ claims, allowed two in part and allowed others in full. For reasons which he published,[2] the Original Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay the lessors the sum of $5,465.86 comprised of the following amounts:
(a)Damaged carpet $119.50.
(b)Damaged fridge $2,867.00.
(c)Damaged joinery $1,872.75.
(d)Damaged benchtop $451.00.
(e)Water consumption $155.61.
[2] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72
5.The Original Tribunal directed the Office of Rental Bonds to release the bond of $3,000.00 to the lessors by way of part payment of the total amount payable.
6.The tenants appealed against the decision of the Original Tribunal. The reasons and grounds for the appeal are found in three separate documents.
7.First, the application for appeal sought the setting aside of the original orders and substitution of new orders to refund the tenants the rental bond and rent for seven days as well as some overpaid water bills. The handwritten reasons for appeal included:
(a)complaints of “a litany of false and malicious allegations of damages and claims against us” after the tenants had vacated the premises;
(b)a statement that the tenants “strongly believe that any further objections and observations after finally handing over the property” on 20 January 2017 “should have been prompt, urgent and immediate, that is, same day or latest the following day 21 January, but surely not after four weeks, otherwise the interest of justice and fairness will not be served”;
(c)a statement that, given that the tenants had always received “excellent or very good” inspection reports and comments from agents during the three and a half years of renting the property, it was “therefore totally ludicrous and unimaginable that in the final three months of our stay we would destroy, damage or vandalize the same property that we have commendably taken very good care of” for all of the period of their occupancy and it was “shocking” and “unacceptable” that the Original Tribunal did not take those facts into consideration;
(d)references to “intimidating, racist and habitual attitude of discrimination and negligence towards” Florence Ogbonna and her children;
(e)references to the lessors’ agents sending the tenants “very high water bills” about which they complained and a request that the tenants be refunded “some overpaid amount of money because the water charges were outrageous”.
8.Second, the tenants’ typewritten reasons for appeal take issue with particular findings of the Original Tribunal. In summary, the tenants:
(a)submit that there was no evidence on which the Original Tribunal could rely to conclude[3] that holes in the fridge/freezer led to water leakage which was irreparable, and conclude that the cost of the fridge was $2,867.00;
(b)submit that the statement by the Original Tribunal[4] referring to item 15 special instructions of the lease (that repairs, maintenance or replacement of the fridge (if required) is to be at the tenants’ expense) is inconsistent with the lessors’ decision and a mistake of law as item 15 is inconsistent with the standard tenancy terms of section 9 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 which says an inconsistent term is void;
(c)submit that the finding in favour of the claim for damage of the joinery that framed the fridge[5] is a flawed decision because it is inconsistent with evidence as to what caused the leakage and damage to the flooring and side panels of the fridge, and was not mentioned during the final inspection or handover of the property, although there had been several written messages to the property agents for maintenance assessment to the water leakages from the fridge;
(d)submit that the finding that there was heat damage to the right-hand oven drawer front[6] was not supported by sufficient evidence and was not reported during the final inspection and hand over or during the regular inspections of the property;
(e)submit that the finding that the claim of $1,872.75 for damage to the skirting boards and laundry was proved[7] is unreliable as there was no report of damage to the skirting boards during the final inspection and handover of the property;
(f)submit that the conclusion that there was a breach of clause 64[8] after the final inspection is inconsistent as there is insufficient evidence before the Original Tribunal to support the findings that the tenants were responsible for those items of damage and breached clause 64;
(g)deny that there were dents in the front of the fridge, abrasive marks in the front of the fridge, damage to the joinery around the fridge, chips around the benchtop and damage to the other panel door, stating that there is no evidence to support conclusions about such damage as the photographs were taken when the final inspection was concluded.
[3] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [21]
[4] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [26]
[5] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [30]
[6] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [32]
[7] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [36] and [38]
[8] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [70]
9.Third, in response to directions made by a Presidential Member of the Tribunal on 6 November 2017, the tenants provided a document headed ‘Ground of Appeal’ which:
(a)records observations about the final inspection of the property on 20 January 2017, including what items the agent said needed attention, and the absence of an outgoing condition report;
(b)refers to emails from Dun and Bradstreet in regard to the tenants paying $5,695.00;
(c)submits that the Original Tribunal erred in finding that the tenants were liable for the entirety of the cost to replace the fridge, and erred in relying on item 15 special instructions in the lease, which was an unendorsed inconsistent term which is void;
(d)submits that the Original Tribunal erred in finding (in the absence of evidence other than pictures provided by the lessor) that the fridge leaked as a result of alleged damage to the freezer;
(e)submits that the Original Tribunal erred in finding that the tenants were responsible for the damage done to the joinery framing the fridge; and
(f)states that the tenants should only pay $119.00 for the carpet and $155.00 for the water bill.
10.As the summary above indicates, many of the matters referred to in the tenants’ documents did not allege that the Original Tribunal made specific errors of fact or law. Rather, they were complaints or concerns about the way in which the lessors or their agents conducted their business and communicated with the tenants.
11.At the hearing of the appeal, the tenants clarified that the issues on appeal are confined to the following as set out in the ‘Ground of Appeal’ document:
(a)Whether:
(i) there was evidence on which the Original Tribunal could rely to conclude that the tenants damaged the fridge/freezer such that it was irreparably damaged and had to be replaced; and
(ii) item 15 special instructions in the lease in relation to the repairs, maintenance or replacement in the fridge was inconsistent with the standard tenancy terms of the Residential Tenancies Act1997 and hence was void;
(b)whether the Original Tribunal erred in finding that the tenants were responsible for the damage done to the joinery framing the fridge; and
(c)whether the Original Tribunal erred in finding that the tenants were responsible for damage to the kitchen bench.
Matters not in issue
12.Given that the tenants agree that they should pay $119.00 for the carpet and $155.00 for the water bill, there are no grounds for appeal in relation to the amounts allowed for damaged carpet and water consumption. Accordingly, the Appeal Tribunal did not receive as new evidence a series of documents in relation to the cost of water consumption that the tenants sent to the Tribunal close to the hearing of the appeal.
The role of an Appeal Tribunal
13.Before considering the grounds of appeal, it is appropriate to note briefly one facet of the way in which an appeal tribunal approaches the review of a decision of an original tribunal. As noted by an Appeal Tribunal in Sarbandi v Sharif,[9] an appeal tribunal will be loath to disturb a finding of fact by an original tribunal who had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, particularly where the interests of the individuals diverge and conflict, where personal feeling is acute and much depends on the character, personal motives and interests of individual persons. Where it was reasonably open to an original tribunal to prefer the evidence of one party over the other, the appeal tribunal is unlikely to uphold an appeal where there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that the decision of the original tribunal to prefer the evidence of one witness rather than the other was wrong.
[9] Sarbandi v Sharif [2017] ACAT 57 at [67], [71]
14.The present appeal was conducted as a review of the decision of the Original Tribunal. It did not proceed as a new hearing or a hearing de novo. It was for the appellants to convince this Appeal Tribunal that the findings and conclusions of the Original Tribunal contained errors of fact or law.
Compensation for replacement of the fridge
15.There are two limbs to the tenants’ argument in relation to the order that they pay for the replacement of the fridge. First, the tenants submit that the Original Tribunal erred in finding that the fridge leaked as a result of alleged damage to the freezer. They contend that there was no evidence to support that claim. The Original Tribunal was entirely reliant on the pictures provided by the lessors. There was no evidence from a tradesperson, etc about what caused the leak.
16.In reply, the lessors submit that the issues concerning the fridge were covered in paragraphs [26] and [27] of the decision of the Original Tribunal, on which they rely.
17.As the Original Tribunal noted, the new fridge/freezer was installed six months prior to the commencement of the lease. He was satisfied on the evidence that there were holes in the fridge/freezer “apparently caused by endeavours to chisel ice away from internal surface/s. The holes led to water leaking from the fridge which in turn caused rust to the bottom of the fridge.” He also referred to photographs which showed “noticeable dents to the door of the fridge/freezer, abrasion damage to the stainless steel freezer door perhaps caused by an abrasive cleaner and broken shelves and trays.”[10]
[10] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [20]
18.The Original Tribunal also held that the holes on the internal surfaces of the fridge/freezer, causing water to leak from the fridge, were irreparable.[11] He was satisfied that the fridge was damaged by “negligent use”[12] and, because of the damage, the fridge was a “write-off” and had to be replaced.[13]
[11] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [21]
[12] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [24]
[13] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [22]
19.Before the Appeal Tribunal, the tenants reiterated arguments put to the Original Tribunal.
20.The tenants contended that at the final inspection there was no evidence of the damage to the fridge and that the final condition report did not refer to that damage. They ask why, if the fridge was damaged, it took more than one month to notify them of that damage?
21.The tenants did not advance any new argument or provide additional evidence to the Appeal Tribunal in relation to the fridge. However, they told the Appeal Tribunal that the fridge leaked from time to time, but was not leaking at the time of the final inspection.
22.We note that the Outgoing Condition Report dated 20 January 2017 and signed by the landlord or agent (but not by the tenants) referred to “Fridge heavily damaged and leaking.”
23.There was evidence on which the Original Tribunal could base his findings. We are not satisfied that the Original Tribunal made an error (or errors) of fact in the conclusions he reached.
24.Clause 64 of the lease, which replicates clause 64 in the standard residential terms in Schedule 1 to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, states:
64 The tenant must leave the premises—
(a) in substantially the same state of cleanliness, removing all the tenant’s belongings and any other goods brought onto the premises during the duration of the tenancy agreement; and
(b) in substantially the same condition as the premises were in at the commencement of the tenancy agreement, fair wear and tear excepted.
25.The Original Tribunal stated that in “ordinary circumstances” arising from the tenants’ breach of clause 64(b) of the lease, the tenants would be liable to pay appropriate compensation by reference to the value of the fridge, if undamaged, at the conclusion of the tenancy. However, in this case, the lease agreement at item 15 special instructions states, in relation to the fridge:
The fridge is to be left at the property for the tenants to use during the tenancy. If any repairs or maintenance are required throughout the tenancy, is to be at the tenant’s expense. If the fridge requires replacement, this is too at the tenant’s expense.
26.By reference to that item, the Original Tribunal allowed the full sum for the replacement of the fridge on the basis that (for reasons set out earlier) the fridge required replacement as a result of the tenants’ use of it.[14]
[14] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [27]
27.The second limb of the tenants’ submission in relation to the fridge is to take issue with the Original Tribunal’s reliance on item 15 special instructions in the lease. In their Ground of Appeal document, the tenants described item 15 as an “unendorsed inconsistent term which is void.”
28.When asked to expand on its submission at the hearing of the appeal, Ms Ogechi (Barbara) Ogbonna referred to inconsistency between outgoing report and the condition of the fridge. In response to questions from the Appeal Tribunal, Ms Ogbonna said that she sought legal advice in relation to the appeal from Legal Aid and received some assistance in preparing the ‘Ground of Appeal’ document. It was apparent that she did not understand the legal concepts implicit in the expressions used in that part of the ‘Ground of Appeal’.
29.The Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants have raised a legal issue. That much is apparent from their typewritten reasons for appeal in which the tenants submit that the statement in item 15 is inconsistent with the lessors’ decision and a mistake of law as it is inconsistent with the standard tenancy terms of section 9 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997.
30.Section 9 provides:
9 Inconsistent tenancy terms void
(1) A term of a residential tenancy agreement is void if—
(a) it is inconsistent with a standard residential tenancy term; and
(b) it has not been endorsed by the ACAT under section 10.
(2) A term of a residential tenancy agreement is void if it is inconsistent with this Act (other than a standard residential tenancy term).
31.There was no suggestion that item 15 was endorsed by the Tribunal under section 10 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. The question raised in the tenants’ submission is whether item 15 (at least to the extent that it refers to the fridge) is inconsistent with a standard residential tenancy term. The tenants did not identify the standard residential term or terms with which item 15 was inconsistent.
32.As the legal issue was not argued by the tenants at the hearing of the appeal, and the lessors offered no response to that legal issue, the Appeal Tribunal does not have the benefit of submissions on this point. However, we feel obliged to consider the issue.
33.The residential tenancy agreement entered into by the tenants provides, among other things that:
(a)it is made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (clause 1(1));
(b)the lessors and the tenant may agree to add additional clauses to the tenancy agreement “but they must not be inconsistent with, or modify, existing clauses (except if permitted by the Act)” (clause 1(2));
(c)a party to the tenancy agreement cannot contract out of it or out of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, except as provided in that Act (clause 3);
(d)the tenant must leave the premises in substantially the same state of cleanliness and in substantially the same condition as the premises were at the commencement of the tenancy agreement, fair wear and tear excepted (clause 64).
34.Schedule 1 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 sets out standard residential tenancy terms. For present purposes, the following clauses are relevant:
Lessor and tenant must comply with terms of tenancy agreement
1(1) This tenancy agreement is made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (the Residential Tenancies Act).
(2) The lessor and the tenant may agree to add additional clauses to the tenancy agreement but they must not be inconsistent with, or modify, existing clauses (except if permitted by the Act).
…
2 By signing this tenancy agreement, the lessor and the tenant agree to be bound by its terms during the period of the tenancy it creates.
3 A party to this tenancy agreement cannot contract out of it or out of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, except as provided in that Act.
…
Lessor to make repairs
55 (1) The lessor must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their condition at the commencement of the tenancy agreement.
(2) The tenant must notify the lessor of any need for repairs.
(3) This section does not require the tenant to notify the lessor about anything that an ordinary tenant would reasonably be expected to do, for example, changing a light globe or a fuse.
56 The lessor is not obliged to repair damage caused by the negligence or wilful act of the tenant.
57Subject to clause 55, the lessor must make repairs, other than urgent repairs, within 4 weeks of being notified of the need for the repairs (unless otherwise agreed).
…
The tenant must take reasonable care of the premises and keep the premises reasonably clean
63 During the tenancy, the tenant must—
(a) not intentionally or negligently damage the premises or permit such damage; and
(b)notify the lessor of any damage as soon as possible; and
(c)take reasonable care of the premises and their contents, and keep them reasonably clean, having regard to their condition at the time of the commencement of the tenancy and the normal incidents of living.
35.Clause 64 is quoted earlier in these reasons at [23].
36.It is clear from those standard residential tenancy clauses and the relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 that a lessor is obliged to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy (clause 55) and cannot contract out of this obligation save by a term endorsed by the Tribunal (sections 9, 10). That duty extends to the maintenance of appliances supplied as part of the tenancy, which includes a fridge. If a fridge is supplied with the tenancy and it malfunctions then it is for the lessor to repair it. Accordingly, it is arguable that an additional clause in the terms of item 15 would not be endorsed by the Tribunal.
37.However, even if our preliminary view in relation to the legal status of item 15 is correct, that does not mean that the appeal in this case in relation to an amount for damage to the fridge must succeed.
38.The exception to the general rule about a lessor’s obligations is set out in standard clauses 56 and 63(a) which respectively deal with circumstances where a tenant by ‘negligence or wilful act’ or ‘intentionally or negligently’ causes the damage. Whilst the wording of these two clauses is slightly different, their operation is the same.
39.This is a different issue from that of a tenant’s duty to return the premises in the condition in which they received it, other than for ‘normal incidents of living’ and ‘fair wear and tear’ (clauses 63(c) and 64). The ‘fair wear and tear’ provision can overlap with a tenant’s duty not to damage the property, but it is not co-extensive with that duty. For example, a tenant might negligently cause damage to the premises but the extent of that damage may be within the ambit of ‘fair wear and tear’. Alternatively, there might to be extensive damage caused to the premises during the tenancy which was not due to the negligent or intentional actions of the tenant, for example mechanical failure or an earthquake. A tenant is not the lessor’s insurer against all possible causes of damage to the premises. Therefore it does not follow necessarily that because damage that occurred during a tenancy is outside the ambit of ‘fair wear and tear’ the tenant is liable for that damage.
40.As noted earlier, the Original Tribunal found that the fridge was a “write-off” at the end of the lease as a result of damage to the fridge which was “irreparable” and a result of “negligent use.”
41.The Original Tribunal concluded that the tenants had damaged the almost new fridge by negligence and that the fridge had to be replaced. That conclusion stands. Consequently, even if item 15 is void (at least to the extent that it refers to the fridge), the tenants remain liable to pay the sum for the replacement of the fridge.
Compensation for damage to joinery
42.The tenants submit that the Original Tribunal erred in finding that the tenants were responsible for the damage to the joinery framing the fridge. They contend that the leaking of the fridge was not caused by the tenants and that they reported the issue of a leaking fridge to the real estate agent during the term of the lease. They told the Appeal Tribunal that the fridge leaked from time to time, they mopped the wet area, and the fridge was not leaking at the time of the final inspection.
43.In reply, the lessors submit that the issues concerning the joinery were covered in the decision of the Original Tribunal, on which they rely. They added that the extent of the damage to the joinery only became apparent at the end of the lease when the lessors moved the fridge and a tradesman engaged by them assessed that damage and provided a quote. They submit that the Original Tribunal was quite lenient in the tenants’ favour when it awarded the lessors 25% of the amount quoted.
44.The Original Tribunal concluded that the flooring and side panels of the joinery that framed the fridge were damaged by water leaks from the fridge. He also concluded that the tenants were responsible for those leaks caused by the damage to the fridge and, in his view, the tenants are consequently liable for the water damage to the floors and panelling. Accordingly, he allowed to claim for damage to that joinery.[15]
[15] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [30]
45.We note that the lessors’ claim for damage to joinery also included joinery in the kitchen and the laundry. The Original Tribunal concluded that the tenants were not liable for most of the damage, but were liable for the damage to the joinery that framed the fridge and some other items. Having considered a quote for all the joinery repair work, the Original Tribunal estimated that between 25% and 50% of the quote should be “properly attributable to the damage for which I have concluded that the tenants are liable.” However, where the evidence was so scant and it was for the lessors to prove, the Original Tribunal gave the tenants “the benefit of my estimate” by concluding that 25% of the total quote should be attributable to the damage for which they are liable.[16]
[16] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [38]
46.We are not satisfied that the Original Tribunal made an error in relation to the tenants’ liability for damage to the joinery framing the fridge or in estimating the amount the tenants should pay for that damage and damage to other joinery.
Compensation for chips to kitchen bench
47.The tenants submit that there was no damage to the bench top and they do not know where the lessors obtained the pictures of that damage. The tenants contended that they lived at the property for three and a half years and received good reports on periodic inspections. Had there been damage to the bench top, the real estate agent would have noticed it on inspection.
48.In reply, the lessors’ representative stated that the photos were provided by the agent. The damage was not noticed at routine inspections which are less thorough than the final inspection. The chipping occurred on the edge of the bench. She conceded that the chips were small and were noticed on close inspection of the kitchen bench top. The mode of repairs, as described in the quote provided by the Marble Man, was to complete chip repairs by using a UV repair kit.
49.In his reasons the decision, the Original Tribunal noted that the tenants denied the benchtop was chipped. However, he concluded, “it is difficult to accept that denial in the absence of any evidence in support and in the face of the photographic evidence which clearly shows the chipped edges.”[17] The Original Tribunal also considered whether the chips occurred as a result of fair wear and tear. He was “not persuaded” that the chips were caused by fair wear and tear and noted that the tenants made no attempt to suggest that that was so. Rather, they denied that there were any chips. He concluded that “[p]roperly cared for, stone bench tops should remain unblemished indefinitely, perhaps not from stains but at least from chips.” He allowed to claim for $451.00.[18]
[17] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [40]
[18] Tankard & Anor v Ogbonna & Anor [2017] ACAT 72 at [43]
50.Given the evidence before the Original Tribunal, and in the absence of any additional argument or evidence from the tenants, we are not persuaded that the Original Tribunal made any error of fact or law.
Additional rent
51.At the hearing of the appeal, the tenants made some mention of their ongoing concern that they had paid rent for the property for a week or so beyond the end of the lease (additional rent), and indicated their desire to recover the additional rent.
52.Although there was some reference to the matter in the application for appeal, it was not one of the grounds of appeal. However, we note that in an email dated 20 February 2017, Ms Jessica Lawless of McGrath Real Estate wrote:
Hi Flora
There is $198.82 outstanding. You have overpaid your rent by $214.29 but there is an unpaid invoice equalling $413.11. This is how we arrive at the $198.82 outstanding.
Kind Regards
Jessica Lawless
53.It appears from that correspondence, that the amount of the additional rent was credited against an outstanding debt, although the subject of the unpaid invoice was not identified in the email. If the invoice was for an outstanding debt owed by the tenants, there would not seem any basis on which the tenants could seek separately to recover the amount paid in additional rent.
Conclusion and orders
54.For the reasons set out above, the tenants have not satisfied the Appeal Tribunal that the Original Tribunal made errors of fact or law in relation to the matters set out in their Ground of Appeal, that would lead to any of the findings of the Original Tribunal being reversed.
55.Consequently, we order that the appeal be dismissed.
………………………………..
President G Neate AM
for and on behalf of the Tribunal
HEARING DETAILS
FILE NUMBER:
AA 38/2017 (RT 335/2017)
PARTIES, APPLICANT:
Florence Ogbanna
Ogechi (Barbara) Ogbonna
PARTIES, RESPONDENT:
Glenn Tankard
Donna Tankard
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPLICANT
N/A
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT
N/A
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT
N/A
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT
N/A
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS:
President G Neate AM
Senior Member A Anforth
DATES OF HEARING:
29 January 2018
3
2
0