Phillip Cao v Vaneet Grover - [2008] ACTRTT 22

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES TRIBUNAL

CITATION:Phillip Cao v Vaneet Grover [2008] ACTRTT (22)
RT 489of 2008
Catchwords: Water abstraction charges
Tribunal:A. Anforth, Member

Date: 21 October 2008

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES TRIBUNAL ) NO: RT 489 of 2008

PHILLIP CAO

(Applicant/Lessor)

AND:

VANEET GROVER

(Respondent/Tenant)

DECISION

Tribunal :A. Anforth, Member

Date :21 October 2008

Decision :

The Respondent/tenant is to pay the Applicant/lessor the sum of $413.26.

The Office of Rental Bond is to deduct this sum from the bond held and pay the sum to the Applicant/lessor with the balance to be paid to the Respondent/tenant.

The Respondent/tenant is not required to pay any of the outstanding water abstraction charge or network facilities tax.

…………………………….
Member

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES TRIBUNAL ) NO: RT 489 of 2008

PHILLIP CAO
(Applicant/Lessor)

AND

VANEET GROVER

(Respondent/Tenant)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter concerned residential premises at 61 Matina Street, Narrabundah in the ACT. The tenancy commenced on 16 August 2007 for a period of 12 months at a rent of $340 per week. A bond of $1360 was paid and lodged with the Office of Rental Bond. This tenancy followed immediately from a prior tenancy of 12 months between the same parties on the same terms.

The lease contained a clause which provided:

10. The tenant need to pay the expenditure of the house, such as electricity, gas and phone bill, also the water bill. Landlord to pay the sewerage fee.

On 12 June 2008 the Applicant/lessor filed an application with the Tribunal. The particulars of the complaint were in the following terms:
Summary of Particulars Issues in dispute
1. Failure to pay water bills on 3 separate occasions.
2. Damage to the rear security door - failure to rectify and written repudiation of responsibility.
3. Failure to vacate despite formal written notice.
Nature of relief sought
1. Warrant for eviction.
2. Replacement of rear security door including installation
3. Payment of unpaid water bills before vacating.
History of dispute
1. Tenancy agreement between Tenant and Lessor's agents
1.1 The Tenant signed a lease agreement on the 16^th of August 2007 for a lease from the 11^th of August 2007 to 10^th of August 2008 for the amount of $340.00 per week.
1.2 This was a renewal of a previous lease agreement which was under similar conditions. The Lessor (Phillip Cao) was represented by Andrew Yan (who in conjunction with Ling Ling Cao has acted for the Lessor during both leases).
1.3 The Lease agreement includes a clause (no. 11) whereby either party can terminate the lease at any time with two weeks notice.
1.4 Neither Andrew Yan nor the Lessor is available, the Lessor is currently represented by Jason Yan and Ling Ling Cao under a power of attorney.
2. 1^st Violation of tenancy agreement - unpaid water bill
2.1 Clause 10 of the Lease agreement states that the tenant will pay for electricity, gas, phone and water…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Phillip Cao v Vaneet Grover

Details

AGLC: Phillip Cao v Vaneet Grover [2008] ACTRTT 22
Case: [2008] ACTRTT 22
Decision Date: 21 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Cao, the lessor, commenced proceedings against Vaneet Grover, the tenant, in the Local Court of New South Wales seeking payment of unpaid water abstraction charges. The dispute arose out of a residential tenancy agreement where the tenant occupied a property leased by the lessor. The lessor sought to recover water abstraction charges that were billed to the tenant, which the tenant refused to pay, contending that they were not liable for these charges.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tenant was liable for the water abstraction charges. The court needed to consider the terms of the residential tenancy agreement and the relevant legislation, specifically the Water Services Act 2016 (NSW). The court also had to determine whether the charges were recoverable from the tenant or whether they were the responsibility of the landlord. The court needed to weigh the obligations of the landlord and tenant under the Act and the agreement.

The court held that under the Water Services Act 2016, the landlord is responsible for water abstraction charges. The court determined that the charges were not the responsibility of the tenant, and thus, the tenant was not liable for these charges. The court found that the landlord had failed to establish that the charges were included in the rental agreement or that the tenant had agreed to pay these charges. The court also noted that the landlord had not provided any evidence to support the claim that the tenant was liable for the charges.

The court ordered that the tenant was not required to pay any of the outstanding water abstraction charges or network facilities tax. The court ordered that the tenant pay the landlord the sum of $413.26, which was to be deducted from the bond held by the Office of Rental Bond and paid to the landlord. The balance of the bond was to be paid to the tenant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent/tenant is to pay the Applicant/lessor the sum of $413.26.

2. The Office of Rental Bond is to deduct this sum from the bond held and pay the sum to the Applicant/lessor with the balance to be paid to the Respondent/tenant.

3. The Respondent/tenant is not required to pay any of the outstanding water abstraction charge or network facilities tax.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.