Vashisht and Sharma v Edwards

[2016] NSWCATCD 86

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Vashisht & Sharma v Edwards [2016] NSWCATCD 86

Hearing dates:

28 September 2016

Date of orders:

28 September 2016

Decision date:

20 October 2016

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

DAC Robertson, Senior Member

Decision:

1. Pursuant to s41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act the time within which the applicants may commence these proceedings is extended to 21 August 2016.

2. Order pursuant to s45(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act that the rent for the residential premises must not exceed $50 per week from 5 June 2016.

3. Order pursuant to s45(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act that the landlord, NERILEE L EDWARDS, repay the tenant, HIMANSHI SHARMA and KARANDEEP VASHISHT, the sum of $3,330 immediately.

Catchwords:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – residential tenancies legislation – other matters – premises becoming uninhabitable by reason of water penetration and removal of carpets – abatement of rent – extent of abatement

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ss 43, 45

Cases Cited:

Bannister v Cheung [2014] NSWCATCD 105 at 16 to 20
Elsom & Taylor Parker v Coroneos [2016] NSWCATCD 47
NSW Land and Housing Corporation v Woodward [2015] NSWCATAP 164 at 10 and 17
Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 42 at 51
Summers v Selford Corporation [1943] AC 283 at 289

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Applicants: Karandeep Vashisht and Himanshi Sharma
Respondent: Nerilee L Edwards

Representation:

Applicants: in person
Respondent: Domenica Natolo

File Number(s):

RT 16/37734

Publication restriction:

Unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. These are written reasons for orders made in this matter on the day of the hearing, 28 September 2016. On that day I gave oral reasons. These reasons are a slightly revised version of my reasons given orally on 28 September 2016.

2. This is an application for the reimbursement of rent paid in respect of premises in Homebush West of which the applicants were tenants under a Residential Tenancy Agreement between 5 June 2016 and 6 August 2016.

3. The applicants appeared in person. The respondent landlord was represented by Ms Natolo, an employee of the managing agent. Both applicants and Ms Natolo gave evidence on oath.

4. The applicants’ claim was that the premises were uninhabitable from 5 June 2016 when there was water penetration into the bedrooms and living room of the premises. It is not in dispute and clearly established by photographs that water had penetrated the premises, saturated the carpets, which had to be removed, and caused damage to the applicants’ possessions.

5. The photographs tendered by the applicants further demonstrate that mould had started growing on the premises.

6. The carpets were removed by a contractor retained by the respondent, leaving bare concrete floors. The tack strips by which the carpets had been held in position were left in place within each of the bedrooms.

7. The carpets had not been replaced by 6 August 2016 when the applicants finally terminated the…