Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zhu v Aspinall [2020] NSWCATAP 226 Hearing dates: 15 October 2020 Date of orders: 30 October 2020 Decision date: 30 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: M Harrowell, Deputy President J Kearney, Senior Member Decision: (1) Leave is granted to the appellant to amend her Notice of Appeal to appeal: (a) the orders made 24 September 2020 (erroneously dated 30 September 2020) in application RT 20/19086 regarding the occupation fee; and (b) the orders made 24 September 2020 in application RT 20/37870 in respect of the bond. (2) Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the decision concerning whether the appellant was an impacted tenant within the meaning of the Residential Tenancy Act 2010 (NSW) and in respect of the amount ordered to be paid for unpaid rent as at 9 July 2020. (3) The appeal is allowed in part. (4) Orders 1-5 inclusive made in RT 20/19086 on 9 July 2020 are set aside and the application for termination of the residential tenancy agreement is dismissed. (5) The amount in Order 6 made on 9 July 2020 in application RT 20/19086 is varied from $15,000.00 to $13,242.72. (6) Order 1 made 24 September 2020 (erroneously recorded as 30 September) in application RT 20/19086 requiring the tenant to pay the landlord an occupation fee of $5,400.00 is set aside. (7) The order made on 23 September 2020 in application RT 20/37870 is varied as follows: "The Tribunal directs that the bond in respect of residential tenancy agreement which has been released to the landlord be offset against the order for payment of rent provided in Order 5 above". Catchwords: LAND LAW – Residential tenancy dispute – termination for non-payment of rent – COVID-19 pandemic – legislation prohibiting issue of termination notice or making application to Tribunal where tenant impacted by pandemic – challenge to findings concerning whether tenant was an impacted tenant and consequential orders Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW) Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wei (Vivian) Zhu (Appellant) Annabelle Aspinall (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Appellant (Self Represented) Respondent (Self Represented) File Number(s): AP 20/31078 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 9 July 2020, 24 September 2020 Before: G Bassett, General Member, P French, General Member File Number(s): RT 20/19086; RT 20/37870 INTRODUCTION 1. The appellant (tenant) was the tenant pursuant to a residential tenancy agreement (agreement) with the respondent (landlord). The property, the subject of the agreement, is at Kirribilli (premises). 2. The rent payable under the agreement was $900 per week. 3. In March 2020 the tenant stopped paying rent because she said she was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Until this time, she had been able to afford the rent in part because she was receiving payments from her lodger/sub tenant (Ms Zenkis) who paid her $1,800 per month to reside in the premises. Ms Zenkis ceased doing so at the end of March 2020 for the reasons set out in her email which is found in the Respondent's Bundle (RB) at page 37. 4. After March 2020, it is an agreed fact that the tenant only paid to the landlord a total of $1,200, being two payments of $600. In consequence of the tenant not paying rent, the landlord issued a notice of termination dated 18 April 2020 seeking to terminate the tenancy by reason of non-payment of rent. Application RT 20/19086 was filed by the landlord on 29 April 2020. In that application the landlord sought an order for termination and possession. 5. The application was heard by the Tribunal on 9 July 2020. The tenant sought to resist the making of an order for termination on the basis that she was a COVID-19 impacted tenant within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act). She said that, by reason of Regulation 41C of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW) (RT Reg), the landlord was not permitted to issue the termination notice or to apply for an order for termination. 6. The Tribunal rejected the tenant's claim that she was an impacted tenant, found that there were rent arrears in excess of $15,000 (being the jurisdictional limit of an order for payment of money applicable in the present circumstances), and made orders to terminate the agreement. In addition, consequential orders were made in connection with possession and the payment of an occupation fee. 7. The orders of the Tribunal (Orders) were as follows: 1. The Residential Tenancy Agreement is terminated in accordance with: • s87 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 as tenant has breached the agreement. • failure to pay rent in accordance with agreement. 2. The Residential Tenancy Agreement is terminated immediately and possession is to be given to the landlord on the date of termination. 3. The order for possession is suspended until 30-Jul-2020 4. The tenant shall pay the landlord a daily occupation fee at the rate of $128.57 per day from the day after the date of termination, namely 10-Jul-2020 until the date vacant possession is given to the landlord. 5. Within 60 days of the date for possession of the premises specified in these orders the landlord may request the relisting of the application to determine the amount of the occupation fee owing. 6. The tenant, WEI (VIVIAN) ZHU, …, is to pay the landlord, ANNABELLE ASPINALL, …, the sum of $15,000.00 by instalments of not less than $1,000.00 per month, first payment 23-Jul-2020. Failure to pay any instalment in this order by the due date will result in the whole of the balance being payable immediately. 1. The Tribunal provided reasons for the decision (Reasons). The appellant appealed the decision by Notice of Appeal dated 16 July 2020. The appeal was filed in time, having been received by the Tribunal on 17 July 2020. Grounds of Appeal 1. The Notice of Appeal raised the following grounds: 1. The Tribunal was in error in its calculation of the outstanding rent. As at the date of the termination order, namely 9 July 2020, the rent then unpaid was less than $15,000. Consequently the order made was in error. 2. The Tribunal was in error in concluding the tenant was not an impacted tenant. 1. The orders sought were that the Appeal Panel should set aside the orders made 9 July 2020 and should "order the landlord to enter into good faith formal rent negotiation through the NSW Fair Trading Dispute Resolution service". 2. Leave to appeal was sought on questions other than questions of law, the tenant contending the decision was not fair and equitable because: 1. the Tribunal's erroneously concluded that she was not an impacted tenant; and/or 2. the decision was against the weight of evidence as the Tribunal failed to have regards to the tenant's evidence of her financial circumstances that established she was an impacted tenant. 1. The landlord filed a Reply to Appeal. In short, the landlord said the decision of the Tribunal was correct and that the tenant had failed to prove she was an impacted tenant. In this regard, the landlord said no rent had been paid since March 2020 to July 2020 "despite the tenant's offers to pay 50% of the rent". Consequently, the termination order was properly made. 2. In relation to the order for payment of $15,000 in respect of unpaid rent, the landlord accepted that the Tribunal was in error. At section 3B of her Reply to Appeal the landlord said: The Order requiring the Tenant to pay the Landlord outstanding rent ($15,000.00) was incorrect by 4% (the arrears were $14,400.00). This clerical error was due to an accidental oversight that the rent is paid in advance as opposed to in arrears. In any event, the difference was negligible and the arrears now exceed $16,000.00. 1. The parties provided written submissions in support of their respective positions together with documents provided to the Tribunal for the purpose of the original hearing. The tenant provided a transcript of parts of the hearing by the Tribunal at first instance. 2. The appeal was initially listed to be heard on 9 October 2020. However, at that time Mr Arvanitis, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the tenant and sought leave for legal representation and that the proceedings be adjourned in order to provide him with sufficient time for preparation. This application was granted and the proceedings were adjourned for hearing on 15 October 2020. 3. On 15 October 2020 the tenant appeared by telephone, having decided to dispense with legal representation. The landlord also appeared by telephone. 4. Having identified the various documents upon which the parties relied, each of the parties provided oral submissions in connection with their respective positions. 5. In relation to the rent outstanding as at 9 July 2020, the appellant said that the arrears at that date were $13,242.72, not $15,000.00 being the amount ordered to be paid by the Tribunal. The landlord's position was that the amount of unpaid rent at 9 July 2020 was $13,500.00, a difference of approximately $260. 6. After discussions with the Appeal Panel, the landlord indicated that she would accept the tenant's calculation of outstanding rent at $13,242.72. Consequently, we will proceed on the basis that the amount of $13,242.72 represents the amount of unpaid rent as at 9 July 2020. 7. Despite this agreement, the tenant maintained a position that the residential tenancy legislation concerning the COVID-19 pandemic permitted the Tribunal (and the Appeal Panel) to make an order reducing the rent. When asked to identify any provisions of the legalisation that permitted such an order, the tenant was unable to do so, the only reference being made to Reg 41C (4) of the RT Reg which sets out relevant considerations in determining whether a termination order should be made. The tenant also referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) website about what can be done in that State. 8. In relation to the termination order, the appellant maintained her position that she was in fact an impacted tenant and therefore the Tribunal should not have made an order for termination. Her written and oral submissions addressed this issue and identified relevant evidence upon which she relied. We will return to this aspect of her appeal below. 9. In making her submissions, the Appeal Panel was advised by the tenant that on 24 September 2020 the Tribunal had made an order fixing the occupation fee which was payable under order 4 made 9 July 2020. The landlord made an application to fix the fee following the tenant vacating the premises in August 2020. 10. The occupation fee was fixed at $5,400.00. We note in passing that this order is dated 30 September 2020 but both parties agreed it was actually made on 24 September 2020. 11. In relation to the fixing of the occupation fee, we were told that the tenant vacated the residential premises on about 18 August 2020, although there was a dispute about this matter. The landlord alleged that the tenant vacated the premises on a date 2 days after that asserted by the tenant. For present purposes it is unnecessary to resolve any contest concerning this date. Rather, it is sufficient to note that, if the Tribunal's terminations orders made 9 July 2020 are set aside (that is the tenancy did not terminate on 9 July 2020), the tenancy remained on foot until it terminated in August 2020 in consequence of the tenant delivering up vacant possession to the landlord and the landlord accepting the tenant doing so: see section 81 (4)(e) RT Act. 12. In addition to the order fixing the occupation fee, the Tribunal also made an order for the bond to be released to the landlord. The bond was to be offset against the occupation fee which the Tribunal ordered to be paid. 13. These matters became relevant to a resolution of this appeal for a number of reasons. 14. First, the tenant said the order for the payment of the occupation fee should be set aside, the tenant seeking to agitate the issue of whether the Tribunal was correct in determining the date she vacated the premises and delivered up possession. Secondly, the tenant asked the Appeal Panel to make an order that the landlord repay the bond to her. 15. Following discussions between the parties, it was agreed that the Appeal Panel should grant leave for the tenant to amend her Notice of Appeal to challenge the orders in respect of the occupation fee and the payment of bond. 16. Such leave is appropriate. In this regard, it seems to us that if the tenant is successful for having the order for termination set aside, then the Appeal Panel should also set aside the order for payment of the occupation fee. Consequently, the order for the tenant to pay $5,400 made on 24 September 2020 should also be set aside. This is because an occupation fee is only payable where a tenancy has been terminated and orders for possession have been made. 17. As to the bond, there is a dispute concerning the rent. This must first be determined to decide to whether the landlord is properly entitled to access and retain the bond as security under the agreement. If so, orders in respect of the bond and/or how it is to be applied may need to be made in substitution for the original order. CONSIDERATION 1. There is a right of appeal on a question of law. Otherwise leave to appeal is required: section 8(2)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act). Leave may only be granted if the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because the decision was against the weight of evidence, not fair and equitable, or there was significant new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings were originally heard: schedule 4 clause 12(1) NCAT Act. 2. The principles in Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 are applicable in determining the question of whether leave should be granted. 3. There are four issues to be determined in this Appeal: 1. Was the Tribunal correct to make an award of $15,000 for unpaid rent as at 9 July 2020? 2. Was the landlord prohibited from issuing the termination notice and/or applying to the Tribunal for an order for termination because the tenant was Covid-19 impacted? 3. If the Tribunal was in error in making termination order, should the order for payment of the occupation fee made 24 September be set aside? 4. Should an order be made for repayment of bond? Was the Tribunal correct to make an award of $15,000 for unpaid rent as at 9 July 2020? 1. It is an agreed fact in this appeal that the rent outstanding as at 9 July 2020 was $13,242.72. It follows that the order made by the Tribunal for $15,000 was incorrect. 2. The tenant asserts that there is power given to the Tribunal under the RT Act and/or RT Regulation to reduce the rent payable under a Residential tenancy agreement where a tenant is COVID-19 impacted. Consequently, the tenant said the order for payment of rent should be reduced below the amount of $13,242.72. 3. The tenant was unable to identify any legislation which gave to the Tribunal power to make an order reducing rent in a Residential Tenancy Agreement. 4. In our view, there is no such power. Reg 41B(4) of the RT Reg provides: (4) In dealing with an application by a landlord or an impacted tenant relating to a termination notice or a termination order, the Tribunal may, for the purposes of satisfying itself of the matters specified in subclause (2), have regard to the following-- (a) any advice provided by NSW Fair Trading relating to the participation of the landlord or impacted tenant in the formal rent negotiation process, including whether the landlord or impacted tenant refused, or refused to make, a reasonable offer about rent, (b) whether the impacted tenant has continued to make any payments towards the rent, (c) the nature of any financial hardship experienced by the landlord or impacted tenant, including the general financial position of each party, (d) the availability and affordability of reasonable alternative accommodation for the impacted tenant, (e) any special vulnerability of the impacted tenant, (f) the public health objectives of-- (i) ensuring citizens remain in their homes, and (ii) preventing all avoidable movement of persons. 1. This clause only operates for the purpose of "dealing with an application by a landlord or an impacted tenant relating to a termination notice or a termination order". It has no relevance in determining the amount of rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement nor does it confer power on the Tribunal (or the Appeal Panel) to reduce the rent payable. 2. The tenant separately asserted that the Tribunal had power to reduce the rent under s44 of the RT Act. Section 44(1) provides such an order may be made in relation to an existing or proposed residential tenancy agreement if "there is a reduction or withdrawal of goods, services or facilities provided with residential premises". 3. This section has no application for two reasons. First, no application was made by the tenant to the Tribunal in the original proceedings for an order under s44. Secondly, the fact that a tenant is unable to pay the rent by reason of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is not a circumstance that would otherwise permit the Tribunal to make an order under s 44. 4. As to the reference to the QCAT website, Queensland legislation is not relevant to a residential tenancy dispute in New South Wales. 5. It follows from the above that we should make an order varying the amount in Order 6 made 9 July 2020 from $15,000.00 to $13,242.72. 6. While we were told by the landlord no payments had been made by instalment as required by Order 6, we do not propose to alter the instalment order. It will be a matter for the tenant to decide if she wishes to immediately comply with the instalment order and/or for the landlord to take such action that she considers appropriate by reason of any non-compliance with the earlier order as amended. Was the landlord prohibited from issuing the termination notice and/or applying to the Tribunal for an order for termination because the tenant was Covid-19 impacted? 1. As stated above, the Tribunal rejected the tenant's claim that she was an impacted tenant. At [6] of the Reasons the Tribunal said: The Tribunal finds that the tenant was not an impacted tenant. Consequently, the landlord could make an application for termination during the 60-day period. The tenant did not have a reduction in work hours or income as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. On her own case she had lost income in her business long before Covid and was paying rent from a combination of her savings and the alleged payments of her sub-tenant. There was no evidence to show that her savings were impacted by Covid or there was a loss of savings that led to a loss of 25% of household income. She provided no evidence to show the Covid impact on her business other than one client saying they could not pay. There was nothing to show what impact this incapacity of that client to pay had on the business of the tenant as a whole or that it resulted in a 25% loss of household income. While the bank statement of the alleged sub-tenant showed a drop in a regular payment on one occasion only during March, there was no evidence from that sub-tenant who would have been part of the household to show she had reduced hours, lost income, been ill or been impacted by Covid. The bank statement did not show any regular payments of the rent to the tenant or Covid-related cessation of those payments. There was no evidence to show why the room could not have been re-sublet after this tenant left the premises. The tenant did not get a jobseeker payment until June 2020. Even then, she still paid no rent at all. 1. The tenant said the decision was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of evidence. She referred to documents which she had filed in the proceedings at first instance being various bank statements together with the transcript of what she said to the Tribunal at the hearing concerning her financial circumstances and those of her tenant Ms Zenkis (referred to in the tenant's oral evidence as "Cathy"). 2. At page 7 of her submissions filed 28 September 2020, the tenant set out the following extract from the transcript: Member: Ms Zhu, would you to take us to your case please Wei: I am a tenant suffering financial hardship due to Covid-19 Member: So take us straight to the evidence of that ..... Wei: So there is bank statement of rent paying No. 2 subtenant lost job during occurrence of Covid-19, bank account credit that's what she sent to me. So if you open the document you can see she had an income of about $3060 per fortnight, but that income has stopped, because Covid-19 has shorten her contract. Member: So that was on 25th of March ..... Wei: so the rent paying member 1 lost 100% income during Covid-19, my only income prior and during the occurrence of Covid-19 was the rent from Cathy which is $450, which you can see after 26th of March there is no further payment from her, so I lost that income. Member: so, you are saying your evidence is your only income prior to Covid was the income from the co-tenant. ..... Wei: Because the termination notice she issued was too early, was way before the 14 June 2020, and she also did not go through any negotiation. Basically, it's an invalid notice that unenforceable, that's what I was advised by the Northern Tenancy Services. The second one on 6 May the northern tenancy service further explained the situation on how I was impacted. Do you see the 6 May 2020 NSATS email provided evidence and request Annabelle to withdraw her application? Member: OK ..... Member: for your loss of income you also have 19 of May a letter from one client Quantum health Group Me: but that's my only client as well, I work with one company at a time. ..... 1. In reply, the landlord made the following submissions: 1. The tenant had not clarified her other income and financial resources despite the landlord's repeated requests that she demonstrate her finances before and after "COVID-19 financial situation" (Respondent's Submissions (RS) page 5). 2. The tenant did not provide evidence she was entitled to any income from her business before COVID-19 nor that COVID-19 affected this position. In this regard no bank statements were provided or any relevant information concerning Government benefits or other receipts: RS page 6. 3. "to the knowledge of the Landlord, [the tenant] has not had any employment for over 11 months": RS page 8. 1. The effect of these submissions appears to be that the tenant had no income before or after the COVID-19 pandemic commenced. 2. In relation to Ms Zenkis the landlord says that she resigned her job, chose to return to her family in Victoria and was not residing in the premises at the date of termination. Further the tenant was not a co-tenant or occupant under the residential tenancy agreement, no notice of sub-tenancy being given to the landlord: RS page 7. 3. In making submissions concerning Ms Zenkis, the landlord referred us to RB page 39. That document is an email from Ms Zenkis to the tenant in the following terms: Hi Vivian, I'm emailing you to provide written confirmation of my reasons for terminating our share housing agreement so that I could move back to my primary residence in Melbourne. Monday 23rd March: Given rapidly changing circumstances and impacts due to Covid-19, I asked my manager whether I could work remotely from Melbourne for the period that remote work was needed. I explained to her my reasons for wanting to work from Melbourne, which were as follows: - to be near my brother and his family, to allow better mutual support; - to avoid ongoing rent expense in Sydney in the event that I was to be retrenched; - to avoid potential difficulty in returning to Melbourne in the event that restrictions were placed on travel across the NSW/Vic border. Tuesday 24th March: My manager refused my request to work remotely from Melbourne and indicated to me that, given the unfolding circumstances due to Covid-19: - she wasn't sure my employment would continue beyond the next month or so; - she understood my wish to return to Melbourne. - I resigned from my job the same day. Friday 27th March I vacated the flat and returned to Melbourne the same day. Vivian, the reasons I terminated our share housing agreement were entirely due to impacts of Covid-19. Kind regards. 1. The landlord accepted that, if the Appeal Panel came to the conclusion an error had been made about whether the tenant was an impacted tenant, the order for termination, the order for possession and the order in respect of occupation fee should be set aside. This is because the landlord accepted that her termination notice had been issued within 60 days from the commencement of Part 6A Response to COVID-19 Pandemic in the RT Reg. She accepted a termination notice could not be issued by reason of Reg 41C(1) of the RT Reg if a tenant was COVID-19 impacted and that Reg 41C(2) did not otherwise permit the issue of the notice because her notice was issued less than "60 days after the commencement of this Part". Further, the landlord accepted she had not, in any event, "participated, in good faith, in a formal rent negotiation process" as contemplated by sub regulation 41C(2)(a) and (b). 2. In our view, the Tribunal was in error in its findings in the Reasons [6] and its conclusion whether the tenant was an impacted tenant. Leave to appeal should be granted in connection with the factual findings. Our reasons are as follows. 3. First, the savings of a person are not relevant to determining their household income. 4. Secondly, as the landlord submitted, the evidence suggests that the only income of the tenant prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic was her rent from Ms Zenkis. This is supported by the tenant's oral evidence which we have set out above where she says: My only income prior and during the occurrence of Covid-19 was the rent from Cathy which is $450.00, which you can see after 26th of March there is no further payment from her, so I lost that income. 1. Since the tenant's income was zero or reduced to zero and Ms Zenkis was a rent paying member of the household (even if not a tenant) who lost her job and left the premises, the household income of rent paying members of the household has reduced by more than 25%: see s 228B of the RT Act. In this regard rent paying member of the household is defined in the RT Act as follows: rent-paying member of a household means any member of the household who regularly contributes towards the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement for the residential premises in which the household resides. 1. That is, a rent paying member of the household means any person who "regularly contributes towards the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement" whether or not they are a tenant. 2. While the landlord asserted that Ms Zenkis was not COVID-19 impacted, we do not accept this submission. It is clear from the email dated 30 April 2020 that Ms Zenkis lost employment or income as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and that she was a rent paying member of the household at the residential premises. 3. Consequently, having regard to these facts and the evidence of the tenant concerning her income, we are satisfied on the evidence to which we have been referred that the tenant was an impacted tenant within the meaning of the RT Act and therefore was entitled to the protections provided by Reg 41C of the RT Reg. 4. It follows that the landlord was not permitted to issue the termination notice or to apply to the Tribunal for an order to terminate the residential agreement and the Tribunal was in error for making such an order. 5. Orders 1-5 inclusive made 9 July 2020 should be set aside. If the Tribunal was in error in making termination order, should the order for payment of the occupation fee made 24 September be set aside? 1. It follows from what we have said above that the order made 24 September 2020 fixing the occupation fee at $5,400 should be set aside. We will make that order. 2. As the tenancy did not terminate on 9 July 2020, the parties will need to deal with the issue of any unpaid rent after that date in separate proceedings, if not otherwise agreed. Should an order be made for repayment of bond? 1. The last matter to deal with is the payment of bond. 2. It is an agreed fact that the bond has been released to the landlord. This occurred pursuant to an order made on 24 September 2020 in application RT 20/37870. However, the tenant said the bond was to be offset against the occupation fee. Consequently, the tenant said it should be returned to her because the order for payment of the occupation fee has been set aside. 3. We do not agree with this submission. Having regard to the orders we have made concerning the correct amount of rent which remained unpaid as at 9 July 2020 and because there is no dispute this sum has still not been paid and because there is no dispute the tenancy has come to an end, in our view the landlord is entitled to retain this payment, the bond having been provided as security by the tenant under the agreement. The amount of the bond should be offset against the rent payable under Order 6 made 9 July 2020 as varied by our orders in this appeal. We will make an order to this effect. ORDERS 1. The Appeal Panel makes the following orders: 1. Leave is granted to the appellant to amend her Notice of Appeal to appeal: 1. the orders made 24 September 2020 (erroneously dated 30 September 2020) in application RT 20/19086 regarding the occupation fee; and 2. the orders made 24 September 2020 in application RT 20/37870 in respect of the bond. 1. Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the decision concerning whether the appellant was an impacted tenant within the meaning of the Residential Tenancy Act 2010 (NSW) and in respect of the amount ordered to be paid for unpaid rent as at 9 July 2020. 2. The appeal is allowed in part. 3. Orders 1-5 inclusive made in RT 20/19086 on 9 July 2020 are set aside and the application for termination of the residential tenancy agreement is dismissed. 4. The amount in Order 6 made on 9 July 2020 in application RT 20/19086 is varied from $15,000.00 to $13,242.72. 5. Order 1 made 24 September 2020 (erroneously recorded as 30 September) in application RT 20/19086 requiring the tenant to pay the landlord an occupation fee of $5,400.00 is set aside. 6. The order made on 23 September 2020 in application RT 20/37870 is varied as follows: "The Tribunal directs that the bond in respect of residential tenancy agreement which has been released to the landlord be offset against the order for payment of rent provided in Order 5 above". ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar Amendments 02 November 2020 - Coversheet corrected. "J Alder" replaced with "G Bassett" DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 02 November 2020