Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zammit v Ippoliti [2021] NSWCATCD 126 Hearing dates: 15 July 2021; 25 August 2021 Date of orders: 21 October 2021 Decision date: 21 October 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: M McCue, General Member Decision: 1.The application is dismissed Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES - Variation of Agreement – Principles - Promissory Estoppel Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act (NSW) Civil and Administrative Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Amendment (COVID-19) Regulation 2020 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW) Cases Cited: Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266 at 286 Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Sara Lee Household & Body Car (Australia) Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 35; (2000) 201 CLR 520 Feyzbahsipour v Lee [2021] NSWCATAP 173 at [14]- [18] Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; [1983] HCA 11 Lewis v Smyth v Rejko Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 186 Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Victoria) Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 10; (1957) 98 CLR 93 Tekmat Pty Ltd v Dosto Pty Ltd (1990) 102 FLR 240 at 248 Toll (FCGT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165 at [40] Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jaclyn Zammit (Applicant) Luciano Ippoliti (Respondnet) Representation: Jaclyn Zammit (Self-represented) Luciano Ippoliti (Self-represented) File Number(s): RT21/22864 Publication restriction: Nil REASONS FOR DECISION Application 1. The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement ("RT agreement") on 16 February 2019 for premises located at Belfield. The RTA provides, inter alia, that the rent is $ 400 per week, payable in advance, commencing on 19 February, 2019. The initial term of the lease was for 12 months. 2. The applicant, Ms Zammit, alleges that in response to the Residential Tenancies regulations introduced during the COVID period, she had agreed to give her tenant, Mr Ippoliti, a "rental reduction" on the basis that his obligation to pay the rent was as set out in the agreement dated 19 February 2019. 3. The arrangement reflected the guidelines in the amending RT Act and its regulations to encourage a landlord and tenant to come to some arrangement so that tenants, whose income was impacted by COVID-19, continued in occupation of the premises. 4. The applicant submits that there was no consensual variation of the tenant's obligations to pay the weekly rent of $ 400 other than as set out in terms of the RT agreement. Ms Zammit submits that she is entitled to recover the full amount of alleged arrears, $ 2,312.14, at the following rates: 1. for the period 20 June 2020 to 12 September 2020 at $ 100 per week; and 2. for the period 12 September 2020 to 27 March 2021, at $ 50 per week 1. The tenant, Luciano Ippoliti, denies that he is obliged to pay any "deferred" rental obligations. 2. The tribunal needs to consider the evidence and decide whether there was an agreement to unconditionally "reduce the rent" by way of a variation of the terms of the RT agreement, or whether the "reduction of rent" was conditional upon a deferral of the obligation to pay the full rent as set out in the RT agreement. 3. Dependant on the factual matrix, the tribunal may have to consider whether the landlord, Ms Zammit, is "estopped" by certain conduct from claiming the whole of the arrears by way of a deferral. Additional claims 1. Ms Zammit seeks a further order pursuant to s 187 (1) (c) for payment of an additional amount for contribution to alleged damages to the residential premises at the end of the tenancy, over and above the bond of $ 1,600 that Ms Zammit has already claimed. 2. The tribunal understands that these amounts include the following: 1. A cleaning invoice - $ 390.01. 2. A pest invoice - $ 169 3. Illegal painting of ceiling and hallway wall and subsequent rectification invoice - $ 660 4. Damages to property - $ 209 5. Illegally removing blind - $ 99 for re-attachment 6. Illegal plumbing alteration – rectification costs - $ 848 Appearances 1. Mr Don Josipovic, the applicant's agent, and the applicant, Ms Jaclyn Zammit, appeared in person. 2. Mr Luciano Ippoliti, the respondent, appeared in person. 3. Each party took an oath or affirmation prior to giving evidence in the proceedings. Jurisdiction 1. On the establishment date, 1 January 2014, the Civil and Administrative Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2013 amended certain statutes which previously conferred jurisdiction on now "abolished" tribunals. NCAT has jurisdiction to hear and determine relevant matters in place of the "abolished" tribunals. 2. From 1 January 2014, the Residential Tenancies Act 2010.["RT Act"] was amended. The definition of "Tribunal" was changed in that Act from the CTTT to NCAT - see cl 4.34 item [2] in Schedule 4 to the Civil and Administrative Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act. 3. As a result of the amendments, from 1 January 2014, NCAT has jurisdiction to hear the application made pursuant to the provisions of the RT Act. The alleged rent deferral claim 1. On 15 July 2021, the tribunal directed that both parties provide a summary of no more than 3 pages setting out the basis of the claim, giving some narrative context to the e-mail and text message exchanges that the parties relied upon in their respective claims. 2. The tribunal remarks the submissions were less helpful than the tribunal had envisaged. 3. The tribunal was charged with the task of considering a number of exchanges of text messages and e-mails passing between the applicant, the applicant's agent and the respondent, in order to determine the merits of the applicant's claim, and the respondent's evidence, in reply. Matters for consideration – was the residential tenancy agreement varied? 1. The appeal panel was charged with a similar task in Lewis v Smyth v Rejko Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 186 (24 June 2021). Therein the appeal panel considered legislative changes responsive to the impact of COVID-19 on residential tenants and may be referenced as follows: the legislative changes did not empower the Tribunal to order a rent reduction due to the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather, the purpose of the legislative changes was for landlords and tenants to have negotiations in good faith (if the tenant was a COVID-19 impacted tenant) to attempt to agree to a rent reduction or a rent deferral. NSW Fair Trading provided a mediation service to landlords and tenants that could be engaged by the parties. 1. In Lewis v Smyth v Rejko Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 186 (24 June 2021) the appeal panel considered that the negotiations between private landlords and tenants during the COVID-19 pandemic period will often fall within 3 potential categories: 1. an agreement to vary the residential tenancy agreement to unconditionally reduce the rent payable for a period of time; 2. an agreement to vary the residential tenancy agreement by the deferral of rent for a period of time. For example, the parties may agree that the tenant is only obliged to pay half the rent for a 3-month period, but after that period expires the tenant must pay the full amount of rent in addition to the half of the rent that was deferred for the 3-month period; 3. an agreement to vary the residential tenancy agreement by the conditional reduction of rent. For example, the parties may agree that the tenant is to pay half the rent for a 3-month period, but on the condition that rent is paid on time and at the amount agreed. If such a condition is not met, the whole of the rent (and all rent arrears calculated at the full amount of rent) is immediately due and payable. 1. The appeal panel further opined: A residential tenancy agreement is a contract. …… In the context of a dispute about what rent is payable in the context of discussions between the parties as to whether the terms of the written agreement have been changed, the Tribunal must ascertain whether there has been a variation of the contract. 1. In reliance upon Toll (FCGT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165 at [40] the appeal panel further said: A party may subjectively believe the contract has been varied, but that is not the applicable legal test…. It is well established that in determining the rights and liabilities of parties to a contract the test is objective, in the sense of what the words or conduct of each party would have led a reasonable person in the position of the other party to believe and what a reasonable person would have understood. Alternative position – promissory estoppel 1. The appeal panel raised a further position citing the principles of estoppel in Feyzbahsipour v Lee [2021] NSWCATAP 173 at [14]- [18]: if a party to a contract agrees not to enforce its rights without fresh consideration, an equity will be raised in favour of the other party. The appeal panel referencing elements of the estoppel as set out in the Privy Council's opinion in Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326. The communications during the relevant period 1. Ms Zammit took a very active role at the hearing. Mr Josipovic was the managing agent though the communications that Ms Zammit relied upon included those passing between her, Mr Josipovic and the tenant, Mr Ippoliti. This reflected a tripartite arrangement of sorts. Ms Zammit also relied upon some communications passing between her and her bank/credit union during the relevant period. 2. It was common ground that Mr Ippoliti was a COVID-19 impacted tenant affected by the downturn in the airline industry. The tribunal remarked about the familiarity of the communications passing between Mr Ippoliti and Ms Zammit during the critical moments of discussions regarding Mr Ippoliti's request seeking a "reduction in rent." 3. It transpired later in the hearing that Mr Ippoliti had been introduced to Ms Zammit's property through mutual friends/acquaintances. 4. In around 9 May 2020, Mr Ippoliti sent a text message to Ms Zammit in the following terms Hi Babe. Hope your [sic] well. Have you thought any more about reducing the rent?? Please get back to me when you can. Thanks xxx 1. Ms Zammit responded in the following terms: Hi Luc I'm OK. How are you and Zeuz? Sorry I didn't get back to you. Yes. I spoke with the bank. So basically if I defer payments they get added on after the 3 months. Luciano responds: What does that mean? Ms Zammit responds: What I don't pay now they add to the loan so I will have to pay more after the 3 month period is over. 1. Mr Ippoliti appeared somewhat indifferent to matters arising between Ms Zammit and her bank and the impact that it might have on Mr Ippoliti's tenancy. 2. Ms Zammit sent further communications to Mr Ippoliti to the following effect: Hi Luc Just got a call from the real estate agent. He advised me you haven't been paying the rent. I'm just confused as you initially said that you could cover the $ 400 out of the $ 750 but now you can't. Also after we spoke last you advised that you could still pay until I got confirmation from the bank. Can you just let me know what is happening. Thanks Jac Luciano responds on 17 June 2020 in the following terms: I told Don I was going to pay up on Friday when I get my holiday pay. It's also been weeks since I asked you whether you can reduce the rent and you haven't come back with a reply. If I am going to be out of work until next year, I won't be able to afford it and I will have to be forced to look for something that I can. Sorry to put you in this position but it is out of my control. 1. In around 19 June 2020, Ms Zammit sent a text to Mr Ippoliti in the following terms: That's OK. I submitted my request once I received your letter. I will confirm to reduce the rent to $ 300 from next payment and I will work the rest out from my side. Is that OK. 1. Mr Ippoliti responds. That's perfect. I'll sort out the back payments with Don Thanks so much. 1. There was a further response from Ms Zammit shortly thereafter in the following terms: Hey Luc. Hope you are well FYI I have told the real estate to drop the rent to $ 300 Luciano responds: Spoke to Don.. Sorted it all out. 1. The tribunal asked Mr Ippoliti to clarify the meaning of his response: spoke to Don. Sorted it all out 1. Mr Ippoliti gave evidence that he had brought the ledger account up to date pending the reduction in rent from $ 400 to $ 300 per week. Ms Zammit's communications with Mr Don Josipovic 1. In around 19 June 2020, Mr Don Josipovic sent an e-mail to Ms Zammit in the following terms: Dear Jacqueline Thank you for taking my call earlier. As discussed, Luciano is promising to pay 3 weeks rent today and he is expecting his holiday pay today and when he receives pay he will ring me to pay the rent. We discussed adjusting the rent to $ 300 to help Luciano in this difficult time as he is off work. Option one: reduce rent from 22/5 tenants current paid to date for next 3 weeks. Option 2, pay of rent owing at $ 400 per week to today's date and reduce to $ 300 per week from today's date 19/6 rent for each week [it] is due every Friday from next 3 weeks. Please let me know which option you prefer. If you could confirm in writing not to issue tenant any termination notice. 1. Ms Zammit responded to Mr Josipovic in the following terms: Yes. I will go with option 2 to start from today until further notice with the below condition. 1. Ms Zammit's response goes onto say: Taking this into account, when times settle the $ 100 difference will be added to future rental payment when agreed between Luciano and myself. 1. Ms Zammit's response continues interposing a response from her bank about "deferred interest": Also as discussed this is what my bank has informed me. The deferred interest will be capitalised and any deferred principal payments will need to be paid off during the remainder of the term of you loan. This means your loan repayments will be higher 1. As to the proposed issue of a termination notice, Ms Zammit responds to Mr Josipovic No I do not want a termination notice issued, you, myself and my bank will work together in supporting Luciano and myself during this period. 1. Mr Josipovic's evidence was that he had a subsequent conversation with Mr Ippoliti mirroring the terms of the arrangement that the reduction in rent was allegedly conditional upon the $ 100 difference being paid at some future time [when agreed] though clearly not agreed at the time of the offer of the reduction in rent. 2. Mr Ippoliti denied that there was any suggestion at the time of the reduction in rent that it was conditional upon an obligation to repay the differential of $ 100 at some future time; 3. This appears to accord with Ms Zammit's instructions to Mr Josipovic. 4. Mr Josipovic's evidence was that he had not written to Mr Ippoliti at the time confirming the precise terms of the "rent reduction". Was there are variation? 1. In determining whether there was a variation of an existing contract, in Lewis v Smyth v Rejko Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 186 (24 June 2021) the appeal panel cited the following authorities: 1. Parties to an existing contract may vary some of its terms by agreement (Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Victoria) Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 10; (1957) 98 CLR 93). 2. Variation of an existing contract creates a new contract, which either the parties intend to replace the original contract or leave the first contract in force subject to the second contract's alteration (Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Sara Lee Household & Body Car (Australia) Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 35; (2000) 201 CLR 520). 3. The varied contract is subject to the ordinary rules of contract formation (BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266 at 286; Tekmat Pty Ltd v Dosto Pty Ltd (1990) 102 FLR 240 at 248). 1. The appeal panel considered the principles that apply to a variation of contract that are subject to the rules of contract formation: 1. (1) Whether the parties have mutually agreed to vary the terms of the contract in respect of the amount and manner rent is payable; 2. (2) Whether any agreement is sufficiently certain to bind the parties; 3. (3) Whether there is an intention to create legal relations; and 4. (4) Whether there is consideration for the variation 5. Findings 1. On the evidence, the tribunal makes a finding that the parties had not consensually agreed to a variation of the residential tenancy agreement entered into on 19 February 2019. Further matter for consideration – promissory estoppel 1. In the context of a dispute about whether rent had been unconditionally reduced or merely deferred, the appeal panel in Lewis considered promissory estoppel principles set out in Feyzbahsipour v Lee [2021] NSWCATAP 173 In Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; [1983] HCA 11, the High Court of Australia accepted that an estoppel can arise under Australian law against one party to a contract enforcing his strict legal rights under the contract in circumstances where that party has represented to the other party that he will not enforce his strict contractual rights: per Deane and Mason JJ at 432. 1. The appeal panel further referenced the elements of the estoppel as set out in the Privy Council's opinion in Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326, as follows: if one party to a contract agrees without fresh consideration not to enforce its rights, an equity will be raised in favour of the other party; the equity is subject to certain qualifications summarised below: 1. first, that the other party must have altered its position; 2. secondly, that the promisor can resile from its promise by giving reasonable notice, albeit informal in nature, giving the promisee a reasonable opportunity of resuming its position; and 3. thirdly, the promise only becomes final and irrevocable if the promisee cannot resume his position 1. On reading the contemporaneous exchanges, the tribunal makes findings that: 1. Ms Zammit said to Mr Josipovic that she was proposing to raise the issue of the $ 100 difference with Mr Ippoliti: "when times settle" at some future time; 2. There is no finding that either Ms Zammit or Mr Josipovic had raised any discussions about recovery of the $ 100 differential at around 19 June 2020 with Mr Ippoliti; 3. Mr Josipovic gave evidence that he had a conversation with the tenant mirroring the conditional terms of the agreement to reduce the rent. 4. Mr Ippoliti denies that he had such a conversation with Mr Josipovic mirroring the terms of Mr Josipovic 's exchange with Ms Zammit; 5. The tribunal had asked Mr Josipovic whether there was any e-mail or other communication with Mr Ippoliti confirming those discussions; 6. Mr Josipovic confirmed that he had not sent any written confirmation to Mr Ippoliti after the alleged discussion with him that the reduction in rent was subject to a deferral of the payment of $ 100, being the difference between the "reduction in rent" and the obligation to pay the rent as set out in the RT agreement. 1. However, Mr Josipovic was not necessarily aware of Ms Zammit's' text to Mr Ippoliti on 19 June in its glib terms: Hey Luc. Hope you are well FYI I have told the real estate to drop the rent to $ 300 1. Ms Zammit communicated further with Mr Ippoliti in around 14 August, 2020 Hi Luc Just a heads up. I have asked Don if he can reach out to you to revert the rent. I actually can't afford it as they have added it to my mortgage. 1. There were some further communications passing between Mr Ippoliti providing evidence of the impact of the downturn in the airline industry on his earnings so that Ms Zammit put further matters before her bank. 2. The position in around August 2020 was that Ms Zammit required Mr Ippoliti to pay $ 350 for rent from 12 September 2020. The recovery of the "deferred" rental payments 1. Ms Zammit's position is that there had never been a position reached with Mr Ippoliti other than the reduction in rent was conditional on the repayment of $ 100 at some future time. 2. Mr Ippoliti's position was that he has no recollection of having a conversation with Mr Josipovic to the effect that the reduction in rent for the relevant period was conditional upon a deferral of payment of the $ 100 per week difference, at some future time. 3. Given Ms Zammit's instructions to Mr Josipovic: "when times settle" the $ 100 difference will be added to future rental payment when agreed between Lucian and myself, it seems unlikely that Mr Josipovic raised any "deferral" issue with Mr Ippoliti at the time of advising him of the "rent reduction" from $ 400 per week to $ 300 per week in around 19 June 2020. 4. Likewise, Ms Zammit, did not raise any "deferral" issue when she informed Mr Ippoliti in around In August 2020, that: I have asked Don if he can reach out to you to revert the rent. 1. Mr Ippoliti's evidence about his future employment in the airline industry at that time looked fairly bleak. Mr Ippoliti's position as and from June 2020 was as conveyed to Ms Zammit: if I am going to be out of work until next year I won't be able to afford it and to look for something that I can. 1. That position remained unchanged during the balance of the term of Mr Ippoliti's occupation of the premises. 2. Mr Ippoliti accepted the offer of a reduction in rent made on an unconditional basis as set out in Ms Zammit's text to him dated 19 June 2020: Hey Luc etc. FYI I have told the real estate to drop the rent to $ 300. 1. Mr Ippoliti's evidence was that if Ms Zammit had made any disclosures about the offer being conditional on paying any deferred rent at some future time: "I won't be able to afford it and I will have to look for something that I can. 1. Mr Ippoliti's position is that he was denied the opportunity to do so and placed in a position of detriment if there was an obligation to pay the rent as set out in the RT agreement. 2. The tribunal accepts the position that Mr Ippoliti relied upon Ms Zammit's unconditional offer of a reduction in rent as set out in her text to him in the following terms on 19 June 2020: FYI I have told the real estate to drop the rent to $ 300. 1. There was no evidence of an enlivenment of the conditional terms that Ms Zammit said applied to the "rent reduction" by way of a deferral of the obligation to pay the $ 100 per week differential. 2. As to what was happening in discussions between Ms Zammit's bank and herself, Mr Ippoliti's position remained as previously disclosed: one of indifference 3. Ms Zammit had asked Mr Ippoliti to recommence payments of $ 400 from 27 March 2021. Mr Ippoliti gave notice to vacate the premises shortly thereafter. 4. In the circumstances, the tribunal finds that Ms Zammit's conduct raised an equity in favour of the other party, Mr Ippoliti. Ms Zammit is estopped from relying upon the strict compliance with the terms of the residential tenancy agreement for the recovery of the "deferred" amounts claimed for the periods from 20 June 2020 to 12 September 2020 at $ 100 per week, and for the further period 12 September 2020 to 27 March 2021 at $ 50 per week. As to the other matters 1. The tenant's obligations on giving vacant possession at the end of the tenancy are set out at Section 51 (3) RTA. For ease of reference, the tribunal sets out the section below: (a) remove all the tenant's goods from the residential premises, (b) leave the residential premises as nearly as possible in the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted, and, if there is a condition report, as set out in the condition report applicable to the premises when the agreement was entered into, (c) leave the residential premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, having regard to the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, (d) remove or arrange for the removal from the residential premises of all rubbish, having regard to the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, (e) return to the landlord all keys, and other opening devices or similar devices, provided by the landlord to the tenant. 1. There was evidence that Mr Ippoliti had entered into the tenancy, without delay, not affording Ms Zammit the opportunity to have the premises professionally cleaned. The tribunal notes that the in-going report suggests that, at the entry point, the premises were reasonably clean. 2. Mr Ippoliti's position was that he left the premises in as near as possible condition as they were in at the beginning of the tenancy, excepting any fair wear and tear. 3. However, having said that, Mr Ippoliti said that there was sufficient available bond money to cover an end of lease clean if Jaclyn chose to do so. 4. Ms Zammit's position was that: 1. there were certain walls that were not cleaned; 2. skirting boards needed cleaning; 3. the oven needed cleaning; 1. Generally, the exit report was peppered with comments: "it was really dirty" 1. Ms Zammit submitted a tax invoice for Jim's Cleaning in the sum of $ 390.01 for the following works: full end of lease cleaning including kitchen bathroom living areas and 2 bedrooms. Additional costs of the pest control treatment 1. The tribunal notes that the landlord seeks not only the costs of the cleaning, but the additional costs of the pest control treatment, $ 169. 2. Mr Ippoliti objects to the additional costs of the pest treatment in light of the cleaning charges. 3. In the circumstances, the tribunal is inclined to limit the award for cleaning costs given Mr Ippoliti's concession. After taking into account the arrears payable at the end of the tenancy, (unrelated to the deferred rental claim) the tribunal notes that there was an amount of $ 287.86 available to be applied to the cleaning costs. Mr Ippoliti's contribution is limited to that amount. Illegal alterations 1. Mr Ippoliti had allegedly painted the wall in the hallway area contrary to any consent being sourced from Ms Zammit. The ingoing report for the entrance hall notes that there were some minor marks/picture hooks. 2. Mr Ippoliti's evidence is that Ms Zammit gave him permission, at his own expense, to paint all the skirting boards and the doors and a feature wall in the living room during the term of his occupancy. 3. The tribunal notes that the photos in the ingoing report support a finding that the skirting boards appeared very "rough" with paint dripping unevenly onto the attendant wall and floors. The feature wall was painted a very dark colour "almost black" at the start of the tenancy. The wall also had some narrative written on the paintwork from the previous tenant that included the words: "to the moon". 4. The contrasting exit report certainly evidenced a refinement of the finish of the skirting boards and the attendant wall. Additional amount sought for the preparation of the bathroom ceiling 1. The ceiling in the bathroom was in need of some revision given the repositioning of the ceiling fan as the tribunal understands. The ceiling was allegedly painted by the respondent. 2. Mr Ippoliti also submitted that he had renovated the balcony during the life of the tenancy adding some timber decking and some plantar boxes. Mr Ippoliti's submission was that the works he had done, allegedly with the landlord's consent, had enhanced the aesthetics of the apartment. The tribunal remarks that Mr Ippoliti's photographic evidence of the balcony appears to support that submission. 3. Mr Ippoliti's submission was that Ms Zammit had not objected to any of the above works being conducted during the course of the tenancy. Landlord's general obligations 1. Section 63 sets out the landlord's obligations for repairs during the tenancy. For ease of reference the section is set out below: (1) A landlord must provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age of, rent payable for and prospective life of the premises. (2) A landlord's obligation to provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair applies even though the tenant had notice of the state of disrepair before entering into occupation of the residential premises. (3) A landlord is not in breach of the obligation to provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair if the state of disrepair is caused by the tenant's breach of this Part. Smoke alarm 1. Ms Zammit sought an amount for the repair of the smoke alarm outside the bedroom. On one view, this falls within the scope of the landlord's obligation to repair and maintain the smoke alarms at the premises [other than for the batteries that appear to be the tenant's responsibilty]. Hinges to corner kitchen cabinet; secure an oven filler panel and secure the toilet seat with fittings found on the site 1. Ms Zammit seeks the cost of the above "repairs" in the sum of $ 209 2. Mr Ippoliti's position is that these were matters occurred during the course of the tenancy and he did not wish to trouble Ms Zammit with the obligation to deal with these matters until he vacated the premises in around 17 April 2021. The familiarity of the parties 1. The tribunal remarked about the familiarity in the exchanges between Ms Zammit and Mr Ippoloti. It transpired in later evidence, that Mr Ippoliti had been introduced to Ms Zammit through a mutual friend/acquaintance. 2. This may have "muddied the waters" on a number of occasions. Alleged plumbing alterations 1. Ms Zammit's other claims relates to her allegations that Mr Ippoliti had revisited the plumbing in the bathroom. Ms Zammit submitted that Mr Ippoliti had interposed the directions in which the hot and cold shower taps turned, as the tribunal understood the evidence. 2. Mr Ippoliti's evidence is that he did not move or alter the direction that the taps turned, and the position of the taps was as noted in the condition report. 3. There are other claims made that are difficult to adjudge for charges sought not only for the new shower taps, but also for a replacement kitchen sink mixer and water filter, allegedly on the same basis: some interposition in the direction in which the taps turned. 4. The tribunal is not persuaded that Ms Zammit has satisfied the tribunal that she is entitled to recover those charges. Orders 1. The application seeking payment of monies over and above the amount paid to Ms Zammit from the bond is dismissed. ********** 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 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: 11 February 2022