Keene v Tattersalls Capital Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 13

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Keene v Tattersalls Capital Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 13 Hearing dates: 14 January 2020 Date of orders: 22 January 2020 Decision date: 22 January 2020 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: M Eftimiou, General Member Decision: The application is dismissed Catchwords: CONSUMER — Breach of Exclusive Property Management Agreement Legislation Cited: Property Stocks and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW) Fair Trading Act (NSW) 1987 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Philip Charles Keene (First Applicant) Leanne Victoria Keene (Second Applicant) Tattersals Capital Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: First and Second Applicant (Self-represented) Mr Freeman (Respondent) File Number(s): COM 19/35354 Publication restriction: NIL

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The applicants entered into an Exclusive Management Agency Agreement with the respondent on or about 1 September 2017 to manage their rental property in Bigola Plateau. 2. On 3 October 2017, the respondent as agent for the applicant entered into a residential tenancy agreement for the premises at Bigola Plateau. The agreement was a 12 month agreement. The weekly rent was $1200.00. The tenants paid a rental bond of $4800.00. The tenants gave vacant possession of the property on or about 3 October 2018. 3. The applicants are dissatisfied with the way that the respondent has managed the property. The applicants allege that they suffered a loss as a result of the respondent's breach of contract and breach of the Property Stocks and Business Agents Act 2002 (PSBA). The applicants submit that they have incurred charges and fees "erroneously through actions and inactions of the real estate agents acting unlawfully, improperly, unfairly and incompetently in the management of our former rental property." The applicants through an amended claim filed on 20 November 2019 are seeking an order that the respondent pay to them $9385.49. 4. In particular the applicants seek the following: 1. Refund of Letting Fee charged for negligent service by the respondent $660.00 2. Water Consumption cost not recovered by the respondent $77.52 3. TV Aerial repair cost in excess of $250.00 overcharged by the respondent $157.00 4. Contractor cost in excess of $250.00 charged by the respondent $1438.00 5. Rectification of unlicensed plumbing by respondent's contractor $112.00 6. Certification of substandard work of respondent's contractor $200.00 7. Management Fees charged by respondent for services unfit for purpose $1961.15 8. Additional losses owing to respondent services being unfit for purpose $4779.62