Jamal v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2022] NSWCATAP 131

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jamal v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2022] NSWCATAP 131 Hearing dates: 23 February 2022 Date of orders: 02 May 2022 Decision date: 02 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: L Wilson, Senior Member E Bishop, Senior Member Decision: 1. Leave to appeal refused. 2. Appeal dismissed. 3. The stay, made by consent on 8 December 2021, is lifted. Catchwords: APPEAL – residential tenancies-social housing – rent and water arrears – renewal of work order Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jon Jamal (Appellant) NSW Land and Housing Corporation (Respondent) Representation: Appellant (self-represented) Department of Communities & Justice, Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00327145 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: New South Wales Civil & Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 5 November 2021 Before: General Member J Bartrop File Number(s): SH21/07572; SH21/13717; SH21/32600

DECISION 1. On 5 November 2021 the Tribunal made a decision which finalised three applications which had been filed; two by the appellant and one by the respondent (Decision). The application which was filed first in time was by the respondent, who is the landlord, which was a relist of an earlier application (RT20/48908) for water and rent arrears. The second application was filed by the appellant, who is the tenant, seeking orders that the landlord repay him rent. The third application was also filed by the appellant. This was a renewal of earlier work orders made on 16 June 2021 in SH21/07292. 2. In the Decision the Tribunal: 3. Ordered the tenant to pay $590.75 for rent arrears and $146.95 for water usage: Orders 1 and 2; 4. Ordered the tenant to continue to pay his rent which is $218.70 per fortnight: Order 3; 5. Allowed the landlord three months to relist for termination orders if the tenant did not comply with the other orders: Order 5. 6. Dismissed the tenant's renewal application: Order 6. 7. The reasons for orders included that the Tribunal rejected the tenant's arguments that the ledger did not truly reflect the rent paid and that the rent payable was incorrect. Further the Tribunal was not persuaded on the tenant's evidence that the previous work orders had not been complied with, and took into account the landlord's evidence that the gate and front fence had been properly repaired as previously ordered, and thus dismissed the renewal. 8. The appellant lodged this appeal which essentially disagreed with the Decision and sought that the Decision be quashed "and make the right decision on all official evidence and the fact". 9. For the reasons given below, we dismiss the appeal.