Peter Morgan & Ors v Hacienda Caravan Park Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 169

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Peter Morgan & Ors v Hacienda Caravan Park Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 169 Hearing dates: 21 May 2014 Decision date: 05 September 2014 Before: J McMillan, General Member Decision: 1.The rent shall not be increased by more than $5.00 per week for the 12 month period commencing 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. 2.Any amount if rent which has been overpaid as a result of Order 1 is to be refunded to the applicant. 3.In respect of application No RP 14/1684 John Hodson v Hacienda Caravan Park Pty Ltd time is extended to bring the application. 4.All other claims are dismissed. Catchwords: Nil Legislation Cited: Residential Parks Act 1998 Cases Cited: Tweeddale v Gaias (Tenancy) [2007] NSWCTTT 156 (28 March 2007) Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Morgan & Ors (applicants) Hacienda Caravan Park Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Nil Nil File Number(s): RP 14/10678

reasons for decision

APPLICATION 1An order that a proposed rent increase is excessive. An order that the current rent is excessive. 2The park owner issued a notice of rent increase to the applicants dated 17 January 2014. The residents lodged applications with the Tribunal on 25 February 2014 seeking orders; (i)Pursuant to sections 55 and 56 of the Residential Parks Act 1998 (the Act) that the proposed rent increase is excessive; (ii)Pursuant to section 56 of the Act that the current rent is excessive due to the withdrawal of or reduction of services and facilities; and (iii)In the matter of (RP 14/1684) John Hodson v Hacienda Caravan Park Pty Ltd that time be extended to bring the application. 3A total of 52 applications were lodged and they came before the Tribunal on 14 March 2014 when they were adjourned and orders were made for the exchange of documents between the parties that were intended to be relied upon at the hearing. The matters were heard on 21 May 2014 and the member reserved his decision. 4No challenge was made to the validity of the notice of rent increase. 5In regard to the application by Mr Hodson he was on holiday when the other residents lodged their applications. On his return he lodged his application. The matters raised in Mr Hodson's application are the same as those raised in the applications lodged by the other residents and the view of the Tribunal is that there is no prejudice suffered by the park owner where time is extended. Time therefore I extended to bring the application. 6Section 57 of the Act provides; 57 Matters to be considered in determining rent applications The Tribunal may, in determining whether or not a rent increase or rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement or a proposed residential tenancy agreement for residential premises is excessive, have regard to each of the following factors: (a) the general market level of rents for comparable premises in the same residential park and in other residential parks in the locality or a similar locality, (b) the value of the residential premises, (c) the frequency and amount of past rent increases under the residential tenancy agreement or previous residential tenancy agreements between the same park owner and resident, (d) a general price index (such as the Consumer Price Index), (e) the conduct of the parties, (f) the amount of any outgoings in respect of the residential premises required to be borne by the park owner under the residential tenancy agreement or proposed agreement, (g) the estimated cost of any services provided by the park owner or the resident under the residential tenancy agreement or proposed agreement, (h) the value and nature of any fittings, appliances or other goods, services or facilities provided with the residential premises, (i) the accommodation and amenities provided in the residential premises and the state of repair and general condition of the premises, (j) any work done to the premises by or on behalf of the resident, to which the park owner has consented, (k) any other relevant matter. I shall deal with each of these separately. (a)the general market level of rents for comparable premises in the same residential park and in other residential parks in the locality or a similar locality, 7The applicants nominated five other parks as being comparable. The table below stets out both the differences and common areas of these parks. The particulars were tendered to the Tribunal in the documents of the applicants. HACIENDA HOLIDAY PARK PYRAMID HOLIDAY PARK DRIFTERS HOLIDAY VOLLAGE POTTSVILLE NORTH COLONIAL TWEED HOLIDAY & HOME PARK BALLINA LAKESIDE SITE FEES $163.00* $139.50 $161.50 $144.00 $144.00 $148.10 $251.00* AMOUNT OF LAST RENT INCREASE Tribunal order 6.5% Variable $7.00 $10.00 $4.00 $9.00 $4.03 No increase 2014 RESIDENTS PAY P/O PAYS P/O PAYS P/O PAYS BORE WATER FOR GARDEN P/O PAYS P/O PAYS RESIDENT PAYS WATER MINI GOLF NO NO NO NO NO YES JUMPING PILLOW NO NO NO NO NO YES CAMP KITCHEN YES YES YES YES YES YES GYMNASIUM NO NO NO NO NO YES CARAVAN STORAGE NO NO YES YES NO NO OFF-STREET PARKING AT FRONT OF PARK YES AT FRONT OF PARK YES NO AT FRONT OF PARK PUBLIC TRANSPORT AT FRONT OF PARK YES YES YES AT FRONT OF PARK YES NEAR WATER YES YES YES YES YES YES CHILD PLAYGROUND NO YES YES YES YES YES GAMES ROOM NO YES YES NO YES YES BOOM GATE YES NO YES YES NO YES PRIVATE YES YES YES NO PARK INSTALLING NO MAIL BOXES WATER PARK NO NO NO NO NO YES PETS NO SOME SECTIONS NO NO NO NO GARBAGE 1 BIN PER 2 SITES YES YES YES YES CENTRAL AREA