Mitropoulos & anor v Urena [2014] NSWCATCD 230

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mitropoulos & anor v Urena [2014] NSWCATCD 230 Hearing dates: 18 November 2014 Decision date: 02 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: B Howe, General Member Decision: The application is dismissed Catchwords: ELECTRICITY SUPPLY – whether premises separately metered - section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the "NCAT Act") Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (the "RTA") Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (the "SSMA") Cases Cited: Slade & anor v Douglas & anor, CTTT 08/47989 (16 December 2008) (unreported) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Constantine Petropoulos (applicant) Georgia Petropoulos (applicant) Norma Urena (respondent) Representation: Constantine Petropoulos, in person assisted by Rita Wilkinson, Southern Sydney Tenants' Advice & Advocacy Service Georgia Petropoulos, no appearance Alexander Kanevsky, property manager (for the respondent) File Number(s): RT 14/35720 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision

The history of the application 1. The applicants entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the respondent to lease premises, being unit 4 in a strata complex. The tenancy commenced during February 2007. 2. The electricity account was in the name of the tenants and there were no problems with the accounts rendered by the electricity supplier until the bill for the period 12 April to 10 July 2012 was received. 3. This account was higher than that for the same quarter billed a year previously. Bills for the following quarters were also higher than those paid for earlier periods. 4. An investigation found that behind the electricity mains panel, on which the meters for units 4 and 10 were mounted, the cable leading from the meter for unit 10 into that unit had melted the plastic insulation and that wire had fused with the cable leading into unit 4. 5. This meant that unit 4 was probably being charged for the supply of all power, not only to unit 4, but also to unit 10. Whether the meter for unit 10 recorded any consumption, or unit 10 paid the supply authority for any electricity consumed during the periods under review, is unknown.