Nguyen v Schneider [2015] NSWCATAP 85

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nguyen v Schneider [2015] NSWCATAP 85 Hearing dates: 15 April 2015 Decision date: 08 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President R Titterton, Senior Member Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: Tenants obligations under Residential Tenancies Act 2010,s 51(3) and (5) Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Appellant: Hong Kieu D Nguyen Respondent: Tina Schneider and Matthew Honey Representation: Appellant: self represented Respondent: self represented File Number(s): AP 15/07499 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: S Hennings, General Member File Number(s): RT 14/60924

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 27 January 2015 the Tribunal sitting in its Consumer and Commercial Division heard and decided a dispute between the appellant and the respondents concerning a residential tenancy agreement. The Tribunal ordered the respondents (the tenants) to pay to the appellant (the landlord) the sum of $2,310.49 but, in addition, the Tribunal rejected other claims which the appellant had made against the respondents for compensation. This appeal concerns the claims which the Tribunal had rejected. 2. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 10 February 2015. The appellant firstly appeals the decision to reject the appellant's claim for damages in the sum of $8,520.00. Secondly, the appellant appeals the decision of the Tribunal to reject the appellant's claim for allegedly unpaid rent from 3 November 2014 to 9 November 2014 in the sum of $535.00. Thirdly, the appellant appeals the decision to reject the appellant's claim for the sum of $1,300.00 for rent with respect to the period of 30 days from the date the respondents gave notice of vacating the premises. Fourthly, the appellant appeals the decision rejecting the appellant's claim for the cost of lawn mowing of $450.00. Finally, the appellant claims legal costs. 3. At the hearing of the appeal the appellant withdrew the appeal in respect of the claim for $1,300.00. The Appeal Panel had expressed the opinion that as the appellant had been successful in obtaining an award for the break lease fee it did not seem possible for the appellant to also claim the sum of $1,300.00 for 30 days rent from the date the respondents gave notice of an intention to vacate. Accordingly in light of the withdrawal the hearing of the appeal dealt only with the other three matters referred to above and costs. 4. Both the appellant and the respondents acknowledge that there was a residential tenancy agreement between them which commenced on 9 September 2013 and that two further tenancy agreements were entered into between them during the time that the respondents were in possession of the premises. The last of these agreements was signed on 17 August 2014. The respondents vacated the premises on 9 November 2014. The parties acknowledge that a condition report had been prepared when the tenancy commenced in September 2013 but no condition report had been prepared on the occasion of the entry into the final tenancy (ie the one signed on 17 August 2014). The decision below found that there was no adoption or agreement by the parties of the original condition report into the subsequent tenancy agreements.