Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hamilton v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2015] NSWCATCD 135 Hearing dates: 24 September 2015 Decision date: 27 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Meadows, Senior Member Decision: The application is dismissed. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anna Hamilton (applicant); NSW Land & Housing Corporation (respondent) File Number(s): SH 14/43380 Publication restriction: Nil reasons for decision Application Background The Original Application 1. The applicant, Ms Anna Hamilton, leases premises from the respondent landlord at " " Avenue Ultimo. On 27 May 2014, Ms Hamilton filed an application ("original application") seeking orders pursuant to ss 187(1)(b) and 187(1)(h) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 ("RT Act"), alleging the landlord breached Clause 12(3) of the lease, in that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord's other neighbouring tenants do not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises. That application was matter number SH 14/27597. 2. The original application alleged that the landlord's tenant ("5E") in premises immediately above those occupied by the applicant disturbed the applicant's right to quiet enjoyment by extremely disruptive behaviour on numerous occasions and that the landlord had failed to respond adequately to the applicant's requests for action by the landlord. 3. The original application was listed for a conciliated hearing on 11 June 2014. It is not clear from the Tribunal file what occurred on that occasion, although there is a note to the effect that the representative of the respondent landlord was not aware of the matter but happened to be present in relation to another matter. In any event, the original application was adjourned to a later date. 4. On 26 June 2014 the original application was listed for a further conciliated hearing. On that date the parties signed an agreement in the following terms: Landlord agrees to take an action before the Tribunal to make the tenant orders to comply with their tenancy agreement. As the applicant's quiet enjoyment is adversely affected by the tenant in Unit "E". T. will seek advice from T.A.A.S. 1. That agreement is not clearly worded, and the notation and order made by the presiding Member on that occasion are also somewhat unclear: It is noted that the Respondent will commence action against the tenant causing a breach of the quiet enjoyment of the Applicant. 1. By consent, the Applicant may seek to [sic] leave to renew these proceedings in the event these undertakings by the Respondent are not compiled [sic] with by the other party. There is no dispute by the parties in the present proceedings that it was intended by that agreement that the landlord undertook to take action against 5E by bringing an application against 5E in the Tribunal. I note that neither the agreement nor the Member's notation specified the nature of that application. In the regard, I infer the phrase "the other party" in the order extracted above is a reference to the landlord. The Application 1. On 27 August 2014 the applicant filed an application ("application") for renewal of proceedings pursuant to the order made in the original application. The application stated that the original order had not been complied with in that "Landlord has been unable to restore quiet enjoyment as a result of another tenants behaviour". The application sought the following orders: 1. An order for the payment of $15,000.00; and 2. An order that the applicant not have to pay 50% rent. 1. The application was listed for hearing before Senior Member Vrabac on 22 September 2014. The application was adjourned on that date, and orders were made for the service of evidence. An order was also made that "[t]he applicant's claim for compensation is in the sum of $2,000.00". 2. The application was listed for hearing on 11 November 2014. Prior to that date, the applicant requested and obtained a summons for documents from the NSW Police. On 11 November 2014, Senior Member Cohen adjourned the matter, giving leave to the applicant to amend the claim and making orders for the service of evidence. 3. On 13 November 2014, the matter was listed for return of summons and on that date orders were made for the parties to have access to the documents produced by the NSW Police. 4. The matter was set down for hearing on 9 February 2015. Prior to that date, further summonses were issued and were dealt with at a return of summons hearing on 11 December 2014 by Senior Member Thode. Orders were made, inter alia, for a summons directed to the Commissioner of Police to be adjourned to the hearing date of 9 February 2015. 5. The application was heard on 9 February 2015 by Senior Member Cohen. All the evidence was taken on that date but the matter was again adjourned to permit the parties to provide written submissions. 6. Senior Member Cohen delivered his decision, with lengthy reasons, on 25 February 2015. Without listing all the orders made or summarising the reasons of Senior Member Cohen, the effect of the orders made was that the landlord was to forthwith relocate the applicant to other premises under the control and management of the landlord. 7. That decision was appealed to an internal Appeal Panel by the respondent, the appeal being allowed by the Appeal Panel in a decision published on 9 July 2015. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal (Consumer and Commercial Division) constituted by a member other than the original member to be determined "in accordance with these reasons" and otherwise according to law. (For the sake of completeness I note that the Appeal Panel made an order prior to the hearing of the appeal that the order staying the decision under appeal was extended until the resolution of the appeal.) 8. The Appeal Panel was constituted by Principal Member Britton and Senior Member Titterton. Before I consider the evidence and submissions provided to me, it is necessary to consider the phrase noted in the previous paragraph: my determination is to be made "in accordance with these reasons". 9. The appeal related to a specific issue. As the Appeal Panel put it in the first paragraph of their reasons: [1] This appeal concerns the question of whether the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has power under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act) to order "social housing provider", Housing NSW, to relocate a tenant to alternative premises under its control and management. The Appeal Panel noted that the primary ground of appeal relied upon by the Housing NSW was that the Tribunal lacks such a power under the RT Act, specifically under ss 187 and 188 of the RT Act. 1. With great respect to the Appeal Panel, in my opinion the reasons provided and with which I entirely agree, are a model of succinct clarity. Essentially the Appeal Panel decided that the concept of "compensation" as used in the RT Act, while it is not be limited to monetary compensation, does not include relocation or in other words (as used by the Appeal Panel), the "real issue is whether the relocation order can be characterised as an order for non-monetary compensation". Having decided that it cannot be so characterised, the Appeal Panel found that the RT Act did not confer on the Tribunal the power to make the relocation order nor any of the associated orders made. 2. Before me, the applicant did not pursue any order seeking relocation. Her claim was limited to monetary compensation. The proceedings before me thus fall to be determined in accordance with the Appeal Panel's reasons (and according to law). 3. It is necessary to address yet further issues before considering the evidence in these proceedings. 4. Senior Member Cohen's decision and reasons referred to prior applications made by the parties or one of them, namely SH 13/16123 and SH 13/35289, apparently on the basis that the landlord asserted that because those two matters were settled by consent and withdrawn, the applicant had no right to seek that they be relisted by way of a renewal application "in this proceeding". The phrase "this proceeding" is a reference to the proceeding before Senior Member Cohen, being SH 14/43380 which, of course, is the matter before me. 5. I am not aware of the submissions made before Senior Member Cohen, but I do note that matters SH 13/16123 and SH 13/35289 are not relevant to the proceedings before me. These proceedings, as noted above, are renewal proceedings in relation to matter SH 14/27597. No submissions were made to me in relation to SH 13/16123 and SH 13/35289. 6. On 11 March 2015, the applicant filed another application, being SH 15/12938. That was also a renewal of proceedings application, purporting to be a renewal of these proceedings, SH 14/43380. On the grounds that the decision of Senior Member Cohen was the subject of stay orders, that the issues in SH 15/12938 were the same as or similar to the issues in SH 14/43380 and that SH 14/43380 itself was the subject of an appeal to an internal Appeal Panel, SH 15/12938 was ordered to be listed together with the appeal matter. I can find no formal order disposing of SH 15/12938 or listing it for further hearing. However, it is obviously otiose in view of the appeal decision and the rehearing of SH 14/43380 before me. The appropriate order will be to dismiss SH 15/12938 in due course. 7. Finally, the landlord itself filed an application on 4 August 2015, seeking orders pursuant to ss 87 and 187 of the RT Act, alleging the tenant (that is, the present applicant) breached the residential tenancy agreement by not paying rent. 8. On 18 August 2015, Member McCue, apparently in the absence of the tenant, made orders terminating the residential tenancy agreement for failure to pay rent, and ordering possession to be granted to the landlord on the date of termination, the possession order being suspended until 4 September 2015. 9. Before me, the parties agreed that the applicant had paid her rental arrears and that the residential tenancy agreement continues to be in place. No submissions were made in relation to any formal setting aside or otherwise of the order made by Member McCue on 18 August 2015. 10. I turn now to consider the matter before me. Henceforth I will refer to the applicant as "the tenant" and continue referring to the respondent as "the landlord". As a reminder, I refer to the other tenant of the landlord, residing immediately above the tenant, as "5E". Evidence and Submissions Applicant 1. The tenant has provided voluminous evidence including correspondence between the parties, photographs, documents provided by the Police and the Ambulance Services (including a statement from DSC Kench) and numerous submissions from time to time. 2. I consider that it is not necessary to refer in detail to much of this evidence which in general is not subject to attack by the landlord. I summarise the tenant's case as follows. 3. The tenant states she is herself a former police officer who, for personal reasons unrelated to these proceedings found it necessary to seek social housing. She has been a tenant of the landlord in the subject premises since 4 May 2012. She alleges, and it is not disputed, that another tenant of the landlord, 5E, lives immediately above the tenant. 5E's behaviour is described as extremely disruptive and loud. It is suggested that 5E is, or was, severely addicted to the illegal drug methamphetamine and also to alcohol. The proof of such addiction appears to be essentially hearsay but there is no doubt that whatever the cause, 5E's behaviour was extremely anti-social and indeed self-harming. The tenant has provided evidence, which again is not challenged, that 5E's behaviour, probably as a result of substance abuse, has resulted in her being removed from the subject building by ambulance and at least on one occasion resulted in an extended period in a hospital. Furthermore, the tenant has resorted on very many occasions to calling the local police for assistance. 4. 5E's substance abuse and lifestyle have led to other disruptions of the tenant's quiet enjoyment. First, the tenant asserts that on numerous occasions, numerous strangers not resident in the complex appear in front of or behind the tenant's premises, seeking contact with or access to 5E or 5E's premises.. At times, the tenant suggests, this is to seek drugs from 5E or sexual contact with 5E. The tenant describes loud noises by 5E during what appears to the tenant to be sexual activity. The tenant describes 5E's behaviour as wild and unrestrained when apparently under the influence of some illicit substance. While the inference I am asked to draw is that the illicit substance is "Ice" (methamphetamine) which notoriously (according to the popular press at least) causes such violent and wild behaviour, I am not satisfied the tenant has proved that contention. However, I am satisfied the tenant has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that she has been subject at various times, and at times more or less continuously for various periods, to severely disruption by the behaviour of 5E. 5. I have come to that conclusion on the basis of the evidence of contemporaneous reports by the tenant, numerous calls to the police and voluminous correspondence with the landlord over the years. 6. A number of the complaints made by the tenant do not relate directly to 5E or result from 5E's behaviour. 7. These include her experiences with two elderly gentlemen, at least one of whom is now deceased. The tenant states that these gentlemen lived in extreme squalor and filth and may have suffered from dementia. The tenant, who presents as a person who is not prepared to, or able to, ignore such issues, initiated contact with these gentlemen in circumstances in which each of them had suffered some injury or illness. In one case, while following up the condition of one of the gentlemen at hospital, the tenant acceded to a rend quest to be noted as the next of kind, which resulted in due course in the tenant being required to identify the remains of that gentleman at the morgue. 8. The tenant also voluntarily became involved, to some extent, in the life of another tenant (I assume another tenant of the landlord), one "Lily" who had a very young daughter who appeared to be at risk, according to the tenant. Indeed, the tenant states she went so far as to remove this child from the custody of Lily and approached the relevant State Government Department seeking to have the child rehoused. This incident apparently led to yet further disturbances by certain gentlemen known to the tenant only by their first names, who made certain threats against the tenant. In addition, the tenant asserts that she was assaulted during the tenancy. 9. As a result of her frequent requests for help from the police, the tenant made contact with some particular police officers. The tenant formed the view that a number of the strangers (that is, non-residents in the subject building), were either drug consumers seeking to purchase illicit substances, or drug providers, seeking to sell illicit substances. The tenant began to take photographs of some of these individuals, one of whom in particular subsequently proved to be a person of interest to the police. The tenant's ability and willingness to provide information, or as it was referred to, intelligence, to the police, resulted in the tenant becoming officially or semi-officially, a police informant. DSC Kench's evidence attests to that fact. Again, this evidence is not challenged by the landlord. 10. It is also clear that from time to time the tenant has brought several applications in this Tribunal, seeking to prod, or force, the landlord to take sufficient action against 5E so as to prevent the disruption to the tenant's quiet enjoyment. 11. I referred above to the fact that the tenant's evidence includes a number of photographs. It appears the tenant has gained access to the unit of 5E and to the unit of one of the elderly gentlemen referred to above, and was able to take photographs showing the condition of those units, in support of her claim that some tenants were living in filth and squalor. The tenant submits that her knowledge of such conditions not only adds to her belief that her quiet enjoyment has been breached, but also demonstrates the failure of the landlord to comply with the terms of the residential lease in each such case but also its failure to comply with its own mission statement. 12. The tenant submits that this evidence proves that the landlord has failed to comply with Clause 12 of her lease and with s 50(3) of the RT Act. Respondent 1. The respondent's case is essentially that several of the tenant's complaints do not relate to Clause 12 of the residential tenancy agreement or s 50(3) of the RT Act. 2. In relation to the behaviour of 5E, the landlord states that each of the complaints made about 5E gave rise to a brief window of opportunity within which the landlord had little time to act. However, where possible, the landlord did attempt to take reasonable steps to ensure the quiet enjoyment of the tenant. 3. In support of that submission, the landlord provides two bundles of evidence including its original evidence for the hearing before Senior Member Cohen. That includes extracts of previous applications, including: 1. 12/49245 in which the landlord agreed to conduct certain repairs in the subject premises; 2. 13/16123 in which consent orders were made to provide for inspections by the landlord in relation to possible repairs; 1. In addition, although it was not actually argued by the landlord's representative during the hearing, the landlord maintained its submission that because of SH 13/16123 and SH 13/35289 being settled by consent and withdrawn (see paragraph 19 above), the tenant had no right to seek that they be relisted by way of a renewal application in this proceeding. Consideration and Determination 1. As discussed above, the current application is a renewal of the original application. Such an application is made pursuant to Clause 8 of Schedule 4 of the CAT Act: 8 Renewal of proceedings in respect of certain Division decisions (1) If the Tribunal makes an order in exercise of a Division function in proceedings, the Tribunal may, when the order is made or later, give leave to the person in whose favour the order is made to renew the proceedings if the order is not complied with within the period specified by the Tribunal. (2) If an order has not been complied with within the period specified by the Tribunal, the person in whose favour the order was made may renew the proceedings to which the order relates by lodging a notice with the Tribunal, within 12 months after the end of the period, stating that the order has not been complied with. (3) The provisions of this Act apply to a notice lodged in accordance with subclause (2) as if the notice were a new application made in accordance with this Act. (4) When proceedings have been renewed in accordance with this clause, the Tribunal: (a) may make any other appropriate order under this Act or enabling legislation as it could have made when the matter was originally determined, or (b) may refuse to make such an order. (5) This clause does not apply if: (a) the operation of an order has been suspended, or (b) the order is or has been the subject of an internal appeal. 1. Schedule 4 Clause 8(4) states that the Tribunal in renewal proceedings has a choice: make any other appropriate order which it could have made when originally determined or refuse to make such an order. It will be recalled that the original application, matter number SH 14/27597, sought two orders pursuant to s 187(1)(b) (an order in performance of a residential tenancy agreement) and s 187(1)(h) of the RT Act (an order directing a landlord, landlord's agent or tenant to comply with a requirement of this Act or the regulations). Of course, those are not the only orders the Tribunal could have made in the original application but it is necessary to demonstrate that any order I may propose to make could have been made in the original application. In the event, the only order made in the original application was that the tenant may seek leave to renew the original proceedings. 2. I am satisfied that the tenant had the right to bring these renewal proceedings—even though it appears the tenant did not actually seek leave to bring the renewal proceedings they have always proceeded on the assumption that such leave was granted. If it is necessary to do so, I grant such leave now. It has not been argued before me that the tenant had no right or no standing to bring the renewal proceedings because of any prior agreement or settlement related to previous applications. 3. It is not disputed that these proceedings may be brought pursuant to the RT Act or that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. 4. In my opinion, the tenant's application alleges the landlord has breached the terms of the residential tenancy agreement (Clause 12) and s 50(3) of the RT Act. It is necessary to note with care the exact terms of s 50(3): 50 Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment … (3) A landlord or landlord's agent must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord's other neighbouring tenants do not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises. … 1. I note that the section does not require the landlord or landlord's agent to guarantee a lack of interference with the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment. Rather, the requirement is to take "all reasonable steps" to ensure the other neighbouring tenants do not interfere with the reasonable peace etc. of the tenant. That is, the landlord may take all reasonable steps, but its efforts may be completely futile. Nevertheless, the landlord is required to make the attempt or attempts. 2. I also note that, although it is not specified in s 50 of the RT Act, there is no doubt that the requirement is also limited to all reasonable and legal steps the landlord can take. It is not possible for the landlord to respond to an urgent complaint, for example, and immediately evict the troublesome tenant. The landlord in such a situation will be required to commence appropriate action in this Tribunal. 3. Against that legal background, I will now summarise what I see as the salient factual matters in this application. 4. I am satisfied that 5E from time to time and on a multiplicity of occasions interfered with the tenant's reasonable peace and comfort and probably also of the tenant's privacy. 5. I am satisfied that 5E was from time to time and perhaps for extended periods, affected by ingesting drugs which had a marked effect on her behaviour. While it appears to be assumed by everyone that at least one such drug was methamphetamine, an illegal substance, there is insufficient proof for me to make such a finding, even though it appears likely. It is not necessary to the outcome of this application that such a finding must positively be made. I also find that 5E had suffered serious events in her life which most likely had the effect of increasing her stress levels, including the deaths of her father and her partner, but on balance it appears most likely that the explanation for her behaviour was her use of an illegal substance or substances. 6. I find that the applicant on numerous occasions complained to the police and sought their attendance. I find that the police did attend on at least several occasions but that because the behaviour complained of was no longer evident by the time they did attend, that no further action was taken. Despite those attendances, I am satisfied that 5E continued with or renewed her disruptive behaviour. 7. I find that 5E was removed from her premises on one occasion by ambulance and was placed in medical treatment overnight but returned to the premises the following day. On a later occasion, it appears in August or September 2014, 5E was again removed by ambulance (with the assistance of the police) and was again placed in involuntary medical care. On that occasion 5E remained in care for at least several weeks, and was diagnosed as suffering a drug-induced psychosis and schizophrenia, which it appears was stabilised, or attempted to be stabilised, on appropriate medication. 8. The landlord took certain action or actions in relation to 5E from time to time. This included issuing a termination notice to 5E and subsequently making an application to the Tribunal. In the event, the landlord did not seek termination but instead sought by consent what is generally referred to as a specific performance order (SPO), that is, an order or an agreement that the particular tenant would comply with the terms of their lease. As was also usual, an order was made that the matter may be renewed and a termination order sought if the tenant did not comply with the SPO. 9. The landlord also interviewed other neighbours of the tenant and also, of course, of 5E in relation to 5E's behaviour. According to the written statement of Mr Lance Kittscha, the "Antisocial Behaviour Specialist" employed by the landlord, these neighbours agreed that 5E behaved in an antisocial manner, screaming and making noise, but that these episodes did not last long. The neighbours also tended to suggest that 5E needed help. The only evidence for such actions by the landlord, however, is contained in Mr Kittscha's statement. No witness statement from any of those neighbours was provided by the landlord. Mr Kittscha was not called as a witness although his statement was included in the landlord's bundle of evidence. 10. The landlord's evidence also demonstrates the landlord took action in relation to obtaining alternative premises for the tenant, in Glebe. In association with the attempt or attempts to relocate the tenant, the landlord liaised with and sought relevant information from the Police Intelligence Unit in relation to the tenant's allegations that she was "at risk" either because of her actions in seeking to persuade the landlord to do something about 5E or because of the tenant's actions in providing information to the police. 11. I take into account also the tenant's confirmation that apart from a complaint made at the beginning of 2015, no further complaints have been made and that 5E's behaviour has improved. 12. I note also that the tenant requested the landlord remove her from their "at risk" list and also appears to have refused any offer or potential offer to relocate the tenant to the inner west or western suburbs of Sydney. 13. Despite the centrality of 5E's behaviour to the tenant's application, 5E was not the only source of disturbance. In my opinion, any disturbance relating to the two elderly gentlemen referred to above resulted from the tenant's own actions in "getting involved", even though such involvement stands to the tenant's credit in showing compassion for her fellows. It is not clear to me that the tenant alleges that the landlord has also breached s 50(3) of the RT Act in that regard and I am satisfied that the tenant has not provided any or any sufficient evidence to demonstrate such a breach in regard to those two gentlemen. 14. There is a further set of circumstances involving another tenant, the lady known as "Lily" and referred to above. It is alleged by the tenant that Lily and possible her partner were also affected by illegal drugs, to the point where, as previously noted, the tenant assumed the responsibility of removing Lily's daughter from that dangerous environment. The tenant has not demonstrated any particular failure on the part of the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that Lily's behaviour interfered with her quiet enjoyment. 15. It is unclear on the evidence available as to exactly how the situation arose, but the tenant claims she was assaulted by one "Justin". The landlord brought a termination application against a Graham Wallace in which reference was made to charges being laid against Justin Jade Wallace said to arise from that physical assault. While the details are unclear, I am not satisfied that it can be argued that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps on that occasion. The Tribunal proceedings on that occasion also resulted" in an SPO. No further complaint has been made in relation to "Justin" or another member of the Wallace family. For the sake of completeness it appears that the Wallace family are not actually neighbours of the tenant but reside in nearby premises. 16. In relation to the offer to relocate the tenant to Glebe, which the tenant rejected, the landlord's documents include a letter to the tenant dated 15 April 2015. The landlord appears to have stated this offer "will not be treated as a reasonable offer" which I understand to mean in effect that the landlord agrees the tenant had a good reason for refusing that offer. As a result, the landlord stated the tenant will be given another two offers of housing in the Leichhardt/Marrickville area. There is no further evidence or submission made by either party in that regard. However, the landlord has provided a copy of an email sent to the landlord by the tenant dated 1 May 2015 which is somewhat difficult to understand, but appears to reject any such offer, on the ground that the tenant agrees to move north, east or south, but not west. 17. It is therefore clear, in my opinion, that the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment has been breached by another tenant, being 5E. I am also satisfied that the tenant's quiet enjoyment has been breached by other tenants or strangers (that is, persons who are not tenants of the landlord) and that although in her submissions the tenant includes those breaches as part of her general complaints, the landlord is not responsible for those breaches, either because the persons causing the disturbance were not tenants of the landlord, or because the tenant involved herself in the affairs of other persons unnecessarily, at least in a legal sense. 18. Having proved the interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant, the tenant must also prove the failure of the landlord to take reasonable steps to prevent that interference. 19. The statement of Mr Kittscha, included in the landlord's evidence, provides a chronology of investigations conducted by him and other employees of the landlord. In my opinion, these are to be included in the "reasonable steps" pursuant to s 50(3) of the RT Act, even if those steps did not result in the removal of 5E or effectively prevented 5E from disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant. 20. The statement of Mr Kittscha is relevant not only for demonstrating some of the actions of the landlord in responding to the tenant's complaints, but also in explaining the landlord's action in agreeing to accept an SPO from 5E in settlement of their application against her, referred to in paragraph 56 above. On the basis of that statement, I find the landlord acted reasonably in doing so, given the landlord's information that other tenants did not suggest the same level of disruption as the tenant, at least in relation to the behaviour of 5E herself. 21. There is an added difficulty in this case that the tenant complains of the actions of strangers, as referred to in paragraph 29 and ff above. The tenant has not argued specifically in relation to the landlord's duty in that regard, but in my opinion the tenant's case is based on the behaviour of 5E and her claimed attraction of non-tenants, rather than claiming the landlord has a direct responsibility to the tenant to ensure such strangers are kept out of the premises. 22. There is one final issue in relation to the landlord's duty. Section 50(3) specifies that the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord's other neighbouring tenants do not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises. The tenant has suggested certain actions that the landlord could have taken, but in my view has not proved some of them were reasonable. For example, the tenant insists that the landlord should have evicted 5E. However, as I have found above, in my opinion the landlord acted reasonably in relation to accepting an SPO from 5E, given the information available to the landlord. 23. I find that the tenant has not proved her case on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps (even if unsuccessful) to prevent another of the landlord's tenants disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant. Despite the undoubted genuineness of the tenant's complaints and her belief that something should have been done, for the reasons above the application is dismissed. Geoffrey Meadows Senior Member Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales 27 October 2015 I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 08 January 2016