Wurie v Liu [2017] NSWCATCD 64

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Wurie v Liu [2017] NSWCATCD 64 Hearing dates: 18 April 2017 Decision date: 06 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: Francesco Corsaro, SC, Senior Member Decision: 1 The application is dismissed because the Applicant did not prove to the Tribunal's satisfaction that there are any grounds for the orders claimed by the Applicant Catchwords: Residential Tenancies – innocent misrepresentation as to number of bedrooms in rented premises – representation as to security of garage – claim to terminate residential tenancy – claim for compensation Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1998 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Elizabeth Wurie (Applicant) Zhaojun Liu (Respondent) Representation: The Applicant in person Anna Ngyuen, representing the Respondent File Number(s): RT 17/08143 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision

INTRODUCTION 1. This application concerns the lease of a residential unit in a block of residential units in Strathfield South (the Premises), a suburb of Sydney. The address of the Townhouse appears in the Tribunal's files. As there is no need to give the address to properly understand what the Tribunal I have determined, in these reasons I have deliberately omitted any direct reference to the precise address of the Premises. 2. The Applicant, Ms Wurie, leased the Premises under the terms of a residential tenancy agreement made with the Strathfield Partners, the landlord's agent (the Lease). The application claims a termination order under section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW) (the RTA) terminating her tenancy on the following grounds: "1. The property manager has threatened to end my lease on 2 occasions and this harassment is both unsettling and unfair. 2. I am a single parent and living in a secure residence is of paramount importance to me. I applied for trhe property primarily because it was advertised as secure. This is clearly not the case became my property was stolen from the secure garage without a trace. 3. I am constantly bombarded by phone calls, emails and texts from multiple people from the same agency on the same issue. The agency has also recently begun calling my work place. I am not coping with this harassment." 1. Ms Wurie also applies for a compensation order in the amount of $1,400.00 on the following grounds: "1. The agency falsely advertised the [Premises] as having 2 car spots only to find out in the morning that I signed the lease that it was only one car spot (I have evidence of the advertisement). By then it was too late to do anything about it because I had already terminated my other lease and had my children and the removalists waiting outside. When I brought up the lease with the property manager, she stated that I was the only adult on the lease and questioned why I needed two car spots. 2. My property was stolen from the [P]remises after the property manager had been constantly threatening to dispose of my property despite other tenants storing similar property in a same manner. The same property manager has sent me message (sic) at all hours. As an example, on the 2nd January 2017 she sent me a text message at 1:10 am." 1. For the reasons set out in this determination, I am not satisfied that Ms Wurie has established any legal entitlement to either terminate the Lease or for the payment of compensation.