1. In September 2024, they submitted a maintenance request for a faulty air conditioning unit that was leaking a significant amount of water. The air conditioner was in the bedroom used by the Applicants' infant child and the leak poured down the wall close to a power-point, placing the child at risk of harm. The leak also damaged the Applicants' furniture in that bedroom 2. The issue was not resolved for two months, as the real estate agent said they were waiting for permission from the owner, who was overseas and uncontactable. 3. During the delay in attending to the faulty air conditioner issue, two other air conditioning units also failed. 4. Multiple maintenance requests were made seeking to have the issues rectified, but they remained unresolved. As a result, they could only use one bedroom for two months. 5. The owner later offered a one off $200 rent discount, which the Applicants say did not fairly compensate them for the inconvenience suffered. 6. They say the heat caused by not being able to cool the rooms affected by the faulty air conditioners caused discomfort - particularly to their infant child, who experienced what they termed "sleep regression". 7. They spent many hours cleaning up water after returning from work each day and that after three months of the air conditioner issues remaining unresolved issues, they determined break the lease and vacate the property. 8. When they notified the landlord's agent of their decision to abandon the lease, they were advised they would be charged for the cost of readvertising the property as well as being charged a "break lease" fee, which they believe to be unlawful based on advice from the Department of Consumer Affairs. They forwarded that advice on to the agent and the break lease fee was withdrawn. 9. On vacating, they arranged for professional cleaning and garden work. The Respondent's agent claimed there was a mark on the wall and said the garden did not meet the required standard as per the ingoing inspection report. 10. They were then allowed to return and tidy up the garden, however were given any opportunity to attend to the mark on the wall because of Christmas break (the agent's office being closed over that time). 11. In January 2025, the Applicants received the final exit report and were charged $286 for wall repairs and $485 for gardening costs. They say these charges were unfair, given their efforts to maintain the property that they had lived in for 4 years and that the mark on the wall should be treated as fair wear and tear. 12. They also believe the conduct of the real estate agent who dealt with them (but who is no longer employed by the real estate agency) was rude and unprofessional: 1. Telling the Applicants they would be responsible for damage to the air conditioning - which they maintain was not through any fault of theirs.

1. Advising the Applicants to only use one bedroom. 2. Informing them they could attend to the garden maintenance on the following weekend and then receiving an invoice dated the same day that they were advised they could reattend the property to clean up the garden.
2. The Respondent has filed a Form 2 Response to the application and is seeking he following orders:
   1. Dismiss the application for compensation.
   2. A counterclaim in the amount of $3,191.39 seeking compensation for damage, an unpaid water bill and a "lease break" as follows:
      1. Award costs for gardening and repair to damaged wall as per exit report and RT08 in the amounts of $286.00 for painting and $485.00 for gardening.

a) Loss of rent - max 14 days $1,020.00

b) Cost of Advertising as per management agreement $380.00

c) Cost of Lease Renewal as per agency management agreement $608.00

d) Cost of Ingoing Condition Report as per management agreement $302.50

iii. Award costs for unpaid water bill in the amount of $109.89.

e) Water Consumption 24/11/24 - 20/12/24 (27 days) $109.89.

1. The Respondent has made the following submissions in the Form 2 as reasons as to why the application should be dismissed and the counterclaim be allowed:

1. The owner offered $200.00 as compensation for the delay is attending to the air conditioning issues, which was accepted by the Applicants.
2. The issues with the air conditioners in December 2024 were attended to in a timely manner.
3. Water leaking from the air conditioners only occurred when in use and the Applicants were advised to cease use of the affected units to prevent further damage until the issue could be resolved.
4. Under Division 3 of the RTA - Repairs at s.57 Landlord's obligation to repair, per s.57(3), a landlord is not in breach of their obligation to repair under s.57(1) if the repairs are not an emergency repair as defined under s.63 RTA.

1. Bond and Exit Inspection
   1. 1 set of keys were returned on 20 December 2024.

1. On 23 December 2024 the outgoing inspection was conducted in the presence of one of the Applicants and the second set keys was returned at that time (noting the Applicants maintained possession of the property for a further two days after the final rental period for which the owner chose not to pursue additional rent).
2. The outgoing inspection identified damage to a wall at the entry to the property which was beyond fair wear and tear and the gardens were not to the standard identified in the ingoing inspection report. The Applicant then provided instructions to their agent to proceed with retaining bond to rectify.
3. The Applicant relies on s.112(3) of the RTA for retention of the security deposit for the costs incurred in regards to the wall and the garden.

2. Lease break compensation as per the Residential Tenancy Act:

1. The Applicants entered into a fixed term lease with the Respondent on 06 April 2024 and was due to expired on 4 April 2025.
2. The Applicants vacated prior to end of fix term lease date on 20 December 2025.
3. Pursuant to s.122 of the RTA, "the Tribunal may, on the application of a landlord or the tenant under a tenancy agreement, order compensation for loss or damage suffered by the applicant be paid to the applicant by the other party to the agreement because:

(a) the other party has failed to comply with the agreement or an obligation under this Act relating to the tenancy agreement; or

(b) ...."

and pursuant to s.1225(c) "in respect of a termination of a fixed term tenancy before the end of the tenancy, ordering the payment by the tenant of more than:

(i) if less than half of the agreed term of the tenancy agreement has elapsed - 28 days rent; or

(ii) otherwise - 14 days rent.

1. The matter did not resolve at the Compulsory Conference stage and was listed for hearing before me on 29 October 2025. Orders were made for the filing of written submissions and evidence in the lead up to the hearing, which the parties have complied with.
2. The Applicant has filed and served the following evidential material:
   1. Photographs of the air conditioners, wet floors and other aspects of the inside of the dwelling.
   2. A photograph of an air conditioner remote control displaying an operating temperature of 23 Celsius.

1. Copies of correspondence between the Applicants and the Respondent's agent between 8 October 2024 and 12 December 2024.
2. A tax invoice from the Respondent's agent to the Applicants in the amount of $380.00 dated 3 March 2025.
3. 8 x video footage of the air conditioners in two rooms leaking water.

1. The Respondent has filed and served the following evidence:
   1. A tax invoice from Xtreme Garden Care to the Respondent's agent dated 31 January 2025 in the amount of $485.00 for work described as "Pick up dead fronds - whipper snip the unmoved areas and weed spray".
   2. A Thrive Property tax invoice to the Applicants dated 27 February 2025 in the amount of $109.89 being for "Water Consumption 24/11/24 - 20/12/24 (27 days)".
   3. A copy of an "Entry condition report" for the property dated 7 April 2021.
   4. An email from the Respondent's agent to the Applicants dated 23 December 2024 attaching a completed "Exit report with photos" and a copy of the "Entry condition report provided at the start of the tenancy" along with a notation that at the outgoing inspection, "we noted the following areas required further attention:
      • - Repair to wall opposite entry - damage to paint.
      • - Weeding to garden beds.

Alternatively, we will arrange for the gardening maintenance on your behalf and deduct from the bond we are currently holding".

1. A copy of a Residential Tenancy Agreement between the Applicants and the Respondent for the period 6 April 2024 to 4 April 2025.
2. A Form RT08 Notice of Landlord's Intention to Retain Security Deposit dated 3 January 2025.
3. A document titled "Aircon Timeline".
4. A tax invoice from Coolit NT dated 17 September 2024 in the amount of $1,819.13 for the installation of an air conditioning unit at the dwelling.
5. A copy of the Exit condition report dated 23 December 2024 including photographs of the internal and exterior of the property.

1. The Exit condition report dated 23 December 2024 has not been signed as being accepted by the Applicants as it has not been signed by them. I am satisfied the Applicants had made it clear to the Respondent's agent that they did not agree with the comments in the area of the report titled "Additional comments/information" in which is included the following:

- Repair to wall at entry where there is damage to paint

- Weeding to garden bed around perimeter of property

1. I turn firstly to consider the application filed by the Applicants and the compensation sought by them.
2. The timeline of issues with the air conditioners is not in dispute and it is necessary to consider what action was taken when. I am satisfied that the matter unfolded in the following way:
   • End of September 2024 - An initial report was made by the 1st Applicant to the Respondent's agent about the air conditioner in the main bedroom not cooling.
   • On 2 October 2024 a further report was made to the agent about the air conditioner in the 2nd bedroom leaking water. This required the Applicants to remove their infant child from that bedroom because of the water inundation.
   • On 8 October 2024 the 1st Applicant requested an update from the agent about the two air conditioners, informing the agent that as of that time they had no working air conditioners in either bedroom and this was upsetting the baby.
   • This was replied to on the same day advising the agent had obtained quotes to replace the air conditioner in the main bedroom and were waiting to hear back from the Respondent for approval to proceed.
   • On 9 October 2024 the 1st Applicant again contacted the agent and reminded them about the air conditioner in the 2nd bedroom leaking water.
   • On 11 October 2024 the agent advised the 1st Applicant they had arranged for Coolit NT to attend and service the leaking air conditioner and that they were yet to get approval from the owner to replace the other unit.
   • On 22 October 2024 the 1st Applicant again contacted the agent complaining that they were still without air conditioning in either bedroom, that their 6 month-old baby was not sleeping and that if the issues were not rectified within a week, they would be seeking to find alternate accommodation.
   • On that same day, the agent replied, informing the 1st Applicant that they have still not been able to contact the Respondent and that they were doing everything they could to do so, acknowledging the situation the Applicants were in and stating "we completing (sic) understand that this is considered to be urgent in the current climate".
   • Later that same day, the agent again emailed the 1st Applicant, informing her that the replacement of the 1st air conditioner was approved and that a work order was being sent to Coolit NT to proceed with the replacement.
   • On 23 October 2024, the agent again emailed the 1st Applicant, advising they had been in contact with the Respondent, who informed the agent they had been overseas without any internet or phone access, that they were "very apologetic for the delay in approving the air conditioner replacement (and) as an apology to you they are offering a $200 rent credit", to which the 1st Applicant replied "I appreciate that".
   • On 29 October 2024, the 1st Applicant again emailed the agent, seeking their assistance with the air conditioning issues because "it has been one more week".
   • The air conditioner in the main bedroom was not replaced until 26 November 2024. The two other air conditioners in the 2nd bedroom and living room were also serviced at that time, however the air conditioner in the 2nd bedroom began leaking again, causing damage to some furniture in that room.
   • On 4 December 2024, the 1st Applicant again contacted the agent, advising that the air conditioner in the 2nd bedroom was still leaking water and had caused damage to some of her furniture, that she was without air conditioning for 2 months before the unit in the main bedroom was replaced and that now the air conditioner in the living room was also leaking water and could not be used. She also inquired as to the process to break the lease as she was not happy with the time it was taking to remedy the maintenance issues. She again followed with the agent on the 5th, 6th and 8th of December 2024, the last email being by way of a complaint and advising of the Applicants' decision to break the lease with an end date of 22 December 2024.
3. It is informative for the purpose of context to replicate the email of 8 December 2024 from the 1st Applicant to the agent in full:

I writing to inform you that I will be terminating my lease on 22/12/2024. This letter provides the necessary notice according to the lease agreement. I will move out on 20/12/2024 and return the keys on the same date.

Unfortunately, I have to take this decision after all the issues that I had in the last 2 months. I am extremely disappointed with the service from Thrive property. Following a time line (sic) of my situation.

End of September I informed that my aircon wasn't cooling in my bedroom, Few weeks later I informed the Thrive that the aircon in the living room and the babies (sic) room were leaking. I moved the baby to my room to avoid any damage that the leaking could cause in the wall and floor so I was paying a rent for 2 bedroom house and using just one for 2 months.

The job to be approved by the owner took weeks and during the time I was contacting the Thrive asking for updating and letting their (sic) know that I had a baby who was having difficulties to sleep because of the heat.

On the 26th of November after 2 months we had the aircon replaced and the other 2 aircon checked so we believed we could move the baby to his room, however, the aircon was leaking again damaging the baby change table and the dresser and also, causing a really hard time as I have to clean the floor, move the furniture around and empty the wardrobe as we had water inside there.

I tried to contact my agent who didn't answer my calls and was contacting me by email after I requesting (sic) that I would like to talk to her. When finally she answered my call, (she) was really rude and didn't show any empathy with my situation and suggested to me move the baby back to my room as if I continue to use the aircon which was leaking any damage on the wall or floor will be on my responsabilty. (sic) On the same day the Cool (sic) NT arranged the time to come to my house and fix the aircon so I left my work and missed 6 hours of work that will be unpaid as they mentioned was the only time he could fix otherwise I will have to wait for one more week.

I always paid my rent, bills and maintain the house nice and clean in respect to the owners. I was happy to extend my lease longer after April when it will end, however, with all this situation I can't trust in the Thrive property any more so I decided to terminate my lease.

After mentioned to (the agent) that I would like to break the lease I received an email saying that I suppose to pay for advertisement and letting fees which is not right as I already checked with Consumer affairs NT and they confirmed that I only have to give the 2 weeks (sic) notice.

I would like to request to discuss the final details with another agent.

1. Ms Hendry replied to the 1st Applicant on 12 December 2024 with the following message:

Thank you for your email and my apology for the late reply.

As you are aware, the owner generously discounted the rent by $200 to compensate for the inconvenience caused by the air conditioner. This was a fair and considerate gesture, which we trust you have appreciated.

In turn, we kindly request that you fulfill your obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) by covering the fees associated with breaking your lease. This ensures a balanced and fair resolution for all parties.

We will issue an invoice for the advertising costs shortly. As the lease-break tenant, it is your responsibility to mitigate any loss by actively assisting in securing new tenants for the property.

The pro-rata letting fee will be calculated and communicated to you at the end of your tenancy, once a replacement tenant has been secured.

1. The Applicants proceeded to prematurely end the lease as at 22 December 2024 in circumstances that are referred to in the RTA as "abandoned premises"[1]. This has the effect of terminating the lease and a landlord can then take action under s.112 to retain such a portion of the security deposit to make good for damage, maintenance issues and other matters set out in that section.
2. There is in my view no issue with the legitimacy of the Form RT08 Notice of Landlord's Intention to Retain Security Deposit (Form RT08) served on the Applicants. The Form complies with the requirements under s.112(5) of thew RTA.
3. The Form RT08 includes claims for making good damage to the premises or ancillary property in the amount of $286.00 and to clean the premises or ancillary property left in an unreasonable dirty condition in the amount of $485.00. The Form also indicated $1,269.00 was being returned to the Applicants. Quotes from a painter to paint the marked wall in the amount of $286.00 and from Xtreme Garden Care in the amount of $465.00.
4. Turning firstly to the amount claimed for painting, I note the Applicants had been in possession of the property for nearly 4 years. I have reviewed the photographs that show the marked wall and I am not persuaded that the horizontal mark is anything more than fair wear and tear. It would appear some sought of furniture item had been placed against the wall and it would be reasonable in my view that such furniture may rub against the wall over time and leave such a mark. I therefore refuse the Respondent's request for an order to retain the amount claimed of $286.00.
5. Turning then to the gardening costs, it would appear from the Xtreme Garden Care invoice that the work carried out by them was undertaken on 31 January 2025 - more than a month after the Applicants had vacated the property. Furthermore, the work described in the invoice is different to what the agent complained of as being "weeding to garden beds" -i.e., as set out above, the work carried out was "pick up dead fronds - whipper snip the unmowed areas and weed spray".
6. The 2nd Applicant has advised he returned to the property for approximately 4 hours to remove the offending weeds the weekend after they had vacated. Photographs provided by the Applicants of the property after he had reattended show a yard in good condition, clear of any weeds or fronds and with a newly mown lawn.
7. It must be noted that gardens and lawns require constant attention and care over the hotter and humid months of the northern climes of the Northern Territory. Lawns and gardens can and do become unkempt within a short period of time if left unattended. In my view, it is apparent on the evidence before me that having left the lawns and gardens unattended to for approximately 5 weeks, it is unremarkable that the lawns and gardens had deteriorated and required maintenance at the end of January 2025, however that is not something that the Applicants can be held accountable for.
8. I therefore find the retention of the $485.00 for garden maintenance costs cannot be sustained and should be rejected.
9. I will therefore make an order for the whole of the security deposit to be returned to the Applicants.

1. S.42 of the RTA gives the Tribunal the authority to reduce the amount of rent payable on a residential property on the application of a tenant, however s.42(4) limits the discretion of the Tribunal to specify the date from which the rent reduction is to occur and cannot backdate the application of the rent reduction prior to the date of the application made by the tenant.
2. In this case, no application for a rent reduction was made to the Tribunal by the Tenant during the life of the tenancy. In my view, the Applicants cannot now make a claim for a rent reduction after the tenancy has concluded and the application in that regard must be dismissed.

1. The Applicants clarified at the hearing that they were seeking compensation for distress and disappointment in having to live in a property with no air conditioning in at least one bedroom for over two months during the uncomfortable period of the "build-up" over the months of October and November 2024.
2. It has been held by the High Court of Australia that the legal principle of distress and disappointment as set out in Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon[2] applies to situations where there has been a breach of an obligation by a party to a residential lease - Young v Chef Executive Officer (Housing)[3]. If it is established that the Respondent in this matter has breached their obligation to repair, compensation for distress and disappointment will flow from that breach, as found in Young.
3. S.57 of the RTA sets out a landlord's obligation to make good repairs to a property in certain circumstances as set out (relevantly) below:

(1) Subject to this Part, it is a term of a tenancy agreement that the landlord:

(b) must maintain the premises and ancillary property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to their age, character and prospective life.

(2) A landlord is not in breach of the term specified under subsection (1) unless he or she:

(a) has notice of the defect requiring repair; and

(b) fails to act with reasonable diligence to have the defect repaired.

(3) A landlord is not in breach of the term specified under subsection (1) if:

(a) ....;

(b) the repairs are not emergency repairs within the meaning of section 63;

(c) ....

1. S.58 then obliges a tenant to notify the landlord if repairs are required. A failure to do so would invoke the protection to the landlord of s.57(2)(a). S.58 is set out (relevantly) in the following terms:

58 Tenant to notify landlord if repairs required

(1) It is a term of a tenancy agreement that if premises or ancillary property require repair or maintenance, other than repair or maintenance of a negligible kind, a tenant is, as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of the need for the repairs or maintenance, to notify the landlord orally or in writing of the requirement.

63 Emergency repairs may be ordered by Tribunal

(2) For the purposes of this section, emergency repairs means work needed to repair:

(m) a fault or damage likely to injure a person, damage property or unduly inconvenience a resident of premises; ....

1. In this matter, the Applicants had informed the Respondent's agent in writing that there were issues with all three air conditioning units at one point in time or another that was causing them and their infant child an extreme amount of inconvenience and distress. The issues were not fully resolved until early to mid-December 2024, by which time the Applicants had lost all confidence in the Respondent's agent and determined they had no choice but to move into alternative accommodation. The Applicants have therefore fulfilled there obligations under s.58 of the RTA in terms of notifying the Respondent of the need for repairs in terms of replacing one air conditioning unit and undertaking maintenance on two others.
2. The Respondent has submitted at the hearing that the air conditioning issues were not in fact "emergency repairs" for the purpose of ss.57 and 63 of the RTA. I reject that submission. The agent's property manager who was responsible for the property acknowledged to the 1st Applicant in an email on 22 October 2024 that "we completely understand that this is considered to be urgent in the current climate". Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Applicants through the email records provided make it clear that the failure to undertake the repairs and maintenance for a fault likely to "unduly inconvenience" the Applicants.
3. The Respondent's agent has argued they did everything they could to get approval for the replacement of the air conditioning unit in the main bedroom, however there was unforeseen delay due to the Respondents being overseas and did not have phone or internet access.
4. I am not persuaded that such circumstances exonerate the Respondents from their obligation to repair under s.57 of the RTA. If the Respondents were travelling overseas and did not have phone or internet access, arrangements could have been made with the agent for approval to undertake urgent repairs so as to remove any risk of breaching their obligations to their tenants. They did not do so and are now found to be in breach of their obligations under the RTA.
5. The Respondent's agent has also submitted the Respondents were apologetic for the delay in having the air conditioner issues resolved and had already "generously" offered a $200 "rent credit" to offset against the next rent payment[4] and that the Applicants had accepted that offer and therefore should be awarded any further compensation by the Tribunal.
6. I reject that submission. The offer was made on 23 October 2024 on the advice the replacement unit had been approved. There was an obvious expectation that the new unit would be installed as a matter of urgency. It was not and was not installed until 26 November 2024 - a further, more than 4 weeks after the $200 "rent credit" was offered. The Applicants made it clear that in those circumstances that offer was then rejected.
7. Given my findings that the Respondents have breached their obligation to undertake emergency repairs in accordance with their obligations under s.57 of the RTA, the Applicants are entitled to compensation for distress and disappointment.
8. Having researched rental properties through realestate.com.au, current rent rates for a 2-bedroom unit in Roseberry average around $570.00 per week and a 1-bedroom unit at $500.00 per week. It is therefore appropriate that compensation be ordered to the Applicants for 8 weeks at $70.00 per week for the distress and disappointment caused by the undue inconvenience endured by the Applicants over the 2-month period the repairs had not been carried out. I therefore will make an order that the Respondents are to pay to the Applicants compensation in the amount of $560.00, less the $200.00 already conceded by the Respondents.

The damaged furniture and compensation for cleaning time

1. The Applicants have not provided any evidence of the extent of water damage to items of furniture caused by the leaking air conditioners, not have they filed any evidence as to repair or replacement costs. As such, I consider this aspect of the claim for compensation to have been abandoned and I make no orders in that regard.
2. The Applicants have not put on any evidence in support of their claim for cleaning time. Any amount that could have been claimed for cleaning up leaking water from the leaking air conditioners would have been included in the claim for distress and disappointment and I make no separate finding or orders on that claim.

1. I have already determined that the cost for painting and gardening should not be held against the Applicants. That claim by the Respondent is therefore refused.
2. The Respondent is also claiming "lease break compensation" against the Applicants for the abandonment of the property, including lost rent of 14 days, advertising costs, lease renewal fees and the cost of an ingoing condition report, presumably for a new tenant.
3. Given the circumstances of the Applicants' decision to vacate the property due to on-going issues with the property's air conditioners over an extended period of time, their abandonment of the property was in my view justified and forced upon them by the delays experienced.
4. The authority for the Tribunal to award of compensation under s.122(1) of the RTA is a discretionary one - "....the Tribunal may....order compensation for loss or damage suffered....". Having determined the Applicants abandonment of the property was caused by the Respondents' delays in dealing with urgent issues that caused the Applicants considerable and undue inconvenience and was reasonable in the circumstances, I refuse the Respondents' application for compensation for loss of rent.
5. The Respondents have not put on any evidence that advertising costs were in fact incurred, other than an invoice from the Respondent's agent to the Applicants. The agent has not produced any primary invoice from any advertising platform, nor any proof of payment of any such invoice. I am unable to find on the evidence before me that such expense was incurred and I dismiss that claim.
6. The costs for a "lease renewal", which I understand to be the costs associated with a new lease for a new tenant and the cost of an ingoing inspection report, which I also understand to be for a new tenant after the Applicants had abandoned the property are not claimable as compensation under s.122 of the RTA as they are not an "actual loss" for the purpose of s.122(6) of the Act but are expenses associated with any reletting of a rental property to a new tenant and as such that application is also dismissed.
7. The Respondent's counterclaim for compensation against the Applicants is therefore dismissed.

1. The Applicants have been mostly successful in their claim against the Respondents and as such are entitled to their costs of and incidental to the bringing of the application before the Tribunal pursuant to s.132(1A) of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Act 2014. The filing fee in this matter was $245.00 and I will make a further order requiring the Respondents to pay to the Applicants a further $245.00 as reimbursement of the filing fee.

1. Given my findings set out above, the following orders will be published together with these reasons:
   1. The application is granted in part.
   2. The Respondents are to return to the Applicants the whole of the security deposit in the amount of $2,040.00.
   3. The Respondents are to pay to the Applicants a further $360.00 for distress and disappointment.
   4. The Respondents are to pay to the Applicants their costs for and incidental to the filing of the application in the amount of $245.00.
   5. The Respondents are to pay to the Applicants $2,645.00 by no later than 4.00pm on Wednesday, 31 December 2025.
   6. The counter-claim by the Respondents is dismissed.

[2] [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344

[3] [2023] HCA 31

[4] Email from Respondents' agent to the 1st Applicant dated 12 December 2024 - p.78 of Hearing Book