Dragosevic v Zeritis [2025] NSWCATCD 143;

1. The Tenant accepted the claim made pursuant to s 44(1)(a) was out of time as the Notice of Rent Increase was served on 21 June 2024 and it came into effect on 25 August 2024. The tenant had continued to pay the increased rent of $580 per week from that date.

1. The landlord undertook a routine inspection on the 09 July 2024. A report was never provided to the tenant. At the inspection the tenant pointed out the following to the landlord:

(a) The floor in the study was rotten.

(b) The exhaust fan in the bathroom was not working properly. It dispersed moisture into the wall cavity There was a build-up of mould and as a result the paint was flaking off the ceiling, which was a health hazard

(c) The air conditioner in bedroom 2 was not working. Although the tenant referred to it as bedroom 2, this was in effect the only bedroom. The other "bedroom" was also referred to as the study/storage room.

(d) The premises were located directly next door to a bakery and the entire apartment would heat up when the neighbouring premises had the ovens going for the baked goods.

(e) The window in the lounge/dining area was not watertight and leaked when it rained.

(f) The leaky window would cause the power to trip when it rained. The tenant said he then had to go outside and downstairs to re-start the power.

(g) At times the tenant worked away from home for periods of time. If he was not home or was asleep when the power tripped due to the water leaks, the fridge would switch off and the food would spoil.

(h) The tenant's lounge was located underneath the window and it would get wet and damp when it rained heavily.

1. The tenant sent a follow-up email to the landlord on the 30 July 2024 confirming the discussions at the inspection and listing the repairs. The landlord's agent responded on the 31 July 2024 and said he would advise the landlord of the requested repairs. A copy of the request sent to the landlord on that date is before the Tribunal.
2. The tenant heard nothing further from the landlord until the 07 April 2025, when the managing agent confirmed that the occupant in the café below had reported a section of the ceiling had come down.
3. On the 22 April 2025 the tenant informed the landlord his foot went through the floor on another section of flooring in the second bedroom.
4. The tenant seemed to confuse the rent reduction claims pursuant to s 44(1)(a) and S 44(1)(b). He submitted the rent increase sum of $60 per week was excessive on the grounds the landlord had failed to maintain and repair the property, notwithstanding the landlord was on notice of the need for the repairs from the date of the meeting held on the 09 July 2024.The landlord had done nothing to the property since that date.
5. The tenant said the landlord ignored his obligations to repair and maintain the premises.

1. The tenant seeks an order for a full rent abatement from the 07 April 2025 to 02 May 2025, on the grounds the premises became wholly uninhabitable after two people inadvertently managed to put their feet through the rotten floorboards. Within a short period of time a ladder knocked another hole in the floor and the tenant's foot went through the floorboards in the study.
2. The tenant said he immediately took steps to move, but the notice of termination was served on the 16 April 2025 which was two days prior to Good Friday and it sought possession on the 25 April 2025, which is also a public holiday. It so happened this year that the Easter long weekend ended three days prior to the next public holiday being 25 April 2025, being the date for possession on the Notice. He said it was difficult organising to move when there were only three days that weren't public holidays between the date of service of the Notice and the date for possession specified in the Notice.
3. The tenant did not consider the property was safe after the timber floorboards began to give way.
4. For these reasons the tenant claims a 100% rent abatement from 07 April 2025 to 02 May 2025, which is the date he returned the keys.

1. The tenant claims compensation for the following:

(a) Hiring charges for rubbish bins

(b) Costs associated with the storage of his tools and materials

(c) Removalist fees

(d) Pest and termite inspection report

(e) Building report

1. The tenant alleges the landlord never provided him with rubbish bins. At the commencement of the tenancy the landlord personally told the tenant to put his rubbish in the council bins on the main street.
2. The tenant said he made an application to the council for rubbish bins. The request was refused by the council as the premises formed part of a Class 6 commercial building and as such the occupants are not entitled to council supplied rubbish bins.
3. The tenant said he made numerous requests to the landlord for bins. On the 07 August 2017 he entered into a contract with Veolia for the supply of a bin and monthly rubbish removal.
4. The tenant claims compensation in the sum of $3,255 for these bins. There is an email from Veolia dated 02 August 2017 stating the first service was booked for 30.08.17 and thereafter the last Wednesday of each month.
5. The tenant has provided two invoices only from Veolia:

(a) Tax invoice dated 24.09.2017 for collection service on the 30.08.17 in the sum of $41.80; and

(b) Tax invoice dated 31.03.25 in the sum of $74.53 for the following

(i) Collection charges on 25 March 2025 - $65.23

(ii) Monthly bin rental - $6.16

(iii) Fuel surcharge - $3.14

1. Apart from those two invoices, the tenant relies on a ten page document that is ledger which has a number of entries per page including headings/columns that refer to "Payer", "Sold to Party", "Billing Do", "Sales Doc", "Contract Description", "Material", "Bill date", "Serv rend", "Net price", "Total inc", "Cleaning date", "Clearing Docum", "Posting Key Na", "Doc No", "Document Date", "Due on".
2. The ledger does not bear any insignia from Veolia. The headings on the ledger bear no resemblance to the two tax invoices from Veolia. There are no other tax invoices from Veolia, apart from the two referred to above. The tenant gave no evidence in relation to this ledger, other than to say this was evidence in support of his claim for compensation for rubbish bins.

1. The tenant claims the sum of $7,700 for removalist fees. He relies on a tax invoice from Sharks Cement Transport Pty ltd dated 13 May 2025. The invoice is not itemised other than to say the charges are for the

"Removal transport of goods and furniture

18 - 21 April 2025- Easter long weekend.

Pickup Location: Croydon Park

Delivery: Ingleburn"

1. The tax invoice is addressed to the tenant's business Westlink Plumbing.
2. The tenant claims the sum of $3,300 for storage fees. He relies on a tax invoice from Cement Distribution Pty Ltd dated 13 May 2025. The description of the services on the invoice states:

"Storage of Tools and materials at 59 Lancaster Street, Ingleburn

21 April 2025 to 19 May 2025 @$750 per week"

1. The tenant said he stored his tools and materials at the rental premises and when he vacated at short notice and needed to find temporary storage for his work tools and materials. Cement Distribution Pty Ltd is a contractor for whom the tenant does work in his plumbing business.

1. The tenant said he did not trust the landlord and so he arranged for his own pest report. He relies on a report from Iconic Pest Solutions dated 15 April 2025. He claims reimbursement for the report in the sum of $245.
2. The tenant admitted he had not provided a copy of this report to landlord, prior to including it with his bundle of evidence for the hearing.
3. The tenant did not make any submissions or provide any explanation as to why the landlord would be liable to reimburse him for this report.
4. The tenant also served a report from AJ Turner Building, dated 24 April 2025. The tenant seeks an order for the landlord to reimburse him the costs of this report in the sum of $2,500.01.
5. Mr Turner conducted his inspection of the premises on the 23 April 2025. This was after the tenant had vacated the premises and removed his goods and furniture and had his tools and materials stored at another location.
6. The tenant gave no evidence as to the purpose of this report or why the landlord would be liable to reimburse him for the costs.

1. Following the routine inspection on the 09 July 2024, the managing agent acknowledged receipt of the tenant's email confirming the repairs that were discussed at the inspection. He informed the tenant he would pass the email onto the landlord.
2. The landlord's documents confirm the agent did pass on the tenant's request for repairs to the landlord. It is the landlord's submission that as the tenant made no further request in relation to the listed repairs, the landlord took no steps to undertake any of the requested repairs.
3. The landlord appeared to suggest there was no reason not to undertake the requested repairs, as the tenant had paid the rent increase.
4. The landlord made no submissions as to the withdrawal of facilities at the premises arising from the failure to undertake the repairs requested by the tenant at the meeting in the 09 July 2024 and in the subsequent email of 30 July 2024.
5. The landlord said the tenant's loss of facilities at the premise was minor in nature and for this reason the rent reduction should be either $nil or some minor amount.

1. The landlord conceded the premises were uninhabitable from the 07 April 2025. However, it says the tenant did not vacate on the 25 April 2025 and in fact he asked to stay for a while longer after that date and did not return the keys until the 02 May 2025.
2. The landlord said it would not nominate any figure for the abatement, but would leave this determination to the Tribunal.

1. The landlord submitted the Veolia bins were used by tenant for his own commercial purposes in his plumbing business. They were large 66,9 litre bins.
2. The tenant was informed that he could use the café bins for his household rubbish. This is not confirmed in writing or in the residential tenancy agreement to this effect.
3. The Veolia bins are 66 litre bins they are much larger than the bins one would use for residential purposes. The landlord was unable to say how many, if any council issued bins the tenant would be entitled to have supplied to him as a resident.
4. At no time during the currency of the tenancy did the tenant provide the landlord with invoices from Veolia and request reimbursement.

1. The landlord submits the removalist fees are excessive. The landlord relies on a quotation from Holloways Removals that it obtained for removal fees on the 09 June 2025, which was a public holiday. The hourly rate is quoted as being $250 per hour.
2. The landlord submitted the tenant removed most of his possessions from the property himself on the back of a trailer.
3. The landlord denies liability for any removal fees.
4. There was never an agreement between the parties, either verbal or in writing that the tenant could store his tools and materials at the premises. The landlord submits that the storage fees are excessive. For these reasons the landlord is not liable for the storage fees for the tenant's work tools and materials.

1. An ASIC search reveals the builder's business is permanently closed. The landlord was not served with either of the reports at any time prior to the tenant vacating and accordingly the landlord is not liable to reimburse the tenant for the costs of the building or pest reports.

1. I am satisfied that at the routine inspection on the 09 July 2024 the tenant pointed out the need for repair to the five items set out above. I am satisfied that after not hearing from the landlord for a period of some three weeks after that inspection he emailed the landlord's managing agent and reminded him of the items that required attention.
2. I am satisfied the managing agent passed this email onto the landlord.
3. For reasons which were never explained the landlord elected to completely ignore his obligations under the Act in relation to repairs.
4. The tenant has given cogent evidence in relation to the withdrawal of facilities arising out of the landlord's failure to undertake the repairs in a timely manner after the inspection on the 09 July 2024. The landlord did not dispute the tenant's evidence in relation to this claim.
5. The tribunal is satisfied these were not minor repairs. The floor was rotten and gave way in at least two places,
6. The premises were not watertight. There was water ingress through the window that required repair. This had a flow on effect of causing the electricity to trip and the electrical appliances turning off without warning.
7. The air conditioning unit in the bedroom meant the room became very hot as a result of the bakery adjacent to the premises, and no doubt this was exacerbated during the summer months.
8. The bathroom fan was faulty which resulted in mould in the bathroom, and this had also caused the ceiling paint in the bathroom to flake off.
9. For all these reasons I find there was a withdrawal of facilities at the premises from the date of the inspection being the 09 July 2024 to the date the premises became uninhabitable, which the landlord conceded was the 07 April 2025.
10. I note the rent as at the 09 July 2024 was $520 per week and it increased to $580 per week on the 25 August 2025.
11. For these reasons I make following orders pursuant to s 44(1)(b) of the Act:

(a) The rent is not to exceed the sum of $460 per week from the 09 July 2024 to the 24 August 2024; and

(b) The rent is not to exceed the sum of $520 per week from the 25 August 2024 to the 06 April 2025.

(c) The landlord is to repay the tenant the sum of $2,331.43 for rent paid in excess of the above amounts for the period from 09 July 2024 to 06 April 2025.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied the premises were wholly uninhabitable from 07 April 2025. There were holes in the floor of the premises opening to the commercial premises below.
2. The Tribunal determines the rent should be rebated to $Nil from the 07 April 2025 to 02 May 2025.
3. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant the sum of $1,905 by way of reimbursement of rent paid by the tenant for that period.

1. I am not persuaded on the evidence the landlord is liable to pay the landlord compensation in relation to the hiring of the Veolia bins.
2. I accept the landlord's evidence that these are commercial bins.
3. The ten page ledger document is meaningless without the source documents from Veolia, which apparently would provide the basis for the ledger.
4. The first invoice before the Tribunal is dated 24 September 2017. Under the Act and Regulations a claim for compensation is to be made within three months of first becoming aware of the breach. In this case the tenant alleges the breach occurred at the very start of the tenancy in 2016. There is no explanation as to why he did not make a claim for compensation when told by the landlord he could use the street bins for disposal of his household rubbish. This claim for compensation is way out of time, and accordingly the claim for the landlord to pay the tenant for the hire of the bins is dismissed

1. The Tribunal accepts the tenant's submission that he was served with a Notice of Termination with possession to be given on a public holiday. And the previous week was Easter week with a four day holiday weekend.
2. I accept any removalist would charge a premium at that time of the year. However, having said that, I am satisfied that the fees charged by the removalist company appear excessive. The tenant lived in a one bedroom plus study apartment. It seems extraordinary that the costs to remove his household possessions would cost $7,000.
3. The tax invoice is not itemised. There is no explanation as to why it would take a professional removalist between the 18th and 21st April, some four days to remove the tenant's household possessions from his apartment.
4. I note the landlord has a quotation for removalists fees on a public holiday with a rate of $250 per hour.
5. I also note that Sharks Cement Transport Pty Ltd (the removalist) and Cement Distribution Pty Ltd (the storage facility) are purportedly both incorporated entities, with separate ABN numbers, but they share the same bank account details. Neither of the entities have their Australian Company Numbers on their letterheads. It seems unusual the two incorporated entities would share the same bank account.
6. I also note tax invoices form the removalist and storage companies are addressed to the tenant's business Westlink Plumbing.
7. Having said that, I accept the tenant did incur removalist fees as a result of having to vacate the premises on short notice as a result of the premises becoming uninhabitable.
8. Doing the best I can and on the evidence available I find the landlord is to pay the tenant removalist fees in the sum of $2,000.
9. In relation to the storage fees for the tenant tools and materials, there are no particulars in the invoice as to size of the storage facility. The tenant gave no evidence as to the size of the storage area he was using at the residential premises.
10. There is no evidence as to when the tenant moved into new premises or why his work tools and materials needed to be stored in the facility for three weeks.
11. Again doing the best I can on the evidence available I find the landlord is to pay the tenant compensation for storage of his tools and materials in the sum of $1,500.

1. The tribunal is not satisfied the landlord is liable to pay the tenant compensation as reimbursement for either of the reports:

(1) The builder Mr Turner undertook an inspection of the property on the 23 April 2025. According to the removalist invoice the tenant had removed all his possessions from the property by the 21 April 2025. There is no explanation from the respondent as to why he engaged a builder to inspect premises and provide a report after he had vacated.

(2) Similarly the tenant failed to explain why he had retained Iconic Pest Solutions to undertake a pest inspection of the property after he had agreed the premises were uninhabitable, after being served with the Notice of Termination.

1. For these reasons the Tribunal declines to make an order for the landlord to reimburse the tenant for costs of the building and the pest reports

1. For all of the above reasons the Tribunal makes the following orders:

(1) The landlord is to pay the tenant $7,736.43 within 14 days from the date of these orders, made up as follows:

(2) In accordance s 44(1)(b) of the Act:

(a) The rent is not to exceed the sum of $460 per week from the 09 July 2024 to the 24 August 2024; and

(b) The rent is not to exceed the sum of $520 per week from the 25 August 2024 to the 06 April 2025.

(3) The landlord is to repay the tenant the sum of $2,331.43 for rent paid in excess of the above amounts for the period from 09 July 2024 to 06 April 2025.

(4) In accordance with s 43(2) of the Act the rent is abated to $nil per week from the 07 April 2025 to 02 May 2025.

(5) The landlord is to refund the tenant the sum of $1,905 for rent paid from 07 April 2025 to 02 May 2025

(6) The landlord is to pay the tenant compensation in the sum of $3,500 pursuant to s 187(1)(d) of the Act.

(7) The application is otherwise dismissed.

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.