Hodge v Ghezelbash [2025] NSWCATCD 214;

1. The Renewal comprises some 50 pages with various attachments such as a letter to the Tribunal, emails and 28 photographs.
2. The orders sought in the Renewal Application are:

(1) enforcement of work orders made on 28 February 2025 requiring the landlord to complete all outstanding works within 14 days;

(2) penalties for the landlord's ongoing noncompliance with orders of 28 February 2025;

(3) the termination notice issued on 29 April 2025 (for rent arrears) be set aside due to ongoing non-compliance with work orders; and

(4) any other orders the Tribunal sees fit to ensure compliance and safety of the Premises.

"the leaking roof [in bedroom 4] has not been properly repaired,

black mould has returned,

asbestos contamination remains, and

rotting carpets and structures have not been addressed.

Despite partial attempts at repair, the property remains unsafe and in breach of the original orders."

1. A letter addressed to the Tribunal attached to the Renewal also seeks:

(1) a continuation of the 40% rent reduction as the repairs have not been completed;

(2) further work orders to repair new defects to be included in the enforcement orders, such as the broken master bedroom clothing rail and faulty and used shower brackets and taps;

(3) the balance of the $13,000 compensation allocated for alternative accommodation; and

(4) compensation for emotional distress, loss of enjoyment and poor health and uninhabitable conditions.

Renewal Orders confirmed at Directions Hearing on 8 July 2025

1. At a (second) Directions Hearing on 8 July 2025 the Presiding Member recorded:

"The applicant/ tenant seeks, on renewal, an order for compensation and/or a further rent reduction due to the landlord's alleged failure to repair the residential premises as per the orders of 28 February 2025."

1. The tenant is no longer seeking penalties nor to set aside the termination notice. The presiding Member recorded that:

"NOTE 2 - The applicant confirmed today that she no longer seeks an order regarding the Termination Notice issued on 29 April 2025 [for rent arrears] and will lodge separate applications if [she] decides to seek a penalty and/or challenges the Termination Notice issued [on 5 May 2025] for end of fixed term [on 22 September 2025]."

1. The tenant subsequently filed a separate application on 28 July 2025 (2025/00289035) alleging that the fixed term termination notice was retaliatory. That matter was listed for hearing on 6 November 2025 and was dismissed that day due to the tenant's non-appearance.
2. In response to the Renewal Application, the landlord says:

(1) The works were completed on 14 March 2025 and the tenant has tendered no building report stating the repairs have not been carried out satisfactorily. The tenant moved back in on 15 March 2025 and the fortnightly rent should revert to full rent of $2,160 from 15 March 2025.

(2) Alternatively, the works have been substantially completed and any departures and omissions are minor and the tenant is not entitled to a continuing 40% rent increase.

(3) Further, any breaches are a result of the tenant preventing access.

(4) Some structural repairs are not the subject of the Work Order (roof leak, rotten beams and floorboards) and should not be the subject of the Renewal.

(5) Since the Renewal, the landlord's builder has returned to address returned mould and the collapsed ceiling in the corner of bedroom 4.

1. The tenant relies on two bundles of documents filed and served on 18 June 2025 (162 pages) and 28 July 2025 (62 pages), which I have marked exhibit T1 and T2 respectively.
2. The tenant's documents include:

(1) Statement

(2) Additional evidence concerning historical roof collapse in bedroom 4

(3) Timeline

(4) Builder's quotes relied upon at hearing of Original Application

(5) Correspondence with Agent

(6) Medical evidence

(7) Photos.

1. The landlord relies on one bundle of documents filed 29 August 2025 (292 pages), which I have marked exhibit L1. The landlord's documents include:

(1) Submissions

(2) Invoices

(3) Photos

(4) Owner and builder statutory declarations

(5) Ingoing condition report.

1. The Tribunal's power, when exercising functions allocated to the Consumer and Commercial Division, to renew proceedings that have been heard and determined is found in clause 8 of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act). That clause relevantly provides:

Renewal of proceedings in respect of certain division decisions

...

(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 the order has not been complied with.

...

(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.

...

1. The tenant delayed moving in for 2 weeks whilst repairs were undertaken.
2. The ingoing condition report with the tenant's comments raised the following matters relevant to the Renewal: black mould, rotting floorboards and damaged carpet in bedroom 4 due to leaking roof (pp 45, 46, 100), rotting floorboards in entrance hall outside bathroom due to leaking shower (pp 48, 52, 60, 116), upstairs bathroom has mould, missing drain cover and is a safety risk (47, 48, 52) and rotting garbage under stairs.

1. The Original Application was filed within a month of the tenant moving in.
2. As the Senior Member stated at the hearing of the Original Application on 28 February 2025: "A central cause of loss and damage at the centre of the matter involves the upstairs bathroom" (par 10(9)). The deciding issue for the tenant was when tiles fell off the walls in the shower cubicle whilst showering.
3. The Original Application raised nine defects:

(1) Bedroom 4 - extreme black mould and rotting floorboards [no leak has been pleaded]

(2) Bathroom - loose and broken tiles in shoer recess and exposed gyprock

(3) Bathroom - no waterproofing

(4) Rotten floorboards at the entrance of the bathroom and hallway causing substantial damage and a very large hole down to the roof structures because of water damage.

(5) Rotting garbage under the stairs

(6) Broken and missing tiles in court yard

(7) Broken window locks and door locks

(8) Green moss on the upstairs balcony

(9) Broken security alarm/camera

1. The tenant sought repair orders, a rent reduction under s 44(1)(b) and compensation for economic and non-economic loss in relation to above maters based upon breaches of ss 52 and 63 of the Act.
2. Upon filing the Original Application, the tenant requested an urgent hearing. On 31 October 2024, the matter was granted an urgent hearing and the matter came before the Tribunal on an urgent basis on 14 November 2024.
3. Following a hearing on 14 November 2024, after consideration of the evidence, the Member determined the matter was complex but not urgent and adjourned the proceedings to a final hearing to take place in the new year. The Member stated the hearing would be confined to the following matters:

"The hearing is to be ONLY of the following issues, namely claims for compensation or rent reduction in respect of the following alleged matters: (a) mould; (b) disrepair of bathroom; (c) asbestos; (d) No keys for window locks; (e) Oven doors not closing; (f) Toilet patched together with tape; (g) Cladding coming off internal doors; (h) Broken and cracked tiles in courtyard; (i) Broken screen doors or with ripped mesh; (j) non functional front light; (k) flickering lights; (l) broken keys in door locks; (m) and rotting floorboards outside bathroom door."

1. On 2 December 2024, the tenant made a further application for an urgent hearing accompanied by an expert report dated 2 December 2024.
2. On 3 December an urgent hearing was granted on a limited basis, concerning only the alleged asbestos in the bathroom and the matter was listed to be heard on 18 December 2024.

1. Following a hearing on 18 December 2024 the Tribunal made a repair order for the bathroom and awarded a 40% rent reduction. The interim orders made were as follows:

(1) by 28 February 2025, the landlord was to repair or renovate the structures in the bathroom including the tiles and wall sheeting in the bathroom so as to comply with all relevant Australian building standards and codes relating to waterproofing and asbestos so as to provide an appropriate functional shower (Interim Bathroom Repair Order).

(2) rent shall not exceed the sum of $1,296.00, per fortnight from 13 October 2024 to 18 December 2024 and continuing until all appropriate repairs are carried out or further order.

1. The balance of the Original Application was adjourned to the final hearing on 28 February 2025.

Orders made on 28 February 2025 the subject of the Renewal

1. Following a hearing on 28 February 2025, the Tribunal made orders which were accompanied by Reasons of Senior Member Goldman dated 4 March 2025.

1. On 28 February 2025, the Tribunal found that although the Interim Bathroom Repair Order had not been carried out by 28 February 2025, the landlord had "demonstrated a willingness to perform the work order already made" [Reasons, pars 3 & 20].
2. The Tribunal noted the tenant provided evidence from a number of potential contractors "suggesting a much greater scope of works was required to satisfy the landlord's obligations". The Tribunal recorded the problems with that evidence [par 18] such as contractors "using the opportunity for their own commercial benefit.,. at the prompting of a customer evidently keen to maximise the restoration of the premises in a manner which could give rise to going beyond the landlord's obligations." Ultimately the Member was satisfied that "the scope of work proposed by the landlord is reasonable in terms of attempting to comply with [the Interim bathroom Repair Order]" [Reasons, par 3].
3. The Tribunal vacated the Interim Work Order and substituted it with Order 3, being a further work order pursuant to s 187(1)(e), namely:

(3) By 4 April 2025 that the landlord was to engage a licensed builder to carry out the following repairs:

(a) Repair and renovate to the extent required the structures in the bathroom including:

(i) the tiles and wall sheeting

(ii) waterproofing

(iii) shower installation

so as to provide a proper functioning bathroom compliant with relevant Australian building standards and codes applicable to a building of the nature of the rental premises.

(b) Treat all parts of the premises where asbestos standards are not being met such that the premises will be safe for habitation, including where required taking such steps to replace or make safe contaminated fixtures and fittings including carpets, compliant with relevant Australian asbestos standards;

(c) Remove black mould from the premises

(d) Fix all remaining broken tiles

(e) Fix all damaged security screens

(f) Fix all internal doors such that they can be opened and closed and provide privacy.

(Work Orders).

1. To facilitate the Work Orders, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to relocate to temporary accommodation for the duration of the repairs and to provide reasonable cooperation to the landlord or Agent.
2. The tenant was also ordered not to attend the Premises during the works or contact the builders and contractors appointed by the landlord to undertake the Work Orders.
3. The Reasons state the Tribunal found one of the reasons for the landlord not completing the Interim Bathroom Repair Works sooner was due to "attempts by the applicant tenant to involve herself in the works which may inadvertently on her part have added to the delay." [Reasons, par. 3(2)].

1. The Tribunal ordered pursuant to s 44(1)(b) the 40% rent reduction to continue (from 13 October 2024) until the Work Orders were complete, or 22 September 2025, being the end of the fixed term, whichever date is sooner.
2. The Tribunal said: "the abatement ordered [on 18 December 2024] is reasonable and should continue until the work orders the Tribunal decides in these reasons are fulfilled." [Reasons, par 14].

1. The Tribunal ordered under s 187(1)(d) the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000 as compensation for her personal property contaminated by asbestos and mould. The tenant's higher claim for compensation of $10,000 for her damaged goods was rejected. At the hearing on 7 October 2025, the tenant confirmed she had been paid $2,000.
2. The Tribunal ordered under s 187(1)(c) that the landlord pay the tenant for the reasonable cost of temporary accommodation. As this cost was not yet known to the parties on 29 February 2025, any amount for accommodation (together with the already awarded compensation of $2,000) was limited to the Tribunal's $15,000 monetary jurisdiction.
3. The parties confirmed the tenant and her children stayed for three nights at an Airbnb for 11, 12 and 13 March 2025 during which time repairs were carried out. The tenant said she did not receive an invoice for the accommodation as the Agent facilitated and paid for the accommodation. The Agent confirmed the landlord paid an amount of $1,316.51 for three night' accommodation.
4. The tenant has therefore been compensated $3,316.51.
5. The tenant moved back into the Premises on 15 March 2025.

Outstanding repairs confirmed at hearing on 7 October 2025

1. At the Directions Hearing on 8 July 2025, the tenant was directed to provide a list of outstanding repairs and cross reference them to the Work Orders made on 28 February 2025.
2. Unfortunately, Ms Hodge did not do so. At the hearing, a list was compiled with each party's comments, which I have set out immediately below.

Bathroom - tiles/waterproofing (and subfloor underneath bathroom/structural concerns)

1. As to Order 3(a)(i), the tenant says this has been complied with. The broken tiles and wall sheeting/fibre board in the shower have been replaced.
2. As to Order 3(a)(ii), the tenant says the water proofing has been carried out. However, the tenant says the compromised subfloor and rotten timber beams under the bathroom floor were neither assessed nor fixed. The tenant submits these should have been included in the bathroom repairs.
3. The landlord says "structural issues" relating to rotten beams and joists fall outside the scope of the Work Orders. The landlord says "a thorough structural inspection is not currently feasible" due to the Premises being occupied by "multiple residents and substantial personal belongings" (p 79).
4. Ms Hodge say it was a "quick 3-day job" carried out with a "minimal and rushed effort" and Senior Member Goldman clearly anticipated a repair period of 4-6 weeks, in which time major structural repairs, including the rotten beams and joists would be replaced.
5. The tenant concedes it would be unreasonable to pull up the waterproofing and start again.
6. Ms Hodge also says the unstable and rotting floorboards outside the bathroom in the hallway have not been fixed.
7. The Agent says the floorboards were repaired on 16 January 2025 (p 151), prior to the Work Order. It involved a "minor flooring issue" (less than 30cms) beneath the carpet.

1. The tenant says Order 3(a)(iii) has not been complied with satisfactorily as the shower is leaking and the shower fittings that were installed are second hand and faulty as the taps keep popping out and the showerhead collapses during use.
2. The drain cover which she raised in the ingoing report was not provided until 18 July 2025. After being told the delay was due to the rain cover being "custom made overseas", it was apparent it was a cheap fitting.
3. The owner had been happy to address the shower taps and contends there is no evidence of a leaking shower.

1. As to Order 3(b), the tenant says the asbestos in the bathroom walls has been secured but debris has not been removed by a licensed Class A professional, only covered up and asbestos debris and fibres remain in the carpets.
2. The bathroom was not cleaned with dust, cobwebs and peeling paint from the ceiling remaining.
3. The carpets were not replaced nor cleaned and are contaminated. The asbestos shards need to be removed by a licensed asbestos removalist.
4. This is contravention of the order to make good.
5. The landlord does not dispute the carpet was not replaced but says there is no evidence of asbestos shards contained in the carpet and the landlord was only required to make good the asbestos affected fixtures and fittings, not replace them.

1. As to Order 3(c), the tenant submits the black mould in her son's bedroom 4 and bathroom was merely wiped down with bleach and mould returned within two weeks, by 6-8 April (pp 29, 83). On 23 May 2025, Ms Hodge reported a portion of the bedroom ceiling had collapsed, the tenant alleges due to the mould. The tenant says the recurring mould is due to a roof leak. Whilst the landlord fixed the ceiling hole, the roof is still leaking, making the new plaster wet and more mould has returned. The tenant relies on photos taken just prior to the hearing.
2. The Agent says a professional cleaner attended on 14 March and 25 July 2025.
3. The hole was plastered up by the landlord's builder, Matracon on 20 June. The builder also "repaired roof tiles and sarking insulation", which fixed the leak.

1. As to Order 3(d), of the approximately 20 tiles, one was chipped and one required replacing.
2. The Agent was not aware all the tiles had not been fixed and had been amenable to fixing any minor outstanding issues.

1. As to Order 3(e), the tenant says of the three screen doors that were broken, only one (the front door screen) was fixed. Two other doors (rear sliding and bedroom 2) were not fixed.
2. The Agent said his understanding of order 3(e) was that only damaged security screen doors (ripped mesh/screen and tracks repairs) were required to be repaired, not flyscreens doors.

1. As to Order 3(f) two internal doors (master bedroom and loungeroom) were broken and both were only partially fixed.
2. The Agent said the doors still lock and there is no evidence of the doors failing.

1. The tenant did not quantify what additional compensation she sought. During the hearing she nominated an amount of $12,000. Her rational for this is that she did not receive the full benefit of the compensation order capped $15,000, she only received $3,316.51 and she is entitled to claim the balance as the Tribunal Member allocated $13,000 for alternative accommodation (p 77). She says if the Works Orders had been done properly and in accordance with her builder's scope, the repairs would have taken longer than 3 days and the landlord has tried to limit his obligation to pay for accommodation. Her building report states the Works would take 6 weeks.
2. The tenant also seeks compensation for stress and interference with her enjoyment of the Premises, again not quantified.

1. The tenant says not all of the Works have been completed or satisfactorily completed. She has paid 60% rent ($1,296 per fortnight) from 18 December 2024 and maintains she is entitled to the 40% reduction up to 22 September 2025 and thereafter concedes she is liable for 100%.
2. The landlord submitted all Works were done by 14 March 2025 and rent should thereafter revert to $2,160 per fortnight.
3. The tenant has not made any payment at all since 2 September 2025 when she made a payment of $1,296.
4. The Agent submits as at 7 October 2025, the tenant owes $16,107,44 in rent. This is calculated on the basis full rent was due and owing from 15 March 2025.
5. The landlord served a second termination notice for rent arrears on 24 July 2025 with a subsequent application filed on 28 July 2025 (2025/00287727). The tenant says this is in contravention of the rent orders. She submits the "false debt" is damaging her rental record.
6. The tenant says she has never been told whether she had received a credit for the rent relief orders made on 18 December 2024 and 28 February 2025.
7. Mr Yang was not able to explain whether the backdated rent reduction commencing 13 October 2024 had been applied and if so how and when it took effect. The ledger handed up at the hearing was incomplete.
8. The Agent advised the rent arrears application filed on 28 July 2025 was withdrawn.
9. Ms Hodge says her last payment of 2 September 2025 took her to two weeks in advance, that is, to 16 September 2025 and she admits she owes three weeks rent as of the date of the hearing on 7 October 2025, not $16,107.44.

1. In Bondarek v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2018] NSWCATAP 299 at [44-45], it was noted that a renewal hearing does not involve a re-hearing of the initial application but instead requires a consideration of what to do next when there has been non-compliance with the earlier order.
2. The Tribunal has a wide discretion in renewal proceedings to determine what are appropriate orders, including the power to make orders that could not have been made in the original proceedings because there was no power to make a particular order at that stage, but such a power has been enlivened by subsequent events: Blessed Sydney Constructions Pty Ltd v Vasudevan [2018] NSWCATAP 98 at [41]- [43]; Bondarek at [43]-[45]; [54].
3. On a renewal application, the Tribunal can make an order that is materially different from the order made when the proceedings were originally determined: Vasudevan at [52].
4. The Tribunal also has broad powers to extend time of its own motion under s 41 of the NCAT Act, even where the relevant period of time has passed.

1. The landlord's builder's report is inaccurate and it merely repeats the wording of the Work Orders.
2. Black mould in bedroom 4 and the leak between the ceiling and roof had not been repaired. The roof has been "a known issue since before my lease commenced". (p 73/77).
3. On 23 May 2025 the tenant emailed the Agent that: "the roof and mould issues in bedroom 4 remain unresolved" and "the corners of the roof are now caving in." (p 228).
4. In May 20205 her doctor treated her for symptoms related to mould exposure. She relies on a report from Dr Denise Ierino of Mind Your Health Medical Centre dated 3 June 2025 that states Ms Hodges's chest Xray and scan "demonstrate mild generalised bronchial wall thickening". Dr Ierino has referred Ms Hodge to a respiratory physician to explore "the possibility of mould toxicity."
5. The tenant relies on a letter dated 14 December 2022 from Dr Kim Granland, Clinical Psychologist attesting to her "mental health problems for Dyslexia, Stress Management, Clinical Depression and Generalised Anxiety Disorder". Dr Granland says: "these disorders have had and continue to have a severe impact on her psychological and daily functioning."
6. She did not refuse access. Her children were unwell with glandular fever for all of May 2025.
7. The tenant seeks to agitate on Renewal further matters that were not the subject of the Work Orders, such as the wardrobe hanging rod. The landlord's first repair in March was inadequate. She reported it again in April 2025 (p 76). She has not overloaded the wardrobe with clothes as the Agent contends.

1. On 14 March 2025 the Agent advised Ms Hodge the repairs were complete and the property was ready to move back into that morning. The tenant was provided with photos showing the works were done and an invoice for $3,030 from licensed builder, Matracon Pty Ltd.
2. The landlord relies on a report dated 2 April 2025 and a statutory declaration dated 29 August 2025 of licensed builder, Mr Faramarz Zehtab of Matracon Pty Ltd confirming the all repairs were completed and asbestos removed. The landlord has provided his own statutory declaration that he has engaged licensed professionals to comply with Tribunal orders.
3. The tenant immediately disputed the Work Orders had not been complied with.
4. On 8 April 2025 Mr Yang and Ms Reed from the Agent's office attended the property to carry out an inspection with the tenant (p 81).
5. The landlord agreed to send his builder back to remedy minor issues.
6. At the end of April 2025, the tenant advised she would not provide access for 4 weeks as her children were ill.
7. The tenant also raised issue with the roof. On 28 April the Agent said further investigation of the roof fell outside the Work Orders (p 75).
8. The mould was removed by the builder during 11 to 14 March 2025.
9. When informed by the tenant on 23 May 2025 that mould had returned to bedroom 4 and the ceiling had caved in, the landlord wanted his builder to inspect the damage. The builder could have attended as early as 4 June, but the tenant was unable to provide access on the days offered. The tenant did not allow access at that time and the builder could not reattend until later in June.
10. The builder was finally able to inspect the roof on Friday, 13 June and completed plaster works and fix the hole on 20 June.
11. The Agent agrees that mould has come and gone, but the landlord disputes that mould caused the ceiling to cave in. The tenant did not report any leak until the Tribunal directions hearing on 8 July 2025.
12. As to the claim that a neighbour has said the roof previously collapsed, the Agent says it has managed the property since 2016 and has no record of this.
13. On 25 July, the owner arranged for another mould clean by a professional cleaner, even though the landlord contends further mould falls under tenant's maintenance responsibilities.
14. The landlord's builder's scope of work included the safe removal and remediation of any asbestos materials found. Asbestos is a naturally occurring material found in many NSW homes built before 1990.
15. The wardrobe raised was a new issue. The ingoing report showed it to be in good condition. It has been repaired once at the landlord's expense. The tenant has overloaded it with clothes causing it to break again.
16. The tenant continues to use bedroom 4 which comprises less than 10% of the internal floor space and does not warrant a continuing 40% reduction.
17. In April the landlord offered to waive the (then) break fee and offered a further $2,000, which was rejected.
18. Ms Hodge claims to have developed asbestosis. As per NSW Health, such conditions typically take 20-30 years to develop.

1. The onus is on the applicant to prove her case and she is hampered by not having filed expert evidence in support of the Renewal filed April 2025, despite being given opportunities to do so pursuant to directions made on 2 June 2025 and 8 July 2025. She relies solely on photographs she has taken after the Works were completed during 11-14 March 2025. None of the contractors who provided quotes to Ms Hodge for general repairs have expressed a professional opinion on the nature of the repairs undertaken by the landlord's builder, Metricon Pty Ltd.
2. I find the bathroom has been repaired, Ms Hodge acknowledges as such. No evidence was presented as to a current leak in the shower.
3. I find there is no evidence of asbestos and accept the owner's builder's expert that he has removed asbestos and made the Premises safe. The tenant has not proven otherwise.
4. Mould has returned since the initial clean in March 2025 and the landlord paid for a second clean.
5. In respect of failure to comply with the balance of the Work Orders, I find that there had been "substantial" compliance, but that the Work Orders had not been complied with inconsequentially, in regard to:

(1) one flyscreen

(2) two outdoor tiles

(3) internal doors

(4) shower taps

1. The landlord has expressed a desire to have his builder reattend to fix these issues. I accept that access issues due to the tenant's sick children for a month prevented the owner from doing so.
2. The Renewal seeks an order that all works be completed within 14 days.
3. The words, "any other appropriate order" in s 8(4) of schedule 4 NCAT Act means that the Tribunal in Renewal Proceedings cannot simply make the same order.
4. The defects have not been costed and a money order has not been sought in lieu.
5. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to extend time under s 41 of the NCAT Act to allow these works to be completed.
6. I also consider it appropriate to order the landlord to carry out a carpet steam clean and a mould treatment.

Defects not part of Work Order - bathroom sub-floor, floorboards outside bathroom, leak in bedroom 4

1. Investigating rotting structural beams and joists underneath the bathroom and upstairs generally were not part of the Work Orders.
2. Unlike rotten floorboards outside the bathroom and in bedroom 4 which were part of the Original Application (discussed below), the issue of investigating and repairing the subfloor and rotten floor joists and beams upstairs (which is a much bigger and costlier enterprise) was not raised in the Original Application.
3. These alleged structural issues pertaining to a "compromised subfloor" appear to have emerged later via the reports from the tenant's contractors supplying quotes to address waterproofing issues, such as the tiler, Plonc Tiles (pp 10-13) and licensed builder, My Renovations Group dated 19 November 2024 (p 14-17).
4. The tenant is not entitled to be heard on new defects/matters that were not the subject of the Original Application. This is because a renewal is for enforcing the original Work Orders, not for introducing new issues.
5. The new defects would more properly be the subject of a fresh application.
6. However, it seems that the Senior Member envisaged rotten beams and joists, at least under the bathroom, would be attended to as part of the waterproofing of the floor and walls which was included in the Work Orders. This is made clear at [21(2)] of the Senior Member's Reasons whereby he states: "...rotting structural beams and waterproofing, will be remedied by the bathroom works." He also noted that the "creaking" of the floorboards said by the applicant to come from the area "does not equate to structural unsoundness", particularly when taking into account the age of the house (which being subdivided in the 19702, was over 50 years).
7. There is no evidence since the bathroom works were carried out that the waterproofing is faulty or the subfloor poses a structural risk or that the floor is unsafe to walk on. For instance, Ms Hodge has not had her contractor from Plonc inspect the works post repair.
8. The landlord's builder has attested to the repairs being structurally compliant.
9. Ms Hodge herself has said it would be unreasonable to pull up the bathroom works including waterproofing to investigate the subfloor.
10. I am not satisfied that Ms Hodge has discharged her burden of proof that following the bathroom repairs, the subfloor is compromised and I dismiss this aspect of the claim.

1. Similarly, fixing broken floorboards in the hallway outside the bathroom were not part of the Work Orders.
2. Again it seems that the Senior Member envisaged they would be repaired: "broken floorboards on the first floor outside bathroom... will be remedied by the bathroom works." (21(2)).
3. The floorboards outside the bathroom were part of the Original Application: "Rotten floorboards at the entrance of the bathroom and hallway and a very large hole down to the roof structures because of water damage."
4. It would appear they were not in the Work Orders because the Senior Member was satisfied the floorboards outside the bathroom had already been repaired. The Senior Member said: "to the extent the floor once posed a danger, chipboard has covered an exposed hole." (par 10(3) and 21(2)).
5. From Bondarek, at [44], it is clear that the Tribunal is not limited to a consideration of the evidence that was before the Tribunal which resulted in that earlier order or its existing findings on that material.
6. But the tenant has provided no expert evidence since the repairs were done to challenge that finding.
7. I dismiss any further claim relating to the broken floorboards.

1. Similarly, whilst a leak in bedroom 4 was not part of the Work Orders, the Senior Member states in his Reasons at [21(4)]: "Black mould in bedroom 4 and the leak between the ceiling and roof, to the extent still unrectified, should be repaired and all black mould removed."
2. The Original Application did not mention any leak in bedroom 4.
3. However the tenant's comments on the ingoing condition report refer to: "black mould, rotting floorboards and damaged carpet in bedroom 4 due to leaking roof."
4. The landlord's builder attended on 13 and 20 June and repaired roof tiles and installed sarking insulation.
5. The tenant relies on two photos dated 7 July 2025 (p 62) said to show "water [still] coming down the walls". The photos are unclear.
6. The tenant has not presented persuasive evidence of any leak after the landlord arranged for roof repairs on 20 June 2025.
7. I dismiss this aspect of the claim.

1. The new defects, such as the wardrobe rail would more properly be the subject of a fresh application.

1. Senior Member Goldman stated: "Once the bathroom is repaired and the exposed asbestos rectified, a considerable burden imposed by s 52 will be discharged." [par 21(1)].
2. The primary rationale for the 40% rent reduction from 13 October 2024 to the date of completion of repairs/end of fixed term on 22 September 2025, was to compensate for the reduced use of the premises due to asbestos and mould including the bathroom and bedroom 4.
3. Given I have found the bathroom has been repaired by 14 March 2025 and found no evidence of asbestos contamination or a leak, there is no basis to order rent to continue at 60% from 14 March 2025.
4. There is evidence the mould returned and the ceiling was water damaged in bedroom 4. This has now been addressed by roof repairs in June and a further clean in July. There was no evidence of broken floorboards in bedroom 4.
5. I have found substantial compliance with the balance of the Work Orders.
6. I have found the owner was to some extent impeded by a lack of access.
7. I will not disturb the 40% abatement order made by Member Bliim on 18 December 2024 which was confirmed by Senior Member Goldman on 28 February 2025. I find it is reasonable it should continue up until 14 March 2024, when the tenant moved back in and the Work Orders were substantially complete. After that time, I will allow a 20% rent reduction which takes into account the substantial repairs done to the bathroom, but recognises the re-emergence of issues in bedroom 4 and their associated inconvenience.
8. To that effect, I will vacate Order 1 made on 28 February 2025 and replace it with the following two orders, taking into account a rent reduction cannot exceed 12 months: s 44(6):

(1) rent be reduced by 40% from 13 October 2024 to 14 March 2025, so that it is not to exceed $1,296 per fortnight; and

(2) rent be reduced by 20% from 15 March 2025 to 12 October 2025, so that it is not to exceed $1,728 per fortnight for that period.

1. No consequential order (i.e., under s 47) has to date been made by way of restitution to refund any overpaid rent once the rent was reduced.
2. Whilst the tenant paid lesser rent of $1,296 per fortnight from 18 December 2024 when the interim orders were made, it is unclear from the ledger handed up at the hearing by the Agent whether the tenant has received the benefit of the rent adjustment of $864 per fortnight for the (backdated) period 13 October 2024 to 18 December 2024. On my calculations, this would translate to a rent credit of $3,456 as at 18 December 2024. It is unclear if the amount the landlord contends is owing, being $16,107.44, takes this credit into account.
3. Mr Yang was not able to assist except to say the ledger was incomplete.
4. It is not for the Tribunal to attempt to reconcile the ledger and make its own calculations.
5. In total, the combined effect of the orders made in the Original Application on 18 December 2024 and 28 February 2025 and this Renewal Application is that the tenant receives rent relief as follows:

(1) $3,456 - 13 October 2024 to 18 December 2024 (at 40%) $864 x 4.5 fortnights

(2) $5,616 - 19 December 2024 to 14 March 2025 (at 40%) $864 x 6.5 fortnights

(3) $6,480 - 15 March 2025 to 12 October 2025 (at 20%) $432 per fortnight x 15 fortnights.

1. The Agent said given no payment had been made by Ms Hodge for a month as at the date of the hearing before me on 7 October 2024, the landlord would shortly file an application for termination and possession for rent arrears.
2. Any money order will no doubt be the subject of the rent arrears termination application.

1. There is no evidence the tenant has spent her own money on accommodation.
2. The Senior Member discounted the tenant's evidence that the Works should take 6 weeks and said the landlord's scope of 3 days was reasonable.
3. The Senior Member did not award $13,000 for accommodation costs. With respect, the tenant has misconstrued the order.
4. I dismiss the claim for any further compensation costs.

1. The tenant seeks additional compensation for loss of enjoyment.
2. Section 50 of the Act relevantly states:

"50 Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment

(1) A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the residential premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or having superior title (such as a head landlord) to that of the landlord.

(2) A landlord or landlord's agent must not interfere with, or cause or permit any interference with, the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises."

1. Under s 50 tenant is entitled to claim damages for breach of the covenant of quite enjoyment, which goes to a loss of amenity or physical use suffered by a tenant generally due to failure of the landlord to keep the premises in a state of good repair.
2. There is obvious overlap with s 44(1)(b) which similarly proceeds on the basis that the physical characteristics or qualities of the premises have been withdrawn or reduced such as to affect the tenant's use of the premises.
3. The Appeal Panel has stated in Kork v Merheb [2021] NSWCATAP 349 at [66] that a claim for a rent reduction under s 44(1)(b) is separate from a claim for damages for the breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment, but cautioned that there may be overlap in the consideration of these claims, requiring the Tribunal to take care to avoid double compensation.
4. The concept of "enjoyment", as pleaded in this case, also includes distress, anxiety and disappointment. A tenant is entitled to claim as a separate head of loss for mental distress, including disappointment, distress or frustration, which is not restricted by s 16 of the Civil Liabilities Act 2002 (NSW), provided it cannot be described as a physical or psychiatric injury.
5. A breach of quiet enjoyment must be substantial rather than a mere inconvenience.
6. I note that the tenant sought compensation for interference of her quiet enjoyment as part of her Original Application (Reasons, par 5(1)(b)), but that the Senior Member determined it should not be in addition to rent relief under s 44(1)(b), but in the alternative (par 14). Ms Hodge was instead awarded economic loss for damage to her goods and for accommodation costs, the latter being loss she had not sought.
7. As to a loss of amenity, I am of the view the tenant has been sufficiently compensated by way of the rent relief order, which has been awarded in her favour for the maximum 12-month period allowed under the Act, which is a substantial reduction.
8. The evidence of stress from the tenant's psychologist is three years old and attests to a pre-existing condition. On that basis, I reject any claim for stress.
9. The tenant has included an undated photo of what appears to be blood and vomit on a white piece of cloth and appears to submit she has contracted an asbestos related condition.
10. The Tribunal does not have the ability to award damages for personal injuries.
11. In any event, there is no evidence as to the diagnosis, or when the photograph was taken, or to whom the cloth belongs. I do not place great weight upon it.
12. I dismiss any claim for an asbestos related illness.
13. I make orders as above.

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.