Tootill v Parklea Operations Pty Limited trading as Gateway Lifestyle Stanhope Gardens - [2019] NSWCATCD 89 - NSWCATCD 2019 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWCATCD

Tootill v Parklea Operations Pty Limited trading as Gateway Lifestyle Stanhope Gardens

[2019] NSWCATCD 89

NCAT Consumer and Commercial|2019-07-08|Before: Blake AM

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

NCAT Consumer and Commercial

Decision date

2019-07-08

Before

Blake AM

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (21 paragraphs)

[1]

Summary

In these proceedings the applicant, Nerida Tootill (Ms Tootill), and in 92 other proceedings each of the applicants referred to in Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4, seeks an order pursuant to s 85(3) of the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013 (NSW) (RLLC Act), or alternatively s 79N of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (FT Act), against the respondent, Parklea Operations Pty Limited trading as Gateway Lifestyle Stanhope Gardens (the Operator), for the recovery of the monies paid under a mistake of law for electricity charges because the Operator charged more than the amount to which it was entitled under s 77(3) of the RLLC Act at Gateway Lifestyle Stanhope Gardens, 30 Majestic Drive, Stanhope Gardens NSW 2768 (the Community).
I have decided to make an order pursuant to s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (CAT Act) extending time for the applicants to make their application as follows: 1. to the extent necessary for the applications referred to in Schedule 1 until 26 October 2018; 2. to the extent necessary for the applications referred to in Schedule 2 until 26 March 2019; 3. to the extent necessary for the applications referred to in Schedule 3 until 12 April 2019; 4. to the extent necessary for the applications referred to in Schedule 4 until 15 May 2019.
I have decided to make an order pursuant to s 85(3) of the RLLC Act that the Operator is to pay each of the applicants within 14 days the sum of money referred to in Schedule 1, 2, 3 or 4 by way of a refund of overpaid electricity charges up to the date specified in the applicable Schedule.

[2]

Background

Each of the applicants is, or was, a "home owner" within the meaning of the RLLC Act at the Community since 1 November 2015 and under their site agreement is required to pay utility charges including electricity to the Operator: 79 since 1 November 2015 and the remaining 14 from various times between 1 November 2015 and April 2019.
The Operator is the "operator" of the Community which is a "community" or "residential community" within the meaning of the RLLC Act.
Since 1 November 2015 the Operator has been supplied electricity by Origin Energy Electricity Limited (Origin) from 1 November 2015 to 31 August 2017, and from 1 September 2017 to 30 April 2019 by AGL Sales Pty Limited (AGL).
The Operator has received monthly invoices for the supply of electricity. The Origin invoice from 1 to 31 January 2017 includes the following components: 1. charges measured in "kWh" which encompass "Energy Charges" ("Peak", "Off Peak" and "Shoulder"), "Network Charges" ("Peak", "Off Peak" and "Shoulder"), and "Other Charges" ("ESC Charge", "LREC Charge", "AEMO Charge", "AEMO Ancillary" and "SREC Charge"); 2. charges measured in "kVa" which is a "Demand" charge; 3. charges measured on a daily or monthly basis which encompass "Access Charge"; "Meter Provider/Data Agent Charge" and Service Charge".
The other invoices of Origin and the invoices of AGL contain similar components which have a variety of names.
The Operator has been supplied electricity at two connection points which are identified and metered by a separate electrical meter called a NMl (National Metering Identifier), and are interval or smart meters. These types of meters are able to record electricity usage (kWh) at 30 minute intervals and can also record electricity demand in real (kWh) and apparent power (kVA). Resident sites 2 to 190 are on NMI NEEE0008153. Resident sites 191 to 254A are on NMl NEEE0008161.
Each of the applicants has been supplied with electricity at 32 amps and has had accumulation meter which can only measure the total energy usage between meter readings.
Most of the applicants have been charged for utilities including electricity by the Operator fortnightly up to December 2018 and monthly from January 2019 up to 30 April 2019, and paid for those charges as follows: 1. from about 4 November 2015 to about 6 September 2017, an amount for "Electricity Usage" and an amount for "Electricity Access Fee" which was the amount for supply of electricity to retail customers under the standing offer from time to time of Origin; 2. from about 6 September 2017 to 13 November 2018, an amount for "Electricity Usage" and an amount for "Electricity Access Fee" which was the amount for supply of electricity to retail customers under the standing offer of AGL; 3. in the period between 14 to 26 November 2018, no amount; 4. since 27 November 2018, an amount for "Electricity Usage" which is the proportionate amount of the amount it has paid to AGL.
The following applicants have paid the Operator for electricity up to the following dates: 1. Rita Adomian: up to 31 January 2019; 2. Terry Hoskinson: up to 12 March 2019; 3. Carol Anne Meyrick: up to 8 August 2018; 4. Ron Anthony Nicholls: up to 30 October 2018; 5. Patricia Starks: up to 3 October 2018; 6. Heather Schiliro: up to 12 March 2019.

[6]

Jurisdiction

Section 85 of the RLLC Act relevantly provides: 85 Recovery of amounts paid under a mistake of law or fact (1) A home owner is entitled to recover an amount paid under this Part to the operator under a mistake of law or fact. … (3) The Tribunal may, on application by a home owner or operator, make an order resolving a dispute concerning the operation of this section in the circumstances of a particular case.
Section 157 of the RLLC Act specifies the orders that the Tribunal may make including "an order for the payment of an amount of money" (subs (1)(d)).
Part 6A Division 1 of the FT Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal in relation to consumer claims and relevantly provides: 1. "consumer" means a natural person to whom a supplier has supplied services: s 79D(a); 2. a "consumer claim" means a claim by a consumer for the payment of a specified sum of money that arises from a supply of services by a supplier to the consumer: s 79E(a); 3. "services" is a reference to the provision of electricity: s 79F(b); 4. the supply of services includes providing, granting or rendering services for valuable consideration: s 79G(2)(a); 5. the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a consumer claim only if the services to which the claim relates were supplied in New South Wales: 79J(1)(a); 6. the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a consumer claim if the cause of action giving rise to the claim first accrued more than 3 years before the date on which the claim is lodged: 79L(1)(a).
Section 79N(a) of the FT Act provides that in determining a consumer claim wholly or partly in favour of a claimant, the Tribunal may, subject to Div 3, make an order that requires a respondent to pay to the claimant a specified amount of money.
I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim of each of the applicants for a refund of overpaid electricity charges under ss 28 and 29(1) of the CAT Act when read with ss 85(3) and 157(1)(d) of the RLLC Act.
I am also satisfied that the claim of each of the applicants is a "consumer claim" with Pt 6A Div 1 of the FT Act by reason that each of the applicants is a natural person to whom the Operator has supplied services in New South Wales in the form of the provision of electricity for valuable consideration. Accordingly, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim of each of the applicants under ss 28 and 29(1) of the CAT Act when read with Pt 6A Div 1 and s 79N(a) of the FT Act. However, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to overpayments made in the period of 3 years preceding the filing of their application.

[7]

Whether each of the proceedings has been brought in time, and if not whether an order extending the time to bring the proceedings should be made

Section 156 of the RLLC Act relevantly provides: 156 Applications to Tribunal relating to disputes (1) A home owner, former home owner or operator of a community may apply to the Tribunal for determination of any of the following: (a) a dispute relating to a right or obligation under this Act, (b) a dispute arising from, or relating to, a site agreement or collateral agreement, … (2) An application to the Tribunal must be made within the period (if any) specified in this Act or prescribed by the regulations.
Clause 16 of the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Regulation 2015 (NSW) (RLLC Reg), which read with Schedule 3 prescribes the period within which an application to the Tribunal must be made, does not prescribe any period for an application under s 85(3) of the RLLC Act.
Section 41 of the CAT Act provides: 41 Extensions of time (1) The Tribunal may, of its own motion or on application by any person, extend the period of time for the doing of anything under any legislation in respect of which the Tribunal has jurisdiction despite anything to the contrary under that legislation. (2) Such an application may be made even though the relevant period of time has expired.
Rule 23 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) (CAT Rules) relevantly provides: 23 General applications … (3) Unless the Tribunal grants an extension under section 41 of the Act, an application must be made: (a) in the case where enabling legislation specifies the period within which the application is to be made - within the period specified, or (b) in any other case - within 28 days from the day on which the applicant became entitled under the enabling legislation to make the application.
The Tribunal has held in relation to similar claims by home owners against operators for a refund of overpaid electricity charges that time began to run from the time that the home owners were "in dispute" with the operator: Bavin v Parklea Operations Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 120 at [46]-[48]; Stewart v Raythel Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Colonial Tweed Holiday Home Park [2019] NSWCATCD 48 at [23]-[32].
In Bavin v Parklea Operations Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 120 at [52] the Appeal Panel held that the dispute of the appellants who were home owners at the Community with the respondent who is the Operator concerning overcharging for electricity at arose approximately three months after 21 July 2017 when the appellant's application had been lodged. This finding applies equally to the dispute between the applicants and the Operator.
The nature of the claims of the applicants is that there has been a continuing breach of s 77(3) of the RLLC Act in respect of each fortnightly payment up to December 2018 and each monthly payment from January 2019.
The application of each of the applicants should have been made within 28 days of the dispute arising as specified in cl 23(3)(b) of the CAT Rules. The applicants referred to in Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not require an extension of time for making their application under s 156(1)(a) of the RLLC Act for their excess payments made since the date being 28 days before they made their application, but do require an extension of time for their excess payments made before then.
The following circumstances warrant an extension of time for the applicants to make their application under s 156(1)(a) of the RLLC Act: 1. they did not become aware of the overpayments until approximately late October 2017; 2. the Operator does not object to such an extension of time; and 3. the absence of any evidence of prejudice to the Operator.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order pursuant to s 41 of the CAT Act extending time for the applicants to make their application as follows: 1. to the extent necessary for the applications referred to in Schedule 1, until 26 October 2018; 2. for the applications referred to in Schedule 2, until 26 March 2019; 3. for the applications referred to in Schedule 3, until 12 April 2019; 4. for the applications referred to in Schedule 4, until 15 May 2019.
The cause of action of each of the applicants under Pt 6A Div 2 of the FT Act arose when they made each fortnightly payments up to December 2018 and each monthly payment from January 2019. The application of each of the applicants has been made within the time specified in s 79L(1)(a) of the FT Act.

[11]

The interpretation and application of the applicable statutory provisions

The RLLC Act commenced on 1 November 2015.
Section 77 of the RLLC Act, which changed the way operators could charge home owners for electricity, has been considered in a number of recent decisions in the Tribunal and in the Supreme Court.
On 24 February 2017, an application for reimbursement of overpaid electricity charges was lodged by a Mrs Reckless. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 3 August 2017: Reckless v Silva Portfolios Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATCD 57.
Mrs Reckless appealed that decision successfully to the Tribunal's Appeal Panel. On 3 April 2018 the Appeal Panel found Mrs Reckless had been charged in excess of what was permitted in s 77, upheld the appeal, and re-mitted the matter to the Tribunal's Consumer and Commercial Division for determination of the amount that Mrs Reckless should be refunded: Reckless v Silva Portfolios Pty Ltd t/as Ballina Waterfront Village and Tourist Park [2018] NSWCATAP 80. The Appeal Panel at [36]-[38] held that by virtue of s 6(1) and (2) of the RLLC Act s 77 applies to a site agreement entered into before 1 November 2015. The Appeal Panel at [42] said "Although s 77(3) is not drafted particularly well, it is clear that it is trying to prohibit overcharging of residents".
The Appeal Panel's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by the operator, and a stay placed on the Appeal Panel's orders. On 9 September 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the stay on the Appeal Panel's orders was lifted: Silva Portfolios Pty Ltd t/as Ballina Waterfront Village and Tourist Park v Reckless [2018] NSWSC 1343. Davies J at [53] held: [53] On the proper construction of s 77(3) of the RLLC Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to charge the defendant any more than the plaintiff has been charged for the supply or use of the electricity consumed by the defendant.
On 9 January 2019, Mrs Reckless' application was finally determined by the Tribunal, and orders made to reimburse her monies that she had been overcharged in contravention of s 77(3): Reckless v Silva Portfolios Pty Ltd t/as Ballina Waterfront Village and Tourist Park [2018] NSWCATCD 59. The operator's supplier was Origin whose invoices included the same components as the invoices from Origin received by the Operator. The Tribunal at [20]-[34] rejected the three different methods proposed by Mrs Reckless to calculate what amount she should have been charged which were based on "Energy Charges" in Origin's invoices. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Ms Petkovic that all the various charges of Origin, or components in the invoices of Origin, are "the cost of electricity", and in terms of s 77(3) are included in "the amount charged by the utility service provider…..for the quantity of the service supplied to, or used at, the residential site". The Tribunal at [39] held that the most accurate method to use to compensate Mrs Reckless is to determine the overall cost of the electricity to the operator, divide that amount by the total kilowatts used, and apply that figure to the total kilowatts used by Mrs Reckless. The Tribunal in so finding at [37]-[38] acknowledged that this method may not be completely accurate: [37] Ms Petkovic acknowledges that this method is not perfect, as is outlined in the assumptions she has made in her report. The difficulties arise because the meter at Mrs Reckless' home is not a "smart meter", and cannot precisely identify when Mrs Reckless consumed electricity. Consequently it is not possible to say how much electricity Mrs Reckless used for which the respondent was charged at the off peak rate, rather than the peak rate or shoulder rate. Therefore, if Mrs Reckless has consumed more electricity at the off peak rates than the respondent has, she will be charged a greater amount for the use of electricity than the respondent has been charged by Origin. However in this case, there is no evidence that has occurred, and it seems the only way such evidence could be obtained in future, would be by the installation of a smart meter at Mrs Reckless' home. It appears on the evidence just as likely Mrs Reckless might on occasions, be charged less than the respondent was, because her usage of electricity at "peak" rates, was greater than the respondent's. As Ms Petkovic says in her report, such discrepancies, if they occurred are likely to be minor, and to even out over time. [38] The fact the methods proposed by the respondent may not be 100% accurate, does not mean they cannot be used to determine the amount of compensation that is to be paid to the applicant. As Brooking J said in JLW (Vic) Pty Ltd v Tsilogou [1994] 1 VR 237 at 241 "[T]he plaintiff must prove what he has suffered and will suffer and what is fair and reasonable compensation in respect of that. It is often said the amount of the damage must be proved with certainty, but this only means as much "certainty" as is reasonable in the circumstances. Where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it; where it is not, the court must do the best it can".
In Stewart v Raythel Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Colonial Tweed Holiday Home Park at [41] the Tribunal held that the correct method for calculating the refunds is stated in Reckless (No.2) being to determine the overall cost of the electricity to the respondent charged by its provider, divide that amount by the total kilowatts used, and apply that figure to the total kilowatts used by each of the applicants.

[12]

The evidence as to the correct methodology to determine and calculation of the amount of the refund

There were differing opinions by Mr Harris and Ms Petkovic as to the correct methodology to determine the amount of the refund. Consequently, there were differing calculations of the amount of the refund by Mr Finlayson and Ms Petkovic.
In his expert witness report Mr Harris: 1. provides an explanation of the terminology that is used in the invoices of Origin and AGL to the Operator; 2. expresses the following opinions in relation to s 77(3) of the RLLC Act: If one considers that the quantity of the service supplied to, or used at, the residential site only relates to the consumption of electricity that is measurable at that site, then only charges that are denominated in kWh (e.g., energy charges, peak shoulder, off-peak network charges, LRET and SRES charges) would definitely be related to the quantity of the service supplied to, or used at, the residential site. If one considers that the service supplied to or used at the residential site not only relates to the actual consumption of electricity at that individual site, but also to the other services that are provided to the embedded network operator by the retailer (and which, one way or another, allow the operator to in turn provide electricity services to each individual site), then this would mean that all of the charges (on the invoices of Origin and AGL) would be related to the quantity of the service supplied to or used at the residential site. Having regard to the above, our reading of the Act is that because the service must be supplied to, or used at, the residential site, and this is defined as a "site in a community. ..... used as a residence by an individual', then the costs that relate to the provision of services to the embedded network operator, which are not directly related to or attributable to an individual site's usage, should be excluded from the calculation. This would appear to be further supported by the reference in the Act that "the home owner cannot be required to pay for the use unless ... (a) the use is separately measured or metered'. This indicates to us that there is a direct nexus between "use by the home owner of a utility at the residential site' and the ability to actually "separately measure or meter'' usage. (footnote omitted) 1. expresses the following opinion in relation to the most appropriate methodology that is compliant with s 77(3) of the RLLC Act: Assuming no change in metrology at customers' premises, and on the assumption that implementing a load profiling approach, as outlined in the last section of this report, is not adopted, we believe that the most appropriate methodology for calculating electricity usage charges that is compliant with s77(3) of the RLLC Act and the RLLC Regs would be to: . Total all of the per kWh30 denominated components of the operator's retail bill, and divide that by the kWh's recorded on the operator's meter (which will be in the operator's retail bill), over the time period that aligns with when each homeowners accumulation meter is read (e.g., if homeowners' meters are read every month, then the calculation would be done over that same period); and . Apply the results of the above calculation (which effectively gives an average cost per kWh for kWh denominated retail components) to the usage recorded on each homeowner's accumulation meter over that same period.
In her expert witness report Ms Petkovic: 1. expresses the following opinion as to the methodology for charging electricity to home owners: After considering the unique characteristics of the Stanhope community, my expert opinion is that the methodology that I developed for the Reckless matter (and that has been further accepted in the Bell and Stewart matters) is the most appropriate here as well. There is one small variation for the Stanhope community to account for the two connection points to the grid. This is explained further in the next section. The aim of the methodology is to allow the Community Operator to pass through the cost of the use and supply of electricity to the home owners' sites within the embedded network, and to divide this cost as fairly as practical among each of the sites. The methodology is designed to reflect the actual costs incurred by the Community Operator, and hence the Community Operator will neither profit nor lose out from the methodology. Note that due to the differences in metering equipment described in the next section, it is not possible to create a methodology that guarantees a cost neutral pass through to any individual site. However, what the proposed methodology can achieve is a cost neutral pass through across the total portfolio of sites within the embedded network. My expert opinion is that a methodology that achieves cost neutrality on an aggregate basis is the most fair and reasonable approach in this situation for all parties involved. 4.1 Formula for the methodology The methodology involves a two-step process: Step 1: Calculate the relevant rate to be charged to home owners on each NMI First, we need to calculate the electricity charge rate (dollars per kWh) that should be charged to home owners on each NMI. For each NMI, we need to separately calculate the rate as follows: Electricity charge rate for individual home owners ($/kWh) Total dollar value of current charges in electricity bill for Community Operator (for the relevant NMI) - any credit card or late payment fees = Total energy usage (kWh) metered by the relevant NMI in the same bllling period Step 2: Calculate the dollar amount to be charged to each individual home owner In Step 2, we need apply the relevant rate from Step 1, to each individual home owner within that particular NMI. Dollar amount charged to each home owner = Electricity charge rate calculated in Step l for the relevant NMI x Energy usage metered at the home owner's site for the same billing period 1. sets out the amount of compensation payable to each applicant using this methodology for each of the following time frames: 1. from April 2018 to April 2019 (inclusive); 2. from November 2015 to April 2019 (inclusive).
At the hearing oral evidence was given by Mr Harris and Ms Petkovic together, and Mr Finlayson. Mr Harris and Ms Petkovic essentially repeated their opinions. Mr Finlayson explained the methodology he used for the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to each applicant.
Ms Petkovic gave evidence that for the purpose of her methodology she had converted all charges in the invoices of Origin and AGL to the Operator to a kWh measurement.

[13]

The submissions as to the correct methodology to determine, and calculation of, the amount of the refund

In their written submissions dated 8 July 2019 the applicants contend that: 1. s 77(3) of the RLLC Act is concerned with the usage charges permitted under the RLLC Act. The inelegant expression "supplied to, or used at" does not expand the reach of s 77(3) into "supply charges" or service availability charges. Rather, "supplied to" enables s 77(3) to operate effectively to allow charges for a quantity of a utility, such as bottled gas, which is measured at the time of supply, not the time of use. This interpretation is consistent with the right of the operator to impose a service availability charge on the home owner for electricity which may exceed the amount payable by the operator to the electricity service provider as countenanced by cl 13 of the RLLC Reg; 2. the judgment of the Supreme Court in Silva Portfolios Pty Ltd trading as Ballina Waterfront Village & Tourist Park v Reckless does not deal with the distinction between usage charges and supply charges, and should not be understood as bundling up service availability charges with usage charges; 3. s 77(3) of the RLLC Act restricts operators to charging home owners no more than the electricity supplier charges for the quantity of electricity used at each individually metered site. This means that electricity charges imposed by a retailer with reference to quantity may be passed on to home owners provided the quantity used by each home owner is measured so as to allow the amount charged by the electricity retailer to be accurately passed on. The prohibition in s 77(3) on charging more than the retailer charges for the amount used means that, where the electricity retailer's charge varies with time of use, but time of use is not measured at the site, no more than the retailer's minimum time of use charge may be passed on to the home owner; 4. the only method of charging for electricity in the Community that is consistent with s 77(3) of the RLLC Act is: 1. home owners are charged for electricity used at their sites by their individual meters at the off peak kWh rate plus the kWh rates for items that do not vary with time of use; 2. home owners are not charged as part of the usage component of their electricity bill any amount of fixed charges or demand charges; and 3. home owners may be charged a service availability charge based on the amount that would have been payable under a standing retail contract offered to a small customer consistent with cl 13 of the RLLC Reg (discounted for 32 amps supplied to each site).
In its submission dated 14 June 2019 the Operator contends that: 1. despite the drafting of s 77(3) of the RLLC Act the legislature did not intend to change the way that home owners are charged for electricity in residential land lease communities; 2. s 77(3) of the RLLC Act allows it to pass through the full cost of electricity it has incurred to the sites within its embedded network, and to divide this cost reasonably and practically among each of the sites; 3. the categories of energy charges in the proposed methodology outlined by Ms Petkovic cover all of the recognised costs to the Operator for the use by the applicants of the quantity of the service supplied to, or used at, the residential site.
If the correct methodology to determine the amount of the refund is as contended for by the Operator, then the applicants accept the calculations of Ms Petkovic as to the amount of the refund of each of the applicants.
If the correct methodology to determine the amount of the refund is as contended for by the applicants, then the Operator accepts the calculations of Mr Finlayson as to the amount of the refund of each of the applicants.

[14]

Consideration

Having regard to the definitions of "utility" and "utility charge" in s 4(1) the expression "utility charges to the operator for the use by the home owner of a utility at the residential site" in s 77(1) of the RLLC Act may refer to one or both of a usage charge and a service availability charge for the provision of electricity. The word "use" in this subsection may apply equally to the usage, or the availability, of electricity. If this expression were limited to a usage charge, then the operator would not be entitled to charge a service availability charge for electricity which is contemplated by s 77(5). The words "for the use" in s 77(2) clearly refer back to the expression "utility charges to the operator for the use by the home owner of a utility at the residential site" in s 77(1). Similarly, the words "for the use of a utility" in s 77(3) clearly refer back to this same expression. This means that the expression "the amount charged by the utility service provider or regulated offer retailer who is providing the service for the quantity of the service supplied to, or used at, the residential site" in s 77(3) must refer to the total amount charged by the applicable provider or retailer for both the usage and availability of electricity at the residential site. I do not consider that the presence of the word "quantity" in s 77(3) requires a different interpretation. Quantity refers to "a particular, indefinite, or considerable amount of anything"; "amount or measure": Macquarie Dictionary. It makes sense to refer to a "quantity" of electricity whether measured in "kVa", on a daily or monthly basis, and in "kWh". Clause 13 of the RLLC Reg provides a further limitation on the maximum amount an operator can charge a home owner for a service availability charge. For these reasons I reject the interpretation of s 77(3) of the RLLC Act submitted by the applicants.
It follows that I accept the methodology used by Ms Petkovic rather than the methodology used by Mr Harris to calculate the amount of the overpayment by each of the applicants.
By reason of the operation of s 6(1) and (2) of the RLLC Act each of the applicants who entered into a site agreement with the Operator prior to 1 November 2015 is entitled pursuant to s 85(3) of the RLLC Act to recover electricity charges paid under a mistake of law because the Operator charged more than the amount to which it was entitled under s 77(3) of the RLLC Act.
The amount of overpayment of each applicant is set out in Schedule 1, 2, 3 or 4.

[15]

Whether the Operator has a defence of change of position to the whole or part of the claim of each of the applicants under s 85(3) of the RLLC Act

This issue is limited to the applicants' claim under s 85(3) of the RLLC Act.
The Operator contends that it has a defence of change of position from 1 November 2015 to 3 April 2018 by reason of improvements, repairs and maintenance at a total cost of $133,942.12 carried out at the Community since 1 November 2015.
The applicants contend that a defence of change of position is not available to the Operator for the following reasons: 1. the entitlement to restitution given by s 85(1) of the RLLC Act is not the same as the common law principle of restitution for unjust enrichment by mistake of fact or law; 2. alternatively, if the change of position defence is available, the Operator has not demonstrated that it has changed its position in a way that would enliven the defence.
In David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 at 385 the majority of the High Court recognised that if payments made under a mistake of law should be prima facie recoverable, in the same way as payments made under a mistake of fact, a defence of change of position is necessary to ensure that the enrichment of the recipient is prevented only in circumstances in which it would be unjust. The central element of the defence of change of position is that the defendant has acted to his or her detriment on the faith of the receipt.
Change of position may also operate as a partial rather than full defence, to an action for recovery of money paid under a mistake: Stewart v Raythel Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Colonial Tweed Holiday Home Park at [38].
There are inconsistent decisions of the Tribunal as to the availability of a defence of change of position to a claim to recover overpayment of utility charges paid under a mistake of law under s 85(3) of the RLLC Act.
In Stewart v Raythel Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Colonial Tweed Holiday Home Park at [39]-[40] the Tribunal, having referred to David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 at 385 and other authorities, held that the operator had a partial defence of change of position from 3 April 2018: [39] To require the respondent to repay all of the monies the applicants have paid by mistake, when the respondent has accepted the money in good faith and spent a significant portion of it in 2017 and more afterwards, would create an injustice that outweighs the injustice of the applicants not being able to recover all of the mistaken payments. [40] However it would not be unjust to require the respondent to repay all mistaken payments since 3 April 2018, as that was when the Appeal Panel's decision in Silva was published, and the applicants' entitlement to recover was made clear. Even though that decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, the decision of the Appeal Panel would have alerted all prudent operators to at least make provision for the possibility the Appeal Panel's decision would be upheld in the Supreme Court, even if, as asserted by the respondent, advice from Fair Trading was still inconsistent with the Appeal Panel's decision.
in Bavin v Parklea Operations Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 120 at [73]-[76] the Appeal Panel doubted that the defence of change of position is available to claim of a home owner under s 85 of the RLLC Act to recover an amount paid under Part 7 of the RLLC Act to the operator under a mistake of law or fact.
I do not consider that s 85(1) of the RLLC Act should be interpreted as excluding a defence of change of position to a claim of a home owner to recover an amount paid to the operator under a mistake of law or fact. Section 85 should be understood as creating a statutory right to recover mistaken payments that is already available under the general law. There would be no coherence in the law if an operator sued under the general law could rely on a defence of change of position, but if sued under s 85 of the RLLC Act could not rely on a defence of change of position.
The Operator has not established a partial defence of change of position because it adduced no evidence that its expenditure on improvements, repairs and maintenance at a total cost of $133,942.12 carried out at the Community since 1 November 2015 was undertaken in reliance on the payments for electricity charges made by the applicants.

[17]

Schedule 1 Applicant(s) File Refund End date Milica Almasi RC 18/46509 $663.99 30 April 2019 Sharon Aspinall RC 18/46250 $986.05 30 April 2019 Damien Barbara RC 18/46234 $1,145.24 30 April 2019 Kenneth Bernard RC 18/49949 $1,007.63 30 April 2019 Janet Brown RC 18/46283 $898.64 30 April 2019 Deborah Buckley RC 18/46367 $755.59 30 April 2019 Choong Chaim RC 18/46531 $755.61 30 April 2019 Jill Clarke RC 18/46268 $1,089.15 30 April 2019 Patricia Cook RC 18/46445 $1,114.78 30 April 2019 Saviour D'anastasi RC 18/46388 $576.02 30 April 2019 Ralph Day RC 18/46262 $1,079.28 30 April 2019 Dusica Debeljak RC 18/46465 $609.21 30 April 2019 Betty De Roo RC 18/46489 $713.77 30 April 2019 Lorraine Dixon RC 18/46286 $811.12 30 April 2019 Robyn Eishauer RC 18/46373 $979.72 30 April 2019 Pauline Elkhaligi RC 18/46238 $531.93 30 April 2019 Cheryl Francia RC 18/46497 $670.08 30 April 2019 Melva George RC 18/46393 $697.93 30 April 2019 Nick Giarratano RC 18/46537 $1,104.62 30 April 2019 Hedley Hall RC 18/46255 $857.01 30 April 2019 Christine Histon RC 18/46500 $647.61 30 April 2019 Andrew Horvath RC 18/46241 $756.05 30 April 2019 Terry Hoskinson RC 18/46342 $1,117.03 12 March 2019 Janet Jones RC 18/46382 $664.79 30 April 2019 Clifford Kopp RC 18/46143 $732.90 30 April 2019 Christine Luxford RC 18/46533 $1,184.94 30 April 2019 Colleen McDonald RC 18/46253 $936.00 30 April 2019 Susan McIvor RC 18/46176 $709.09 30 April 2019 Gloria McNamara RC 18/46457 $697.03 30 April 2019 Marija Meissner RC 18/46246 $845.22 30 April 2019 Joseph Micallef RC 18/46521 $663.00 30 April 2019 Ron Anthony Nicholls RC 18/46216 $757.57 30 April 2019 Karen O'Donohue RC 18/46186 $697.61 30 April 2019 Betty Pether RC 18/46295 $1,122.02 30 April 2019 Phillip Polson RC 18/46506 $635.54 30 April 2019 Mary Preston RC 18/46480 $744.55 30 April 2019 Kathleen Richards RC 18/46161 $791.58 30 April 2019 Geoff Ridley RC 18/46470 $732.35 30 April 2019 Heather Schiliro RC 18/46438 $701.41 12 March 2019 Bevan Shepherdson RC 18/46275 $1,082.65 30 April 2019 Pauline Sheppard RC 18/46229 $671.72 30 April 2019 Lex Stanford RC 18/46450 $687.83 30 April 2019 Patricia Starks RC 18/46544 $724.31 3 October 2018 Barry Stevens RC 18/46516 $688.40 30 April 2019 Nerida Tootill RC18/46379 $979.64 30 April 2019 Victoria Tork RC 18/46362 $644.98 30 April 2019 Patricia Veliz RC 18/46364 $144.95 30 April 2019 Eva Warhurst RC 18/46542 $843.02 30 April 2019 Susan West RC 18/464- $638.57 30 April 2019 Sylvia Woodhurst RC 18/46526 $1,188.60 30 April 2019 Ken Yates RC 18/46453 $482.93 30 April 2019