Residential rental disputes can begin with relatively everyday issues: a late rent payment, a repair request that goes unanswered, an inspection arranged without proper notice or a disagreement over the condition of the property when the keys changed hands. Left unresolved, these issues can escalate into a formal dispute before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), with financial and legal consequences for both sides.
In NSW, residential leases are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), which sets out many of the rights and obligations that apply throughout the rental relationship. Knowing what the Act requires and where each party’s responsibilities begin and end, can be critical when a dispute arises.
When a dispute leads to an unlawful lockout
If rent has not been paid or another breach has occurred, a landlord cannot change the locks, remove the tenant’s belongings or reclaim the property themselves. Even where there are grounds to end the tenancy, the legal process still needs to be followed.
Under section 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), a person cannot take possession of residential premises unless they are acting under the appropriate warrant or the tenant has already left or abandoned the property. Where NCAT has ordered a tenant to leave and they do not do so by the required date, the landlord can apply for a warrant for possession. That warrant allows a Sheriff’s Officer to enter the property and carry out the eviction.
The decision in Violet v Ghaderi-Araghi [2017] NSWCATAP 134 shows what can happen when that process is ignored. The landlord changed the locks and prevented the tenant from accessing the property without first obtaining the required order. The lockout left the tenant without access to their home and resulted in NCAT awarding them $2,000 in compensation for the loss of use and enjoyment of the premises. The landlord appealed the compensation order, but the Appeal Panel upheld it.
An unlawful lockout can therefore create a separate legal problem on top of the unpaid rent or other breach that led the landlord to seek possession in the first place. Unlawfully repossessing residential premises is an offence under the Act and carries a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units, currently equivalent to $22,000. A court can also order compensation for the loss suffered by the tenant. Unpaid rent or another breach does not give a landlord the right to bypass that process.
Repair obligations do not depend on fault
A landlord’s responsibility to keep a rental property in a reasonable state of repair does not disappear because the damage was caused by something outside their control. Storms, leaks and other unexpected events can still trigger requirements, even where the landlord did not cause the problem.
That principle was applied in Marsters v Graham [2016] NSWCATCD 73. Just two days after the tenants moved into a Blacktown property, heavy rain entered through a roof that was not structurally sound and damaged a significant amount of their belongings. The landlord argued that the storm and resulting flooding were outside their control, but the Tribunal found that this did not remove the requirement to ensure the premises met the required standard. The landlord was ordered to pay the tenants $7,822.21 in compensation for their damaged belongings.
A similar issue arose in Vashisht & Sharma v Edwards [2016] NSWCATCD 86, where water damage left the carpets saturated and mould began to develop. The carpets were removed but had still not been replaced two months later, leaving the bedrooms unusable. The Tribunal found the property could no longer be occupied with reasonable comfort and reduced the rent from the point it became uninhabitable. The reduction was not applied in full because the tenants continued using the property for storage instead of moving out once the extent of the problem became clear.
For landlords, saying “it’s not my fault” does not remove their responsibility to address the problem. If a repair is delayed or not properly dealt with, the issue can quickly become a dispute about rent, compensation or the condition of the premises.
A termination notice can be challenged as retaliatory
A termination notice may be challenged where there is reason to believe it was issued in response to a tenant exercising a legal right, such as applying to NCAT, requesting repairs or taking steps to enforce the tenancy agreement.
Under section 115 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), the Tribunal considers whether the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by that conduct. If the notice is found to be retaliatory, it can then decide whether it should be declared ineffective or whether a termination order should be refused.
The distinction is important because an unhappy relationship between a landlord and tenant, or suspicious timing alone, does not necessarily amount to retaliation. In Rezay v Wang [2021] NSWCATCD 80, the landlord issued a termination notice following ongoing difficulties with the tenant, including attempts to gain access to address water entering the property. Although the tenant argued that the notice was retaliatory, NCAT found the landlord’s actions were a response to the tenant’s obstructive conduct, not an act of retaliation for legitimately exercising their rights.
For tenants, this means successfully challenging a termination notice requires more than showing that it followed a complaint or disagreement. The circumstances surrounding the notice and particularly the landlord’s reason for issuing it, will be central to the decision.
Bond disputes often come down to evidence
Disagreements over the condition of a property at the end of a tenancy are a common source of conflict, particularly where a landlord seeks to recover cleaning, repair or damage costs from the bond. When those disputes reach NCAT, condition reports, photographs, invoices and other records can become central to establishing what damage occurred and when.
For both landlords and tenants, one of the best ways to protect themselves is to document the condition of the property carefully from the outset. A detailed condition report, supported by dated photographs and kept throughout the tenancy, can help prevent disagreements later and provide clear evidence if the matter proceeds further.
Getting advice early helps protect both sides
Whether the issue involves unpaid rent, delayed repairs, a termination notice or a disagreement over the bond, residential tenancy disputes can become harder to resolve if they are left to escalate.
Understanding your rights and responsibilities can help protect your position and give you a clearer path forward. At Aubrey Brown Lawyers, our Property Law team can advise landlords and tenants on their obligations, options and any concerns that arise throughout the tenancy.
