"From Retaliatory Eviction to Published NSW Appeal Decision: Our Experience with McGrath Bankstown"
Our experience with McGrath Bankstown was one of the most stressful and unnecessary tenancy experiences we have ever endured.
For approximately eight months we were without hot water in the kitchen. We also experienced ongoing issues with a faulty cooktop that remained unresolved for months.
During a summer heatwave, our air conditioner failed and was reported as an urgent repair. Despite the circumstances, it took approximately six weeks from the initial report before repairs were approved and carried out.
Despite repeated reports, follow-ups and requests for assistance, many issues remained unresolved until NCAT proceedings were commenced. In our experience, meaningful action only occurred after Tribunal intervention and orders were made.
The situation escalated when a termination notice was issued after we exercised our legal rights and sought repairs through NCAT. NCAT ultimately found that notice to be retaliatory and invalid.
Rather than resolving matters following that decision, a further termination notice was issued while appeal proceedings were still ongoing, resulting in additional hearings, uncertainty, stress and expense.
Communication throughout the tenancy became increasingly difficult. Many emails felt hostile, adversarial and focused on defending positions rather than resolving the underlying maintenance issues. What should have been a professional working relationship steadily deteriorated.
The Tribunal proceedings themselves reflected many of the concerns we experienced. On more than one occasion, representatives for the landlord's side failed to attend scheduled NCAT hearings, resulting in delays and further proceedings. At one hearing, the property manager advised the Tribunal Member that she had attended because she believed it was the final hearing and expected the matter would be dealt with and determined that day.
As tenants, it was difficult to understand why so much time, expense and stress was being incurred when opportunities existed throughout the process to properly engage with the issues and work towards a resolution.
What began as requests for repairs eventually became multiple NCAT applications, hearings, appeals, evidence bundles and legal arguments. By that stage, the relationship had deteriorated to the point where continuing the tenancy was no longer realistic.
After we were forced to move, NCAT awarded compensation for hardship arising from the circumstances we experienced.
One positive outcome is that our matter resulted in the published Appeal Panel decision Kim v O'Hea [2026] NSWCATAP 2, which is publicly available on the NSW Caselaw website. We hope other renters facing prolonged repair failures, retaliatory eviction notices and similar disputes can learn from and benefit from the decision.
Looking back, what stands out most is that this dispute was entirely avoidable. The landlord lost long-term tenants. We were forced to relocate. Multiple NCAT proceedings occurred. Appeals were heard. Compensation was awarded. A published Appeal Panel decision resulted.
Nobody truly won.
In our view, the greatest failure was not simply the repairs themselves. Effective property management should protect the interests of both landlords and tenants. Instead, the management of this tenancy failed both. A tenancy that could have been preserved through communication, timely maintenance and professional engagement instead ended in years of conflict, Tribunal proceedings, hardship compensation and a published Appeal Panel decision.
No tenant should have to spend eight months without kitchen hot water, wait weeks for an urgent air-conditioning repair during a heatwave, rely on Tribunal orders to obtain basic maintenance, or endure repeated legal proceedings simply for asserting their rights.
Date of experience: August 2024 to December 2025.
4 december 2025
Review zonder uitnodiging