Tenant’s rent and bond claims against a social housing provider fail because they were brought too late (NCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented from Evolve Housing Limited, a social housing provider. On 22 December 2025 she lodged a tenancy application with the tribunal. She left the orders section blank. In her reasons she wrote about child support, rent assistance being charged extra, and bonds, and said she would provide evidence.

At the hearing on 28 April 2026 the tenant described six claims: 1. Rent overcharged from September 2014 to March 2015 by $175.04 a week. She said rent should have been $200.11 but she was charged $375.15. 2. Rent overcharged from 2021 to 2024, because a child support amount she never received was counted in her income assessment. 3. A removalist fee of $1,240 paid in November 2024. 4. Return of a $750 bond for a Blacktown address from 2021. 5. Return of a $650 bond from September 2024. 6. A refund of $1,700 in rent she said she overpaid while overseas from October to November 2025.

The tribunal found the claims were out of time and refused to give her more time. The tenant then appealed to the Appeal Panel. The panel was satisfied her appeal was lodged in time, because the decision had been sent to her by post.

What each side wanted

Evolve argued that claims 1 to 5 were out of time and that there was no evidence for claims 1 and 2. It said it had no record of a tenant living at the address in claim 4. On claim 6, it said the rent had been credited to the rent ledger and accounted for. The tenant replied that the time limits should not apply to her because she did not know about them. She also said she was disadvantaged because the tribunal was not helping her. On appeal, she argued that the tribunal had not considered her evidence and had denied her procedural fairness, which means a fair hearing process. She also said it had decided the case mainly on time limits and had not looked at the merits, and that the decision was unfair and against the weight of evidence. She asked for the case to be heard again. At the appeal hearing she also raised Evolve's frequent changes of housing manager, and said Evolve had promised to reimburse her and had not done so.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Panel made two orders on 8 September 2026: (1) leave to appeal is granted, and (2) the appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal is the tribunal's permission to bring an appeal on grounds that are not purely legal questions. No money was ordered to be paid to the tenant. Written reasons were published on 7 October 2026.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The panel explained that an appeal can be brought as of right on a question of law. Otherwise, the appellant needs leave. Leave is usually given only where the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice, meaning a serious unfairness in the outcome. The decision must also have been unfair and inequitable, or against the weight of evidence, or there must be new evidence that was not reasonably available before. A denial of procedural fairness is a question of law. But it only matters if it actually made a difference, meaning the appellant lost the chance of a different result.

The panel set out the time limits. Under section 190 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) and clause 39(9) of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2022 (NSW), a tenant's claim for money for a breach of the tenancy agreement must be brought within three months of the claim arising. Under section 175(3) of the Act and clause 39(8) of the Regulation, a claim about a rental bond must be brought within six months. The panel found claims 1 to 5 were out of time by months, and in some cases years. Those claims had to fail unless the tribunal extended time under section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

The original tribunal member had not explained why he refused an extension. The panel found that this was an error, granted leave to appeal, and considered the question again itself. It applied four factors from earlier Appeal Panel decisions: the length of the delay, the explanation for it, the merits of the case, and any prejudice (unfair disadvantage) to the other party. The long delays counted very strongly against an extension. There was no explanation for the delay in the material. The tenant said she had brought a claim in 2024, but there was no explanation of what happened to it. Without a convincing explanation, the panel saw no basis to extend time. The original member had also noted that time limits apply to everyone. He said the tribunal can explain procedure to a self-represented person but cannot give them a special advantage.

The decision's summary notes that the tenant's claim for overpaid rent was not substantiated, meaning it was not backed up with enough proof. The published text available to us ends before the panel's full reasoning on that claim, so we have not described it here.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how strictly NCAT applies the time limits for tenancy claims. Here, three months applied to money claims for a breach of the tenancy agreement and six months to bond claims. Not knowing about the time limit was not treated as a reason to ignore it. When the panel considered whether to give more time, it looked at how long the delay was, whether there was a clear reason for it, whether the claim had merit, and whether the other side would be unfairly affected. Delays of months or years, with no explanation, counted heavily against the tenant.

The decision also shows that winning a point on appeal does not always change the result. The panel agreed the original member should have explained his refusal to extend time. It then made the decision itself and reached the same outcome. It also shows that the tribunal can explain how its process works, but it cannot run a party's case for them.

People with a dispute like this usually start by putting their claim to the other party in writing, setting out what they say is owed and why. If that does not resolve it, they apply to the tribunal, keeping in mind that the time limits run from when the claim arose.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a NCAT application. More decisions: NCAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: Noorimohamad v Evolve Housing Limited [2026] NSWCATAP 314 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.