dnighttime:
First, please name and shame the Tribunal member responsible for your decision. There are no privacy provisions involved, and the inconsistency in Tribunal orders suggests that the one thing we as owners can do in these circumstances is remove the veil of anonymity behind which members hide. This is particularly important as precedent plays no part in CTTT decisions – members are not bound by decisions of other members, even Senior members!
Second, there seems to me to be a “Portia” loophole which you may be able to exploit. (Remember the Merchant of Venice – Shylock could take his pound of flesh but not a drop of blood?) If the acoustic test as accepted by the Tribunal indicated that the standard was complied with as measured with the rug, but not elsewhere, then it could be argued that the entire floor needs to be covered with equivalent rug or carpet to satisfy the original order.
Thirdly, before you hike off to the Supreme Court, I think you might well qualify for a review of the case in the Tribunal itself. See s.68 of the CTTT Act:
68 Rehearings by Tribunal
(1) A party in any proceedings that have been heard and determined by the Tribunal (“the completed proceedings” ) may, in the manner and within the time prescribed by the regulations, apply to the Chairperson to have the completed proceedings reheard by the Tribunal.
(2) The grounds on which such an application may be made are that the applicant may have suffered a substantial injustice because:
(a) the decision of the Tribunal in the completed proceedings was not fair and equitable, or
(b) the decision of the Tribunal was against the weight of evidence, or
(c) significant new evidence has arisen (being evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the completed proceedings were being heard).
Find it here:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ctatta2001361/
But as already advised, you need legal skills to avoid being browbeaten by the Tribunal. The problem is that the CTTT dispenses law, not justice, and the interpretation of the law in any case is whimsical.
Hope this helps