Sunday 11 November 2012

Threats and Intimidation: Fail!

Surprise, surprise...tenants are failed again. Threats, intimidation, and harassment can occur in tenancy disputes. But you wouldn’t know it looking at housing laws.
 
Daniela is an amazing young woman. Highly educated, highly motivated, and hard-working. She moved into a new place in Sydney under an arrangement with the head tenant. The head tenant was so abusive Daniela stayed in her room and could not use the kitchen or lounge room. If Daniela left a toilet roll in the toilet, the head tenant would send her abusive text messages. Daniela was so scared of the head tenant she let her have her underground car space. The head tenant screamed abuse at her if she accidentally splashed water on the glass shelf. The head tenant decided to evict Daniela giving her only 14 days notice. The head tenant should have given her 60 days notice.

The head tenant also withheld Daniela’s bond because she didn’t wash the bedroom window and the toilet seat was broken. Even though Daniela was scared of this woman, she offered to pay for the toilet seat and clean the window. This offer was refused. The head tenant did not lodge Daniela’s bond with the Rental Bond Board. So Daniela lost her rental bond of $450. I don’t see how the two claimed items add up to this amount. Daniela was so anxious she decided to move out a week early. So she lost $250 in rent. The landlord said Daniela could talk to him about the situation, but Daniela just wanted to move on. For this reason, Daniela did not access other remedies available to her under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. All up, Daniela lost $700. In my view, Daniela has been subjected to a kind of economic violence.

If you don’t think tenancy disputes arouse heated emotions, check out this video from the United States. This landlord crashed his Hummer into his own rental property when his tenant got behind in rent.


In Australia, people can obtain protection orders from local courts. They are also known as apprehended violence, intervention, or restraining orders. Protection orders are designed to prevent actual or feared personal violence. They can cover physical, sexual and psychological abuse. Protection orders can address things like threats, stalking, intimidation, harassment, property damage, and assault. Protection orders are pretty flexible and usually tailored for specific situations. They can prohibit a person from approaching, contacting or otherwise acting inappropriately. But specific guidelines tailored for tenancy situations are not available to tribunals and courts. People like Daniela, probably leave and don’t take further action.

The only specific coverage I could find is contained in section 70 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). The provision does not have broad-ranging application and only deals with domestic spousal violence. If a protection order is made preventing access to residential premises, a victim of violence can change the locks and take over the lease agreement. No other kind of violence is addressed in the context of tenancy. The only other section you could use is section 206, where a tribunal can appoint a property manager if a landlord has seriously or persistently violated the Act. Obviously, one could only use this mechanism in extreme cases.

The state should intervene to protect tenants in situations of violence, harassment and intimidation. State and territory governments need to consider the relationship between residential tenancy laws and other laws. If a protection order is necessary, it should take into account the unique relationship of a landlord and tenant.

If a tenant wants to leave, they should be able to vacate the residential property without notice without paying rent for that period or other financial penalty. They should be compensated for costs incurred in moving and relocating to safety, and should be provided with a reference so their prospects of renting again are not jeopardised. If they don't want to leave, a property manager should be appointed to handle the tenancy and mediate with the landlord. Landlord should be prevented from using existing law to further harass and intimidate, such as, baseless referrals to blacklisting databases. Tenants should be protected from retaliatory evictions and repeat appearances defending such applications.

Tenants in vulnerable and potentially volatile situations need practical protection. No one should live in fear. And that’s why I say...fail.

 


No comments:

Post a Comment