Should Australia have a bad landlord database? In my view, that question should be answered in the affirmative. I have looked at various examples of bad behaviour from failing to disclose pertinent information about a property and evicting tenants to avoid increasing rent by reasonable amounts.
Some of these issues are so common-place and so normalised, society doesn’t really view these as problems to be solved. But trust me, every time you walk past a broken cupboard door the landlord absolutely refuses to fix, this is a problem.
The current law of tenancy is all about protecting the investment of the owner. This is wrong. It should also be about protecting the rights of tenants. Properties aren’t just profit-making machines, they are homes. Maslow's hierarchy of needs emphasises shelter is a basic psycho-social need. But we don’t really see this theory of psychology in the twists and turns of tenancy law. I don’t think the law does fusion well. Well, not like I do pineapple-vodka fusion anyway.
Classical liberal theory focusing on a person's right to life, liberty and property should be understood in light of the aspirations of all human beings and not just the owners of property. Article 17 states: (1) of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (1966) states 'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home...'
The law of tenancy would look very different if respect was given to a person’s privacy, family and home. These are my questions. Would we have such liberal rules as to open house inspections if the privacy of tenants was respected? Would we have such liberal rules as to no-ground evictions if the family was respected? Would the law of tenancy be in such a terrible state if the right to a home was respected?
And honestly, the sentiment of giving ‘mom and pop’ investors a break doesn’t hold much water with me particularly if their conduct impacts on ‘mom and pop’ tenants. Maybe we should respect the body of law we know as tenancy by calling it the law of the home instead. Differential treatment does not give effect to the principle of equality under law.
Human rights law is about devolving power to the level of the individual. If we perceive tenancy law to be a matter of human rights, and it is reinterpreted in light of Australia’s human rights obligations, power will be taken away from landlords. For this reason, they will not support such developments and will mount a vehement resistance.
And of course, landlords and agents have residential tenancy databases. Problems with these commercially-operated databases are well documented. In between frantically writing essays for my post-graduate studies, I will take an in-depth look at such issues.
Transparency and accountability furthers the interests of all tenants. One can draw an analogy between landlords and businesses. Businesses operate with a view to making profit. But businesses must comply with legal obligations. Landlords rent out properties to tenants with a view to making profit. The reality is we would not have housing if landlords were not motivated by profit to build and rent out properties. But they can and should do so, while respecting the rights of tenants. And really in most situations, the difference is not between profit and no profit, but big profits and smaller profits. By way of illustration, the implementation of health and safety measures might represent a cost, but it must be considered a necessary and incidental cost of renting out properties. The right to live in a healthy and safe environment is simply non-derogable.
Someone said to me, a bad landlord database will never work. It’s a real shame that 'can’t', 'shouldn’t' and 'won’t' are not part of my vocabulary. It is true landlords have too much power in the market place. At this point in time, there are historically low vacancy rates in Australia. A desperate tenant may have to accept an offer, but at least they would do so forewarned and forearmed. A bad landlord database would also highlight, as never before, the problems tenants experience dealing with landlords and property managers.
And it is true most tenants are too scared of retaliation to complain. But there are tenants out there that will not put up with and will speak up about unacceptable conduct. The mere availability of a database would represent a shift in the zeitgeist.
It is time. It is time for change. If the state chooses not to intervene and protect tenants in vulnerable situations, there must be another answer. In the information age, that answer is found on the digital highway.
I have recently written about Mr Khourey and the violence he has perpetrated on his tenants. As is usually the story with rogue landlords, there is more than one issue at play. He failed to provide safe premises for his tenants when he converted two four-bedroom townhouses into eleven units without the permission of council. Audrey says, ‘The whole place is a fire hazard, health hazard, and a disaster waiting to happen.’
Holroyd City Council first got involved when Audrey’s son Ben fell and broke his arm on the ground floor staircase of the unit block. The staircase didn’t comply with legal standards with respect to fire safety or maximum incline. Even though the staircase was very steep, there was no railing in place on the opposing side.
The plumbing system didn’t work throughout the entire building. Mr Khourey compacted the rubbish every day and flushed the excess down the toilet. The showers didn’t drain. Every sink and toilet blocked on a regular basis. The cupboards couldn’t be used for storage. The temperature of the hot water system wasn't regulated. The showers didn’t have screens so the water ran off into the kitchens. The water drainage was extremely slow. Here is video footage Audrey shot of her kitchen plumbing gone bonkers. Bless his little heart, Ben said, 'Mummy, we have the water and the troll, but no bridge'. There were only two garbage bins for all the occupants to share. As a side note, tenants are expected to pay for rubbish removal upon vacation of premises, but there is no equivalent duty on landlords to provide for sufficient garbage disposal throughout the life of a tenancy.
The electrical system was in a state of disarray. The power outlets were either ill-fitted loose in the walls or didn’t work. The smoke alarms only worked when the power was on. At various places throughout the building, there were loose electrical cables hanging down. The fuse boxes were a mess. Most of the stoves were unfixed hotplates.The building was not safe. The flooring was either loose or non-existent; either unfitted lino or bare concrete. The upstairs units either had no windows or a single very tiny window. There was no ventilation or fire escape plan. The outside was littered with building materials surfaced with damp slippery clay and no footpaths. In New South Wales, a landlord is required to comply with statutory obligations relating to the health and safety of residential premises. See section 53 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). In no way shape or form, has Mr Khourey complied with this obligation.
And then there were pests. There was a flea plague and a rat infestation (and by that I don’t mean the chief rat landlord). Keep in mind this particular building is merely four years old. There is no specific obligation on the landlord to take pest control measures. But they are required to provide premises in a way fit for habitation. See section 52 of the Act. Another breach by Mr Khourey.
The building was registered with Council as being built four years ago for the purposes of two four-bedroom townhouses. Mr Khourey converted it into eleven separate units. There was no occupancy certificate. Last year in October, Merrylands Council ordered that the premises be made available for inspection. Mr Khourey refused. Holroyd City Council obtained a search warrant on 24 April 2013. The Parramatta Local Court provided permission for entry to be obtained by any reasonable means. Here is an image shot of the search warrant.
All eighteen residents were informed they may be made homeless. After inspecting the premises, Merrylands Council determined that the entire building should be shut down due to numerous breaches of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). At this stage, all tenants are seeking alternate housing arrangements.
Mr Khourey owes these tenants about $20,000 in total for bond refunds. He did not provide receipts to these tenants as proof of payment. A clear violation of section 159 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). Audrey says, ‘...at least this bad rogue trader can never rent this property again. In all likelihood it will be demolished as a house of horrors and depravity’.
And what does Mr Khourey think? He thinks, ‘There are some dark forces at work in our community...These evil forces have neglected the community by misappropriation of valuable community resources to incite injustice, violence and homelessness’. I think Mr Khourey dislikes the government intervening because he thinks he should be able to do whatever he wants with his property. This kind of thinking is wrong on so many levels. This is an image shot of a post by Mr Khourey on the Holroyd City Council Facebook page.
The law of tenancy doesn’t talk very well to other areas of law. Rental premises should be assessed prior to occupation to ensure compliance with health and safety standards. If there was a more proactive approach, tenants would not have to search for alternate housing and pay for additional associated costs. No matter how bad the current housing crisis gets, tenants should expect and demand access to safe housing. In a country like Australia, tenants should not be expected to live like pigs.
