Von Trapp Family: Big Families in the Private Rental Market

The Von Trapp family live on the border of New South Wales and Victoria. Maria and her partner have a big family of six children. They moved to the Albury-Wodonga area for work opportunities and family support. They ended up living with Maria’s parents in the back shed while they tried to find suitable housing. Maria estimates they applied for over eighty rental properties. They were turned down for each and every one. One day, a four-bedroom house came up for rent. Maria checked it out and put in an application. It was just down the road from the kid’s schools. Much to her surprise, the application was accepted almost immediately. 

Maria says everything was fine until the air-conditioning unit died. The real estate agency made excuse after excuse as to why it couldn’t be fixed. And then one day without reason or notification, the property manager showed up at the door. This happened in the morning while Maria was trying to get the kids ready for school. Maria says, ‘Of course, you can imagine, with six kids there were clothes everywhere, my hubby just about to leave for work, dishes from breakfast on the bench and the rubbish bag sitting on the floor ready to go out’.

This is just real life. My flat was a mess when I got home from class today and I only have a much adored cat. And I don’t understand why real estate agencies are allowed to police cleanliness. It should only be allowed when the problem is so bad the value of the property is affected, there are pest control issues, council regulations are breached, or neighbours are somehow affected. There should be such a distinction under law. Privacy anyone?

The property manager pushed her way past Maria and carried out an inspection of the premises. This is a clear breach of section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). Understandably, Maria was distressed at this intrusion. Things got worse a week later when a letter arrived via registered post. The letter said the lease agreement had been breached and they had 124 days to vacate the premises.

Maria was in absolute shock, the house was not presentable by any means but it was definitely not in a filthy and putrid state. Then the eviction notice arrived and it said they had 60 days to vacate the premises. The notice period is actually 14 days for breach of agreement or 90 days for termination of periodic agreement. Check section 87 of the Act. It sounds like the property manager had no idea what she was doing. That or she was intentionally trying to confuse the Von Trapp family. In any event, I don’t think the notice period of 90 days is sufficient considering the state of the housing market and the circumstances of this particular family.

Luckily, the property manager’s son took over management of the real estate agency. He found the Von Trapp family a house straightaway. It was small and only had four bedrooms. But they had to make do, as other bigger places were simply not available. Maria thought that the bond had been transferred over...but this turned out not to be the case. 

 

The Von Trapp family was happy in their small home for two years, then suddenly the place went up for sale and was it was sold from under them. The stress kicked in yet again when they were left yet again without a place to live in. But then the same real estate agency offered them another house almost straightaway. Maria says, ‘Again this house was pretty small for my large family, but we had to just put up with it’. Under section 86, a landlord is only required to give notice of 30 days if they sell the house and the buyer wants to move in. Moving house is hard for anyone, I can only imagine how stressful it would be with such a large family. 

 

But the new house had big problems. The first problem was that the windows had wood rot and some couldn't be opened because the glass would just fall out. The same property manager fixed the problem by screwing the windows shut. This meant the windows couldn’t be opened at all. Maria put this on the condition report and mentioned it every time the house was inspected.

The other problem was that the paint on the walls would come off every time the walls were wiped down. Maria asked if they could repaint at their own cost. The property manager acquiesced provided he was given photos. Maria also asked if they could remodel the kitchen at their own cost. Again the property manager agreed provided he was given photos. Maria took candid photos of all the improvements made to the property. 

In New South Wales, a tenant can’t renovate without the landlord’s permission and must be at own cost unless the landlord agrees otherwise. So Maria was in complete compliance of the law. But the law is the problem. A landlord can sit back and let a property go rack and ruin. Tenants move in and make improvements trying to make a home. At the end of the day, it is the landlord that bears the fruit of labour not his own. The onus is on tenants to improve housing stock, while it is the landlord that ends up with the financial benefit. If the landlord unreasonably withholds consent, the tenant can take the matter to tribunal. But seriously, who is going to do this and risk the wrath of their landlord and potential no-grounds eviction?

A group of young friends moved into an absolute dump of a place. They were all experienced tradies. To make the property liveable, they used their skills and spent their own money fixing up the property. The friends did so with the consent of the landlord expecting they would be able to stay on as tenants. But the landlord turned around and evicted the friends to get new tenants in at a much higher rent. I just don't see how justice is done in this kind of situation. There may be legal answers under general law but the essential problem of accessing justice remains.

About 6 months ago, the Von Trapp family started getting breach of duty notices. One was for loud noise and the other was for rubbish. Maria was a bit confused as they had a council clean-up the week before the notices came. There was no follow-up by the real estate agency, so she didn’t take any action. Then another notice arrived. This one was for rent arrears. Maria was again confused as rent was deducted before her pay could even be touched.

Maria managed to scrape together the money allegedly owing and paid it. This time, however, she contacted Rural Housing and obtained advice. Rural Housing had a chat with the real estate agency and Maria was told to forget about it. But two weeks later, she received a notice to vacate as the lease was ending. Again, the Von Trapp family was faced with not having a place to live. Again they applied for a number of houses, only to be told that the houses were not suitable for them. They were facing another stint of living in the back shed. Luckily at the 11th hour, a private landlord asked if they would live in his house.

The real estate agency tried to claim the bond (the original amount paid to secure the first rental property). The matter ended up before the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. There, the real estate agency claimed $7,300 in addition to the bond. They claimed this was for replacing carpets, repainting the walls, remodelling the kitchen, and other adhoc repairs.
The tribunal decided to approve the bond claim but not anything else. Classic strategy afoot here. The real estate agency claimed so much, the bond claim seemed reasonable in comparison. Clearly, it is not the responsibility of the tenant to maintain the property. But a tribunal cannot punish real estate agencies for bringing fallacious claims. So really it’s a win/win strategy.

This is an opportune moment to point out that there are evidentiary issues as well. If a tribunal member is handed photos such as the above, how are they to determine the difference between damage and wear and tear? It’s hardly discernible. So I suppose they would then turn to the accounts provided by the property manager and tenant. Is this then an issue of credibility? Point of translation for the lay person, this means the member decides who is more believable. I would ask whether members fall into the error of ascribing more creditability to property managers who are more experienced in the art of tribunal appearances.

 

The real kicker is the manner in which the house is advertised. For sale, it is characterised as an ‘immaculately presented fully renovated family home, featuring new kitchen, new bathroom, 3 generous bedrooms...’ So the landlord not only benefited from the improvements the Von Trapp family made to the premises, but from the bond claim as well. In this situation, it is not about the cost of consent, but the profit arising from consent. The law is such that a landlord can double-dip by claiming that improvements made to the property constitutes damage. 

The story at hand raises a lot of issues. It raises issues of discrimination, security of tenure, and transparency of decision-making. There needs to be adequate housing stock, as well as suitable housing stock. Residential tenancy laws should provide for families, especially those with special needs. Families should have the right to ongoing and stable housing, they should not be discriminated against, and they should not be evicted without reason.