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.

 

The Invisible Problem

If so much inequity exists in tenancy regimes, why don’t we hear more about it? My educated guess puts it down to implicit and systemised coercion. This is just a bunch of fancy words that means a landlord can do what they like with little impunity.

Everyone who rents knows landlords and real estate agencies can impact on future prospects of renting in the private market. Landlords and real estate agencies do not have to provide rental references and can actually give bad references. Landlords and real estate agencies can refer tenants to blacklisting databases. This power is particularly important at the moment given the current state of the housing market. The end result is no home.

Say we have a situation where a good tenant has a bad landlord. The landlord refuses to undertake and pay for repairs. Let’s look at the options open to a tenant. A tenant can do nothing and just put up with it. A tenant can organise and pay for repairs. Or the tenant can take the landlord to tribunal. It’s a safe bet that a landlord won’t give the tenant a good rental reference. If the landlord is particularly nasty, the tenant can be referred to a blacklisting database. So the lesson is tenants can end up in situations where they are penalised for fighting for their rights. We can’t assume that all tenants are skilled in dispute resolution. Tenants are just ordinary people – cleaners, labourers, teachers, etc. I think many tenants adopt the ‘don’t rock the boat’ approach.

Landlords and agencies can exploit existing mechanisms. They can delay bond payments which may be needed for the next rental property. They can make unreasonable but successful claims against bond moneys. Claims can be difficult to dispute in situations like when a tenant moves interstate or overseas. A tenant may not be aware of a claim if the bond authority is not given their forwarding address. A centralised system should be electronic and online. In this computer age, and given the mobility of tenants, email should be the primary mode of communication, and online deposits rather than cheques should automatically be the method of payment. To my mind, this is just common sense. Come on, guys! So tenants know without being told or threatened, landlords and real estate agencies can make things very difficult for them. In the real world, it is usually better to maintain positive working relationships with landlords and property managers.

We see the occasional shock story on shows like Current Affairs and Today Tonight. Frank Cassar was Australia’s slum lord from hell. He was a multi-millionaire property owner and developer in Melbourne. He did not repay rental bonds, failed to perform essential repairs, entered premises unlawfully, and threatened and intimidated tenants.

Tenants had complained about Frank Cassar for at least twenty-five years. He had been take to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) over sixty times. In 2006, the Minister for Consumer Affairs took him to the Supreme Court and obtained an order for him to manage residential premises through a licensed real estate agent. Sometime after, a protest was organised at his place of business.

After some googling, I realised Frank Cassar had passed away in 2011. He owed tenants over $40,000 in compensation. I don't know whether the tenants were ultimately successful in obtaining moneys owed. What can we take away from this tale? This is obviously an extreme case but it demonstrates landlords can easily circumvent existing legal protection. So basically this landlord had to die for tenants to be protected. Is it just me that sees a problem with this picture?

If you still don’t think there’s a problem, turn to a friend and ask. Almost everyone has a story, or knows someone who does. I guess some people just accept the status quo. I think the prevailing sentiment is that this is just life, this is just the way things are. But to my mind, we need a new way of thinking. If tenancy law has so many problems, why hasn’t someone done something about it? We have bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers. These individuals usually move in a circle of homeowners rather than renters. Gripes about tenants are more explicit to people in power.

Public dialogue is very much about the rights of the landlord and real estate agencies. We can see that with the Queensland Government’s targeted review of tenancy laws. In Queensland, a landlord or real estate agency can nominate a two-hour window for inspections. They want to increase this window to three hours. This is just ridiculous. Basically, we have a situation that the law actually encourages incompetence and poor time management. In any other professional context, you don’t make an appointment for a window of time. You make a time for a meeting and you stick to it. And what about working tenants who need to take time off work and lose income to attend inspections?

What kind of Australia do we want to be? A country that doesn’t care? Doesn’t take initiative? Merely follows and does not lead? If Australia was a character on the Simpsons, who would Australia be? Lisa – smart and motivated? Mr Burns – evil and calculating? Homer – dim-witted and accident prone? In my view, considering the current state of tenancy laws, Australia is Homer. And that makes me very sad.

See more:

• Andrea Petrie and Ben Butler, ‘Frank Cassar, Australia's worst landlord, has his day in court’, The Age, 3 August 2011
• Denis Napthine, ‘Supreme Court orders injunction against Frank Cassar’, media release, 8 August 2011

 

 

Bond Interest: Final Comments

Now comes the fun part. There’s enough holes here to sink a leaking ship. I almost feel like running for political office. 

Tenants are expected to pay for law reform, dispute resolution, information services, and administrative management. Why isn’t a tax imposed on real estate agencies? They are a business and landlords pay for their so-called expert services. Some landlords make a business out of the investment in residential properties. This is substantively different to the provision of goods and services. Why isn’t a tax or levy imposed on landlords for the use of advisory services?

I don’t have any particular knowledge of the intricacies of government funding so I will talk in loose terms. Say we have a workers compensation authority that is funded by premiums. Premiums are used to influence the behaviour of employers so they provide a safe working environment for their employees. Say we have a local council that fines car owners for parking infringements. Car owners are penalised if they don't pay for parking. I won’t get into how many parking fines I have been given!

When it comes to interest accrued from residential bonds, tenants have not done anything wrong. They have not violated a law or committed an unlawful act. The accrual of interest from tenant bonds is substantively different. I’m going to pretend to be a government administrator. I understand the need to pay for programs and services. But this must be done in a structurally fair and just manner. In some states and territories, landlords can be investigated and fines can be imposed. I would be interested in figures which show the breakdown of interest compared to penalties. What would this show?

 

Institutionalised, legalised and systemised bullying is no worse than a child beating up peers on the playground. Who is the bigger bully? The landlord or the government? Have we merely swapped one for the other? Clearly it is better for a statutory authority to hold onto bonds rather than landlords. Before the reform in Tasmania, some landlords were treating bond money like it was their own money for personal use. But if the money is managed by a statutory authority, and landlords exploit loopholes and unfairly claim bond moneys anyway, what is the point of another level of bureaucracy which tenants pay for anyway. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh but good intentions don't translate to results on the ground.

I would also ask why tenants should pay for a system that is legislatively and administratively biased in favour of landlords. Tenants are paying for a system that does not effectively enforce their rights. If we take a birds-eye view of tenancy laws, we can see the significant impact of landlord lobby groups and the somewhat tortured attempts of hamstrung tenant advocacy groups.

The use of tenant bond interest also raises a few questions. Why should tenants in the private sector forego advice and advocacy to provide for public housing they don't use? Why should a government have access to tenant interest for general governmental purposes? Funding is important. As everyone knows, money is power. Tenant services have done the absolute best they can do with the funding they have been provided by respective governments. When the same body makes decisions about funding of tenant services, but also provides public housing, there is a conflict of interest.

States and territories permit the allocation of funds for the purposes of research and education. Education is great. I’m all for it. Whether this happens is another matter. But I’m looking at the bigger picture here. What is the point of tenants knowing their rights when their rights are not that great to start off with? What is the point when landlords have better rights, and more loopholes to exploit?

Turning to the funding of tenancy tribunals from residential bond interest. Let’s use Victoria as an example. From figures provided by VCAT, roughly 95% of applications are lodged by landlords. Surprise, surprise. I have even heard VCAT referred to as a kangaroo court. I don’t believe for one second this figure accurately reflects the division of fault between tenants and landlords.

Statistics only take us so far. But I think it shows the current system is biased in favour of landlords. We can’t draw this conclusion in relation to all states and territories, but I wouldn’t be surprised if figures were similar. I think the tribunal system has failed when it comes to tenants. Whether it comes down to legislative instruments or judicial discretion is anyone’s guess. 

My brain hurts now as I’m sure yours does. So I am going to end this post on a light note. View animation below for a few laughs.

Bond Interest: The Rest of Australia

As promised, I have looked into what happens to interest accrued from residential bonds in states and territories other than Queensland. This is a departure from my usual approach but the question  is obviously very pertinent to tenants. So here is my tedium alert.

In New South Wales, rental bonds are pooled to earn the maximum amount of interest. Tenants are paid a small amount of interest provided the bond is returned. The rate at which interest is payable is determined by the Commonwealth Bank on a balance of $1000. See section 173 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). How did they arrive at this figure? I would think that the average bond amount is significantly more. From the start of this year, the average rent per week is about $500. Creativity rather than mathematics is my forte, but this seems decidedly odd to me. The majority of income earned from the collective pool is allocated to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and the Tenants Advice and Advocacy Program.

In Victoria, tenants are not paid any interest earned on their bond whether it is returned or not. See section 436 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic). From what I understand, the interest goes towards funding the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Apparently it used to fund tenants’ advice and advocacy services but this is no longer the case. The Tenants Union of Victoria is dependent on the Office of Housing, Victoria Legal Aid and Consumer Affairs Victoria.

In Western Australia, tenants are not paid any interest at all. I could not locate much information. But I think interest is earned from a collective pool of bonds from which investments are made. Some of the income is given to the Department of Commerce Bond Administration Section as reimbursement for costs and expenses. The WA Magistrates Court can also clawback some funding relative to the number of minor tenancy matters.

The WA Department of Housing also gets a bite of the cherry and can access funds for any public housing purpose if available. If there are any funds left over, the WA Government can step in and allocate funds to the consolidated revenue account.  Check out the schedule to the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA).

I would be interested in figures which indicate how much money the WA Government takes from tenants. Apparently, grants can be applied to WA tenants’ advice and advocacy service. But this is the notice I found when I looked at the website of the Tenants Advice Service - 'Due to unforseen circumstances, Tenants Advice Service is unable to give advice for the foreseeable future and apologise for this inconvenience. If you are in need of urgent assistance, please contact either Department of Commerce or Community Legal Centre'. All telephone and email advice services are not available. What’s going on here?

Turning to South Australia, things get a little better. Interest is accrued from a collective pool of bonds and invested like in Western Australia. The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal are reimbursed for the administrative burden of handling tenancy services and matters. Unlike Western Australia, however, tenants are entitled to some interest from their rental bond. The interest is calculated under a formula released by the Minister for Business Services and Consumer. The interest calculated depends on the amount of bond returned to the tenant. It accrues from the date the tenant paid the bond to the date the tenant is reimbursed. Look at section 63 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA). This process seems to be a lot fairer than what we have seen in other states and territories.

It gets somewhat better when we head north to Australia’s famous Uluru. In the Northern Territory, there is no bond authority like other states and territories. A tenant is entitled to interest if the bond money is kept in an interest-bearing trust account. This is so except when the bond amount is held by a real estate agent. For some reason, and I don’t know why, real estate agencies are entitled to the interest. See section 114 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2012 (NT). They’re laughing all the way to the bank. They collect their fee from the landlord and obtain interest from tenants on top of this. Clearly, the downside to this approach is that not as much interest accrues but there is no need to pay for the operation of a statutory body.

Turning to the home of Lack Burley Griffin. The way interest is managed in the Australian Capital Territory is similar to most other jurisdictions. Bond money is kept on trust and interest is kept in a special account. The interest is put towards the operation of the Office of Rental Bonds and the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tenants Union ACT is allocated funding for some of its services. See section 28 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT).

If we look south to the island state, Tasmania is in a period of transition. In 2009, the Rental Bond Authority was introduced along with the Residential Tenancy Commissioner. In 2009/2014 period the new scheme is expected to cost $1.5 million. Apparently, it will be run on a cost-recovery basis until managed bonds start to bear interest.

I will make my conclusions in the next instalment...

 

See more:

'Rental squeeze hits in Australian capital cities', News.com, 20 January 2012

 
 

Bond Interest: The Queensland Experience

The state and territory governments deal with interest accrued from residential rental bonds in different ways. I have developed an interest in this issue because of the recent events that have taken place in Queensland. This is what happened...

The QLD Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service (TAAS) is funded at state level by the Queensland Government. Or rather, it was. QLD Housing Minister, Bruce Flegg, decided to discontinue tenant advice services and reallocate funds towards social housing.
The 20-something affected services quickly swung into action and created a powerful grass-roots movement. The Commonwealth Government, through Housing Minister Brendan O'Connor, stepped in with emergency funding taking tenants’ services through until June 2013. At this stage, we don’t know what happens after that.

At first glance, you might think Mr Dis-Honourable made the right decision. After all, people are homeless...right? But think again. It is patently clear he does not understand push factors into government housing, for example, mental health issues. Tenant advice services help vulnerable and marginalised individuals with problems that might result in their removal from existing housing onto the streets. 

If we understand housing to be a significant yet under-rated human right, how would an action contributing to housing by detracting from it make any sense whatsoever? In any attempt to tackle homelessness, the government needs to understand the social ramifications of its action. We have seen that 1970’s style with the well-intentioned creation of public housing ghettoes. In the ghetto (insert falsetto).

I also understand that the funding allocated to tenant advice services in Queensland is but a small proportion of overall interest generated from tenants’ bonds. So how will its reallocation to the creation of additional public housing stock alleviate the stress placed on housing to any significant degree? Last year, the collective interest earned in Queensland amounted to about $41 million and a mere 12% (about $5 million) was allocated to tenants’ advisory services.

Or does Mr Dis-Honourable have other ulterior motives? I’m a straight shooter and naturally suspicious…but his decision to introduce a three-strike policy sounds ominous. He wants to ‘crack down on unruly tenants’ by evicting them if they receive three strikes for disruptive behaviour like noisy parties, vandalism, or destruction of property. But these kind of social issues are usually managed by other laws. For example, criminal charges can be levied against a person for certain things, like assault and battery. If these deterrents aren't effective, shouldn’t they be reassessed? He is basically saying is law-breakers don’t have a right to housing. I quite agree with measures which encourage respect for government housing and deter property damage. But even prostitutes, junkies, and other degenerates need a place to live. With changes such as this foreshadowed, TAAS will be needed to protect the rights of public housing tenants.

My understanding is that we ('the taxpayers') pay money ('tax') to our governments for community programs and services. Mr Dis-Honourable has presented Queensland with a false dichotomy. Clearly, it’s not a question of one or the other. The provision of public housing for vulnerable and marginalised peoples is a core government service in a wealthy country like Australia.

The Queensland Tenants’ Union also makes an interesting comparison between tenants and landlords in the context of government-funded home buying incentives. In Queensland, I understand the government has reintroduced stamp duty concessions for repeat home buyers. Tenants are expected to pay tax and forego interest earned on bonds to support a system that perpetuates injustice while the government actually supports the concentration of wealth in repeat home buyers who become landlords. It is structural inequities such as this that result in the clique - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

 

I support the use of economic stimulus provided it is applied in a fair and equitable manner. I guess it is the dream of most Aussies to have a home and a patch of grass to call their own. If the Commonwealth government was to step in and reform the sector, here’s an idea. For tenants who want to own their own home one day, why can’t the interest earned on rental bonds be allocated towards a deposit?

 

In my next instalment, I will look into what happens to bond interest in other state and territories.

See more:

• Penny Carr, ‘Bruce Flegg's decision to stop funding tenants' advisory service will cost all Queenslanders’, The Courier-Mail, 7 September 2012
• Sarah Vogler, ‘Unruly public housing tenants face three strikes home policy’, The Australian, 31 October 2012

Soon, Be Patient

Narelle’s story starts with an interstate move with her two grown-up sons from New South Wales to Victoria. They signed a 12-month lease for a 3-bedroom flat through Oliver Hume in South Bank. But Narelle and the boys had to leave the flat early when the plumbing system ‘crapped itself’. They broke the lease early and did not have to pay rent for a month. The landlord is not the culprit here.

Narelle and the boys moved into their new house straightaway. The property manager informed them the inspection went well, the flat was in great condition, and the bond money would be returned. Fast forward about three months. To this day, the bond money has still not been returned. Narelle has phoned and emailed Oliver Hume constantly. She has been given various excuses. Apparently the general manager is away on holidays. Oh poo. I don’t see how this impacts on Narelle’s situation.

The property manager actually replies to an email and says the paperwork has been processed. So Narelle phones the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (RTBA). Understandably, she wants to check the status of the application. But for privacy reasons, the RTBA won’t provide her with any information because she doesn’t know the bond number. I really don’t understand why the RTBA can’t verify Narelle’s identity with a few key questions like other government authorities. This is a pet hate of mine. I can't stand bureaucrats who think they understand privacy law. Narelle emails the property manager and requests the bond number. The property manager doesn’t reply because Narelle can then access information about the bond. This might be a case of one person falling through the cracks. But if somebody investigated, I wonder if other issues would surface...

Narelle is in a very fortunate position. Her mother loaned her money to pay for the bond for the new house. Consumer Affairs Victoria say a bond should be returned within two to three business days. I am very curious as to whether this estimate could be backed up by official figures. If everything went according to plan Narelle could have applied the original bond money to the new house. But this did not happen.

If another family was in the same situation, but were unable to come up with the bond, what are they to do? There does not seem to be any statutory time limits when it comes to returning bond money. There is no incentive for owners or real estate agencies to return bond money in a timely fashion. They are not penalised for failing to submit paperwork to the RTBA expeditiously. 

And what happens if a tenant just gives up on reclaiming bond money and later cannot be located because they have moved house a few times? It would be fair if landlords and real estate agencies were given five working days from the date the premises were inspected. That’s more than enough time. Performance has taken place and the contract has come to an end. Moreover, a tenant does not have access to accrued interest even after the premises have been vacated. I don’t understand why a tenant can’t submit a form to the RTBA to request that bond moneys be applied to a new property. Is this too easy? Maybe so. In Canberra, the Office of Rental Bonds can transfer bond moneys to a new address provided the landlord or real estate agent agree to this method of payment.

If Narelle can’t pressure Hume Oliver to liaise with the RTBA, what is the next step? I believe Narelle would have to submit an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. But why should Narelle have to instigate tribunal proceedings over an undisputed bond amount? This is a minor administrative matter. Some things should be enforced by an administrative government body. 

As we all know, Australia is a federal constitutional country. The various state and territory governments enact laws with respect to tenancy. In the result, tenancy laws are highly fractured and differ greatly from state to state. Tenants are divided as a result. Not being a cohesive whole, it is much more difficult to mobilise. The Council for Australian Governments (COAG) might be an appropriate vehicle for change. Stage and territory governments can cooperate to achieve consistency. For example, the introduction of near-uniform defamation laws some years ago. 

But I have gotten ahead of myself. I have forgotten that no one really cares about tenancy matters. It’s not pink like breast cancer. It’s not rainbow like gay rights. Political will is merely one barrier on the road to change. 

And this is where my diatribe fizzles out until next time. And Oliver Hume...pull your finger out! Honestly, it’s not hard. 

The Exploitation of Young Women

This dastardly tale of exploitation begins with a young pregnant woman. The lass fell pregnant with her first baby. She started looking for a place and was about to pop when she was approved. The house wasn’t great, but it was a house and a roof over her head.

After she moved in, she realised there was no hot water and the toilets didn’t flush. Obviously things you don’t check in an inspection. So she left the house until the plumbing was fixed a week and a half later. She paid rent up-front and wasn’t reimbursed for time not spent in the house. Pulling out of a lease isn't an option when the rent has been paid in advance and the cost of moving has already been incurred.

The carpeted floor was disgustingly filthy and unclean. The previous tenants did not have the carpets professional cleaned. So she steam-cleaned the carpet at her own expense. The young lass also found a dead rat in her bedroom when she moved in. She was absolutely speechless. A young struggling lass with a new baby comes up with bond and rent in advance. Honestly, you would think that a vermin-free environment would be a pre-requisite. And night after night with a new baby, she hears scurrying in the walls. Rats in the walls. Seriously, puke.

  

Later on, the lass realised that the house came with its very own special swarm of bees. The bees lived in the wall right next to the front door. She asked for the house to be insect-sprayed. This was not done. She was advised to purchase fly spray and use alternative entry. Curtains were not provided with the house. So the young lass requested some. She got what she asked for, but a few inches shorter.

The kitchen tap does not sit properly over the sink, so the lass has to use her hands to funnel water into the sink every time she washes the dishes. The house is impossible to heat because there are gaps in the wall. The gas point had been sawn off for some unknown reason. The real estate agency advised the young lass to fix any problems herself because the landlord was broke. This is a well-known and supposedly reputable real estate agency. The lass is a single working parent. Why should she be responsible for improvements and repairs?

 

The lass raises an interesting point about security. She asked that the landlord pet-proof her backyard so she could keep a dog to deter burglars and home invaders. Pet ownership can be an important home security measure. Nothing says ‘run like the wind’ like a fast dog with big yellow teeth: 'Smithers, release the hounds…' A dog is definitely a cheaper option than an expensive alarm system. As this tenant is a young lady, I think the request is quite reasonable. In New South Wales, landlords are legally obliged to provide security devices to ensure rental properties are safe. So its not really clear whether they have a duty to do things like pet-proof yards.

So what can we take away from this dastardly tale of exploitation? I think it is entirely possible that the lass was approved because she is young and inexperienced when it comes to dealing with tenancy issues. So I asked, why not take the landlord to the tribunal? The lass says she ‘doesn’t want to piss off the landlord’ and ‘doesn’t have enough time to fight’. The lass wanted to stay anonymous because she doesn’t wanted to get bad-mouthed in a small town. She wants to get a decent place and will need a reference from the landlord. She needs a good relationship with the real estate agency because they might help her find a new place. She doesn’t want a reputation for being a bad tenant.

The government should protect renters, such as this young lass. Legislative controls are necessary because the housing market has tightened so dramatically. Basic enforceable standards need to be introduced regarding pest control, plumbing, and heating. Renters should be able to report landlords for failing to meet minimum standards.