Levelling the Playing Field

It is with a sense of glee and mischief that I return to my blog. I interviewed an interesting man with a slew of stories that would rival that of the cult movie - He Died with a Falafel in his Hands. The movie draws together colourful anecdotes about living in share houses. Now this man, let’s call him Bloke, has street smarts that indeed rivals my own book smarts. And he has used these street smarts against operators of rather dubious boarding houses.

 

Bloke has lived in various share houses and boarding houses in Melbourne, including Glen Waverly, East Doncaster, Box Hill, and Malvern East. It was in Glen Waverly that he won his first battle. He wanted to move out of a place he was sharing with friends. He called up about a room in a share house and was advised it was safe and reputable. Drug taking was not permitted. This was a ‘strict’ rule. On that basis, he decided to move in. When he got there, he discovered it wasn’t actually a share house, it was a boarding house (being illegally run).

 And much to his surprise, the other boarders were ‘junkies’ and ‘prostitutes’ (his words, not my words). Name a drug, and they were on it – ice, speed, heroin, etc. The landlord, a Vietnamese lady, would ‘hang out’ at the house on occasion. She was a gambler. She had gambled away houses belonging to her husband who was working overseas. At times, she would even hit on Bloke and make unwanted advances. But Bloke stayed anyway, the location was convenient and he spent most of his time at his friend’s places.

It came time for him to move on. This slumlord demanded an extra month’s rent. In no uncertain terms, Bloke said he was not giving her money to which she was not entitled. She made a few threats but gave up when Bloke said he would take photos of the slum house and pass out photocopies at her place of work (along with her mobile number). Bloke 1 – Bad Landlord - 0.

Later on, Bloke moved into a boarding house in Malvern East. It was mostly Asian students that lived there. But he convinced the landlord to let him move in. So after he moved in, he discovered that his room had a gas leak. This is serious. Natural gas is highly combustible and can kill at sufficient levels.[1] Bloke was a bit worried, so he moved to another room. When he moved in there were 2-3 residents. Not long after, there were 11-12 residents. All these people had to share one kitchen and one bathroom. The whole house lost power a few times. Groceries were lost in the black outs, and of course, no one was reimbursed.

The landlord would also conduct impromptu inspections without notice. One time, there was a knock at the door. It was the landlord. But Bloke had a lady friend over. He yelled out, ‘Come back later’. But the landlord kept knocking. So Bloke answered the door and vigorously shook his hand (without any pants on).

A normal Aussie male, Bloke was very ‘active’ in the bedroom. Over time, the other residents became perturbed by the noise and made complaints. And Bloke realised he was at risk of being evicted because of his extracurricular activities. So he strategized. He crunched numbers. And he thought to himself, this landlord must be raking in about $80,000 a year. There was no contract and payments were made in cash. So Bloke worked out the landlord was doing the dodge making all this money tax-free. He didn’t confront the landlord directly but started asking questions. And he was left alone until he decided to move on. Bloke 2 – Bad Landlord – 0.

I contacted the Australian Taxation Office who advised, ‘If someone is earning income from renting out their property, it must be reported on their income tax return’. Property Advisor has identified common reporting problems, including not declaring all rental income. I have not studied taxation law, I would rather have my fingernails pulled out one by one. In any event, the Australian Taxation Office accepts confidential tip-offs about suspected tax evasion. They can be contacted on 1800 060 062 during normal business hours.

I had a bit of a giggle at this story, but it raises an important issue. People’s sensibilities might differ, but sex is a normal part of life. No one can deny that. I don’t think anyone should be forced out of their home because they do what they do. To deny this important human activity, would be an affront to human dignity.

I have learned many things in my life. One of the important persons in my life was involved in stand-offs with corrupt police in Tasmania years ago when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The most valuable thing he taught me was, ‘Don’t take s**t from anyone’. And that is the message I will leave you with.

 

Take 3: Return of the Rogue Trader

I have previously written about the rogue trader, Mr Khourey. A few months ago, this despicable man assaulted his tenant in front of her special-needs son while trying to illegally evict them both. The rent was paid and the premises were undamaged, yet Mr Khourey brutally beat up on Audrey, not just once, but three times on the one day. The police arrested him on Friday the 5th of April that same day. The NSW Police organised a personal protection order for Audrey and Ben straightaway. 

But Mr Khourey was released on bail the day after. He went to Audrey’s home as soon as he was released. Police attended the scene and warned him he was in breach of bail conditions. But Mr Khourey was not content. He returned to Audrey’s home again on Monday the 8th of April just a few days after the original assault. The power went so Audrey went to check with her neighbours if their electricity was on.

Mr Khourey was hiding behind the front door and locked her out of her unit. He had cut the power. Audrey ran to the front window to climb into her unit. He came up and belted her across the face and slammed the window shut. She sought safety at a neighbour’s place and called the cops for help. It is clear that Mr Khourey’s bail conditions or the personal protection order did not protect Audrey when she needed it the most.

So what happened next? The cops came and arrested Mr Khourey again. He was charged with numerous offences including breach of bail, assaulting police, and resisting arrest. Despite his erratic behaviour, the NSW Magistrate Court granted bail yet again. But this time he wasn’t released from custody until Thursday the 11th of April. He got to cool his heels the Silverwater Correctional Centre for a few days. Audrey took this video of the NSW Police trying to arrest Mr Khourey.

These going-ons did not deter Mr Khourey from doing drive-bys in cars borrowed from friends and family. He also tried to run over a friend of Audrey’s who was standing out the front of the unit. Unbelievable. And he somehow managed to cut the power to the entire building again. In the mean time, Mr Khourey’s friends and family tried to bully Audrey into dropping her complaints. They approached Audrey with bribes of up to $2000. Like that could compensate for Audrey’s fear throughout this entire ordeal. They also locked Audrey out of her home numerous times. On each occasion, the NSW Police spoke with Mr Khourey’s associates and warned them not to interfere with witnesses. It is abundantly clear the law means nothing to Mr Khourey or his associates. Audrey shot this video of a friend of Mr Khourey's trying to intimidate her into leaving.

You would be glad to know Audrey and Ben have found alternate accommodation. The new place is safe and clean. The search took some time, given the current state of the housing market. Audrey says this was compounded by the fact she is a single mother with a special-needs child. And of course, she could not supply a rental reference from Mr Khourey. In her hunt, Audrey also encountered many requests for unsecured cash bonds. This is worrying.

Audrey initially sought the assistance of the NSW Department of Housing. She informed them of the circumstances. At first they didn’t want to help because ‘technically’ she and Ben were not homeless. The NSW Department of Housing later changed their mind. Considering the circumstances, clearly this was the right decision. A parallel can be drawn with a situation involving domestic violence. This is violence related to the home of a very specific kind. Despite all these events, Mr Khourey is still renting out properties. He is advertising privately through Gumtree. Mr Khourey does not provide his name, he only provides details of the property.

This man is far from a model landlord. Pretty much as far as you could get. There is no doubt in my mind that this landlord should not be allowed to rent out properties to an unsuspecting public. He is a dangerous man. This lunatic needs to be stopped. And who should do this?

 

 

 

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. 
 

A Bad Landlord Database?

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.

Expose: House of Horrors

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.

Damn the Man!

I have been following the events in Queensland with great interest. Last year, the Newman Government announced its decision to cut funding to the Tenants’ Union of Queensland (TUQ) and the Tenant Advice and Advocacy Services (TAAS). The Federal Government stepped in and provided interim emergency funding but that grant is due to end June of this year.

Despite widespread public concern, Premier Newman has confirmed that funding will not be reinstated by his government. His plan is to divert funding from the 22 tenant advice services to the provision of public housing in Queensland. He says, ‘We stand by our decision to redirect funds to putting a roof over the heads of Queensland's most vulnerable people. That is our priority’. By posing such a choice, the Premier would have us believe the closure of a service that helps vulnerable people will actually help them. But it seems most people are wise to this political parlour trick. As TUQ says, this is just a ‘false dichotomy’. In my view, justifying a funding cut by using the plight of homeless people is unethical if not downright bloody scandalous.

Tenancy services have hit back saying the provision of advice and advocacy services help keep vulnerable persons off the streets. A campaigner says, ‘These services reduce homelessness and help to keep people housed, retain people's self-sufficiency in the private rental market and keep them off the social housing wait list’.

Ms Miller, the Shadow Housing Minister, supports the campaign to reinstate funding. This is what she has to say - ‘Without TAAS providers in Queensland we will see an increase in disputes and court proceedings between tenants and landlords and an ultimately an increase in homelessness in Queensland’.

At the Commonwealth level, the Gillard Labor Government is baffled by Newman Government’s decision. The Housing Minister, Mr Butler says, ‘The most effective way to reduce homelessness is to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place and services such as these help to do exactly that...we want a prevention based approach but the Newman Government seems intent on playing politics instead of policy’.

I would agree with these sentiments. The causal link seems pretty obvious to me. But Premier Campbell Newman has taken the view, ‘There is no evidence to suggest TAAS is preventing homelessness. In fact, between 2009 and 2012, the number of households on the waiting list considered to be homeless or at risk of homelessness increased by 80%.’

I would suggest that he is taking a very general statistic and using it out of context. There is no doubt homelessness is a very complex issue. If he wants to use statistics as a weapon, he should rely on specific statistics tied to the provision of tenant services. That raises another issue. Prior to the funding cuts, did the tenant advice and advocacy services have enough funding to produce detailed statistics about their operations? As a side note, if these services are constrained by confidentiality agreements, the public has a right to know. It is in the public interest to have access to all the necessary information to form a political view on this issue.

 

And just because there is no or limited evidence doesn’t mean something isn’t true. If I tell my boyfriend I have a headache, he can’t exactly prove it. Academics don't pay a lot of attention to tenancy laws. Just because it has been overlooked doesn’t mean the law adequately deals with drop kick landlords.

Premier Newman seems to have taken a bit of a legal approach with his reference to evidence. He has opened the door so let’s see how this plays out. If this was being determined in a court of law, a judge could hear evidence from both sides. One thing a judge can hear is expert evidence. There is no doubt the indomitable Penny Carr from TUQ would be considered an expert witness. She is able to provide a very specific and credible example of how tenant services help people at risk of becoming homeless.

 

She says, ‘[One woman with a disability] was told by the real estate agent that she was in rent arrears. There were some circumstances that were beyond her control. She was being taken to the tribunal for a warrant of possession. She was advised how to respond and how she might save herself from being evicted so she went to the tribunal well armed and well organised and managed not to get evicted and the rent arrears were rectified and she was able to stay in that property until the end of the fixed term agreement’. So not only do we have evidence, but damn good logic.

Still on shaky ground, Premier Newman tries to justify his decision on the ground there is a duplication of services. He says, ‘The services provided by TAAS are already available through government agencies like the RTA and through government programs like RentConnect’. There is a pretty big difference between advice and information. Who will go into bat for tenants when the shit hits the fan? TUQ observes ‘They will lose access to face to face services in their communities, they will have no one to review their documents, help them prepare for tribunal hearings or advocate for them to their lessor or agent. The RTA does none of these things and nor can they as they must remain impartial’.

But the Premier’s team says, ‘The RTA already processes more than three times the number of tenant inquiries as all TAAS providers combined. The RTA will continue to provide renters with free information about their rights on issues like rent disputes, property repairs, entry and privacy and getting a bond refund. They also provide a free conciliation service to help tenants and landlords resolve disputes’.

And please tell me how conciliation is any good when dirt bag landlords break the law and do what they want. In no way shape or form, has the Premier’s team engaged with practical issues on the ground that work to prevent access to justice. Their treatment is just superficial. This is about people, not politics.

Premier Newman also thinks some community organisations provide tenancy advice and advocacy. But he is unable to provide information about the identity of these organisations and the nature of the services they provide.

From the start, the campaign to save tenant services has emphasised that the funding for tenant services comes from interest derived from bonds put up by tenants. As I understand it, less than 15% goes towards the funding of the tenant services in Queensland. This is a fairly minimal amount for what all the State and Territory governments (except the Newman Government, of course) agree is an important  government responsibility.

 

One bemused voter observes, ‘I don't understand how the funding that would have been put into TAAS is really going to make much of a dent in the amount of money needed to properly deal with the issue of adequate social housing’.

But Premier Newman has taken the position that what he is doing is legal and therefore defensible. It might be legal, but in my view, probably not moral. The Premier’s team says, ‘It is not correct to suggest that the interest earned on tenant bonds, some of which previously funded TAAS, is somehow tenants’ money...Under the Act, interest earned on tenant bonds is to be used for the provision of rental advisory services or on establishing schemes for supplying residential accommodation’. Just because one can do something, does not mean it’s necessarily right. If we do not question these things, women still might not have the right to vote, to an education, or to equal pay.

 

Generally, the acts of the Newman Government in cutting funding to tenant services has brought attention to the issue of interest derived from tenant bonds. Tenants definitely have an interest in how these funds are allocated by state and territory governments.

 

Is there an ulterior motive behind the axing of tenant services? The implementation of the three-strike policy in public housing may be a sign of more disturbing developments to come. And who exactly is going to question these policies and advocate for tenants?

See More:

• Amy Remekis, ‘Tenant group faces eviction’, Brisbane Times, 12 April 2013
• Amy Remekis, ‘Tenants groupsfear homelessness after funding cut’, Bayside Bulletin, 3 April 2013
• Koren Helbig, ‘Protesters to rally against funding cut for Tenant Advice and Advocacy Services’, The Courier-Mail, 28 August 2012
• ‘Disgraceful Newman Government Confirms TAAS Axed’ My Sunshine Coast, 12 April 2013
• Mark Butler MP, ‘Feds say Newman Government to leave tenants out in the cold’, media release, 11 April 2013
• Stephanie Smail, ‘Qld Govt slammed for dumping rental advocacy help’, The World Today, 12 April 2013

 

Expose: Terrifying Home Invasion by Landlord

What do you do when your landlord breaks in? That’s the question Audrey had to ask herself last week when her landlord staged a terrifying home invasion. This story is very real. Do not think for one minute this didn’t happen. I have used fake names to protect the victims. Audrey is a 48 year-old woman from the western suburbs of Sydney. A writer herself, even she has struggled to put her shock and disbelief into words. What makes this story even more outrageous is that her special-needs son was home when the landlord attacked.

 

Audrey rented a first floor unit from one Robert Khourey two months ago. It all started when her ten year old son, Ben, fell down the stairs. No proper railing in place, there was just a plank of wood. When Audrey arrived home at midnight, after spending hours at the hospital Mr Khourey made them relocate with no notice whatsoever. Mr Khourey should have issued a no-ground eviction notice giving Audrey 90 days notice to vacate. But the law doesn’t matter to this landlord.

Then the harassment started. Mr Khourey objected to Audrey being friends with another tenant and did not like that she was friendly with the neighbours. Another tenant has alleged that Mr Khourey subjected her to unwanted sexual advances. Audrey says, ‘This guy just can't let go. He was using me as a way of trying to get to the other ex-tenant, when I wouldn't talk her into sleeping with him...’ Although Audrey has always paid rent on time and has never damaged the premises, he started finding fault with everything. He came to her home and said she had 12 hours to vacate the premises. He justified his action by citing the Innkeepers Act 1968 (NSW). Totally irrelevant, of course. Luckily Audrey knew her rights. She stood her ground and refused to leave. What an amazing lady.

The terrifying ordeal started the next morning when Mr Khourey broke into Audrey’s home. He picked up her belongings and started throwing them around the unit. He even threw her own ironing board at her. Mr Khourey finally left after Audrey managed to force him out. Audrey called the police straightaway for help. The attending police officers informed her the landlord’s behaviour merely constituted a ‘civil assault’. Furthermore she had no rights without a written lease and Mr Khourey could enter the premises at any time because he was the landlord. Wrong, wrong, wrong. No matter which way you look at it, this was a criminal assault. A residential tenancy agreement does not need to be in writing. See section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). A tenant possesses the right to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. Moreover, on my reading, assault is not a permitted ground for access to leased premises.

The police did nothing to help Audrey. They facilitated the return of Mr Khourey a second time. Mr Khourey assaulted Audrey again in her own home while her disabled son watched on in fear for her safety. Increasingly erratic and delusional, Mr Khourey started calling her by her friend’s name. She says it was ‘bloody scary’. Desperate and alone, she called the police again for help. Police officers attended the scene. Mr Khourey stated he had had rights of entry under the innkeepers legislation. And they believed him. Yet again, they left Audrey and her disabled son to the mercy of a crazed landlord.

And then Mr Khourey returned again a third time. He started bashing the front door down. At this stage, both her and her son were in hysterics fearing for their lives. Audrey dragged a wardrobe over and pushed it over on its front to create a barricade. Taking shelter under a flight of stairs, Audrey managed to call 000. She says, ‘The third attack was the scariest as that wardrobe just wouldn't fit against the front door (I could not slide it across quickly enough - just like in a horror film) and he was crashing into the door and I was convinced we were dead. Ben was screaming and I was screaming too. The triple 000 operator stayed on the line with me but I was terrified and screaming and could not stop shaking for hours. It was only later I realised that both my wrist and my ankle were sprained’.

Fed up, the police finally charged Mr Khourey with assault. The police finally arrested Mr Khourey just after 4pm that Friday. The attacks had started from 6.30am in the morning. Audrey had called the police on all three occasions. She had made contact with the Consumer, Trader, and Tenancy Tribunal. They told Audrey to speak with the sergeant and demand that he watch video footage she managed take with her phone. Here is a video Audrey shot of Mr Khourey being arrested.

Mr Khourey spent a mere 24 hours in lock-up. Despite Audrey’s terrifying ordeal, the NSW Magistrates Court accepted his application for bail. What happened next, you ask? He returned to Audrey’s home. Yet again, Audrey called the police. And finally, he left her alone. But no remorse. This is what he has to say for himself on Facebook - ‘After 24 hours of entertaining the bullshit bureaucracy and its rogue minions it's good to be free and thundering. May Gods glory shine through people and purify the dark souls of those who hope against hope’. Clearly, this dude is a few cans short of a six-pack!

There is absolutely nothing in the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) that could have helped Audrey in this situation. I only found one provision remotely relevant. Section 92 says the tribunal can terminate an agreement when a tenant subjects a landlord to harassment, abuse, intimidation or threats. The bias is unbelievable. The Act does not address the safety of tenants in situations they are being abused by their landlord. There is simply no procedure for police to follow. The courts have considerable discretion making protection orders. But it is not really clear what a court can do to protect tenants when a landlord is abusing their tenants on premises in which they have a proprietary interest.

What else can we take away from terrifying tale? In my view, the response of the police just was not good enough. The police should have the appropriate knowledge to deal with such a situation in the most appropriate way. There needs to be adequate policy and procedures. Police officers need to be trained so that this situation cannot happen again. This kind of thing should not happen in a country like Australia.

This story will not end here. Court proceedings are on foot. I will update as developments occur. The public has a right to know about the dangers of renting from this landlord. So tenants be warned, think twice before renting from this man. Please note this photo was taken from a Facebook page available for public viewing.