Subscribe to THE VOICE E-notifications and receive an email when a new article is added. Click here.

THERE are a number of issues in the ‘big picture’ of residential tenancy law reform.

These include granting tenants increased security of tenure through the adoption of just-cause eviction provisions; rent increases that place the onus on landlords to justify them; acknowledgement in the law of the significant role that share housing plays in the private rental market; and, of course, providing even a modicum of legislative protection to boarders and lodgers.

All of this still appears a long way off, even with talk of new legislation at the end of this year.

The ‘small picture’ is righting some of the injustices that persist, often because of the exploitative or poor practices of landlords, both in private rental housing and social housing.

Over the last year Older Persons Tenants’ Service (OPTS) can claim some victories in this regard.

For a long time OPTS has been concerned about the ignorance of many police officers and other public officials about the rights of residents of boarding houses.

This came to a head last year when a rogue boarding house owner in the Inner West peddled a letter on a Local Court letterhead that was apparently also endorsed by a senior police officer.

The letter stated that a resident of a boarding house can be locked out and, if there is a resulting breach of the peace, the local police should be contacted ‘to preserve the peace’.

OPTS was instrumental in getting the Deputy Commissioner, Operations, NSW Police to write to all police stations across the State in November 2008 about the legal status of residents of boarding houses.

The directive stated that whether a resident of a boarding house is a tenant, boarder or lodger is an issue that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis by a court or a tribunal, not by a police officer.

It was also instrumental in getting the Attorney General’s Department to send out a bulletin to all Local Court staff across the State in January 2009 advising that “the question of whether a person is a boarder or a tenant is to be determined by reference to the particular circumstances of an occupancy arrangement.

“The description of a residential facility as a ‘boarding house’ is not determinant of a resident’s rights”.

In the first half of 2009, OPTS was instrumental in negotiating with the Community Housing Division of Housing NSW for access to the Community Housing Rent Calculator for twenty-two tenants’ services that make up the Tenants Advice and Advocacy Program (TAAP).

This proved necessary because of the volume of telephone calls received from disgruntled community housing tenants who were very confused by changes in community housing rent policy.

Workshops were organised by the Community Housing Division and the Tenants’ Union, so that TAAP workers could apply the calculator when checking the new rent for their clients.

But poor practices also happen in public housing.

Over the last year OPTS has corresponded with Housing NSW about form letters used in local offices of Housing NSW.

In one letter a statement of the law (about alleged debt arising from repairs after a tenant had vacated) was both incorrect and misleading, and indeed was intimidatory.

Housing NSW agreed to correct this letter immediately.

Another letter defined a former tenant who has an unsatisfactory tenancy history and set out conditions that would be attached to any new application for public housing.

This letter was sent to a client of OPTS, but was not tailored to his particular situation.

OPTS argued that such a letter should advise which points apply to the former tenant and delete the points that do not apply.

To do otherwise may be confusing and be seen as a denial of procedural fairness.

Housing NSW agreed to review this letter as part of a systematic review of all operational client letters being undertaken in 2009.

OPTS dobbed Housing NSW into the Office of Fair Trading in the first half of 2009 for the wording of ads placed in newspapers in relation to uncollected goods.

In these ads Housing NSW was claiming payments that have been illegal since 1995!

The Office of Fair Trading recently wrote to OPTS advising that, as a result of its complaint, Housing NSW has agreed to modify their advertising policy and procedures and develop a revised template for advertising uncollected goods with the words ‘and any debt owed’ being removed.

But there is still one practice that seems to persist amongst some Housing NSW Client Service Officers and needs to be stamped out: fudging it!

This is the practice by some Client Service Officers of completing the residential premises condition report at the start of tenancies by sitting in their office and ticking every square as OK.

This has been the subject of two recent articles by OPTS in Shelter NSW’s Around the House (September 2008 and June 2009 issues) and in THE VOICE (October 2008).

OPTS has taken up this issue with one Area Director.

Despite two letters about the matter, three months have passed and there has only been an acknowledgement of the first letter.

With the small picture, you sometimes get results but, like the big picture, you have to keep on keeping on.

Robert Mowbray

Older Persons Tenants’ Service (OPTS)

The small picture