Theresa May shows Gladys the way on eviction reform

Theresa May’s government has shown that supporting a fairer, balanced renting system is possible for conservative governments.

Last week May and Housing Minister James Brokenshire announced that legislation was to be written to end unfair ‘no grounds’ evictions. Landlords will no longer be able to end tenancies either at the end of a fixed-term or outside a contract period without giving any reason at all. Instead, there will be a list of reasonable grounds where although the tenant has not breached the lease, the landlord will be able regain possession of the property.

Reasonable grounds will be determined through consultation but may include a landlord wanting to move back in to the property or carry out major renovations. A landlord or a new owner will still be able to regain possession where the tenant has breached the lease terms. 

These are nearly identical proposals to the reforms sought in Australia by the state-based Make Renting Fair campaigns and tenant representative groups. Progressive parties in most states as well as New Zealand have already accepted the need for reform. Victoria has largely implemented the change and both Queensland and ACT are looking likely to move soon. With the UK now joining the 21^st century, Australia will soon be the only Commonwealth country still using ‘no grounds’ evictions despite inheriting the concept from England.

In NSW last year Premier Berejiklian’s government declined to implement the reform. But perhaps in a new term they can take inspiration from their British counterparts.

Prime Minister May said in her announcement that the reform will give tenants ‘the long-term certainty and the peace of mind they deserve’. Minister Brokenshire also talked about the stability that change will bring.

Their language shows that neither side of politics should feel apprehensive about making things fairer for tenants. Conservatism in the Menzies tradition was about giving people a stake and a sense of ownership in their community. Now tenants are the forgotten people - refused the opportunity to feel the connection because of the instability caused by policies like no grounds evictions.

Current Energy and Environment Minister Matt Kean MP indicated his willingness for reform as Innovation and Better Regulation Minister in 2017 when he told the Herald that "no grounds evictions, retaliatory evictions, all these things are currently undermining renters' rights in NSW”.

However later Kean noted that the government did not feel there was sufficient evidence for change. So what evidence did the British government rely on? The primary reason the government has been giving is that no grounds evictions have repeatedly been found to be the leading cause of homelessness amongst families. 

In New South Wales, we have experienced rapid growth in homelessness – 37% in 5 years, much faster than any other state – and the Premier has made a commitment to reducing street homelessness by 50% in just a few years. Ending no grounds evictions would make that task significantly easier.

Even agents in the UK have begun to realise that blocking reform leaves them on the wrong side of history - with one, David Alexander,  describing the reform as "long overdue" and noting that industry resistance to reform is often without merit. Referencing Scotland's reforms to no grounds evictions in 2016 and reform of fees tenants could be charged in 2012 Alexander said "despite some opposition to these changes at the time they have all been introduced and the [private rental sector] has not collapsed or disappeared."

Giving tenants a greater sense of belonging to their communities, and preventing homeless, with no impact on the state budget? Theresa May has shown Gladys Berejiklian and her new Innovation and Better Regulation minister Kevin Anderson one way to make a big statement in her first term as elected leader of the state. The more than 2 million tenants across this state also deserve the stability and piece of mind now being promised to English tenants.

International Older Tenants' Day

Artwork from a great essay by Anwen Crawford, 'Nowhere to go – older women and housing vulnerability', Right Now, 4 October 2016. She writes: ‘The number of older women who are rental tenants in Australia is growing, and these women ... are increasingly vulnerable to poverty and homelessness ... Housing affordability and security for rental tenants will only become a more pressing issue as Australia’s population continues to age.’

This year International Tenants’ Day coincides with International Day of Older Persons and is celebrated on Monday, 1 October.

On 22 May 1986 the Council of the International Union of Tenants met in Paris and designated the first Monday in October as the ‘International Tenants’ Day.’ The date chosen was made following a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly for a World Habitat Day, first celebrated in October 1986. Read more here. So, this year is the 33rd International Tenants´ Day.

Resolution 45/106, passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 14th 1990, declared 1st October to be the International Day of Older Persons.

The United Nations 2018 theme aims to:

• Promote the rights enshrined in the Declaration and what it means in the daily lives of older persons;
• Raise the visibility of older people as participating members of society committed to improving the enjoyment of human rights in many areas of life and not just those that affect them immediately;
• Reflect on progress and challenges in ensuring full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by older persons; and
• Engage broad audiences across the world and mobilize people for human rights at all stages of life.

Accordingly, the International Union of Tenants has chosen the theme: “Sound, safe and suitable housing for elderly people” as this year’s theme for the International Tenants’ Day 2018.

There are currently an estimated 962 million people aged 60 or over in the world, comprising 13 per cent of the global population. It is predicted that this figure will have risen to 2 billion by 2050. Such huge numbers are likely to create many challenges, not least in housing the growing number of older people.

The International Union of Tenants has identified the following sub-themes for this International Tenants’ Day:

• An adequate supply of suitable, safe and sound housing for the elderly at affordable rents.

• The right to social and housing assistance to ensure a decent existence for elderly people who lack sufficient resources.

• A tenure neutral stance expressed through public policy could achieve wide availability of suitable rental housing alternatives for elderly people.

• Adaption of housing to suit the elderly. Many elderly people suffer from health and/or mobility problems. Therefore, many older people may have to leave their accommodation. Policies should support home adaptation for safe living without increasing the rents to a level where they become unaffordable.

• Urban environments should by designed as an inclusive urban environment by providing accessible services for the elderly. Public meeting places, shopping facilities and elderly care should be available locally.

• Understanding of the new developments in society and providing solutions for the growing number of single households. People may value privacy but not necessarily loneliness. Housing should be suitable also for the many people who live on their own.

• Prevention of accidents that happen in the everyday lives of elderly people (the majority represented by falls).

• The rate of financial effort related to housing increases from retirement age onwards. Many pensioners’ income is very low and/or has decreased whilst housing costs have risen and therefore housing policy must consider support structures for those tenants, including elderly people that may otherwise live in housing poverty or become homeless.

• Suitable facilities. Identifying the needs of people growing old at home and technical adaptations that may be carried out and new technologies that may be used. Tenants are particularly vulnerable as they may have no equity which they can release to finance adaptation of their homes.

• Ensuring that housing is sound and free of hazards and that they are suitably heated or cooled and maintained.

• Preventing vulnerability, in particular energy poverty and protection from crime and abuse.

• Including elderly people in decision making processes through the creation of participatory structures at national and at local levels. The planning of new housing developments and the adaption of existing housing should be supported by consultation processes with stakeholder groups.

You may read their full media release here.

So how is Australia doing on this International Day of Older Tenants?

Back in March of this year, The Brown Couch published ‘A longer lease on life’ here. It says that today across Australia more people are renting for longer periods. The reality for older renters is described by words such as : Overlooked, A distinct financial disadvantage, Condemned, Vulnerable and Financial stress … and that’s just for starters.

In July of this year Isabelle Lane at the New Daily wrote: 'Older Australians are falling off the housing ladder and face spending their retirement as renters, with the situation expected to worsen for coming generations.'

The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute provides an excellent analysis of the situation facing older, low income tenants in the private rental sector. They also points to some current research. Check it out here.

Emma Power of Western Sydney University writes for The Conversation: 'Life as an older renter, and what it tells us about the urgent need for tenancy reform.'  The article is based on research findings presented in a talk by the author at an event, 'Fair for Everybody: Reforming Renting in NSW', hosted at Parliament House on Wednesday 26 September 2018.

So, on International Older Tenants’ Day, let’s particularly celebrate the contributions of older tenants whom we know. They may be a member of a tenants’ group, an activist in social housing or an advocate for the rights of residents in a land lease community. They are the back bone of the struggle for a fairer housing system. Often they are quiet about what they do day-in and day-out. But they are part of a worldwide movement!

Renting with bats, mice and squirrels in the wild Midwest USA

Today we have a special guest appearance from Chloe Schumacher, an intern from the USA working at the TU. As Australia considers the possibilities offered by 'build-to-rent' landlords, she presents a timely example of the need to look past the marketing promises of 'institutional' or corporate landlords. This experience is not a one off - recent research found many housing advocates raising concerns about the approach corporate landlords take in the USA.

The first time I had ever rented a home was with five friends back home in Iowa. We are all in college and renting a home off campus is very normal after your first year in college. It was mid summer when we all moved in, and the first night I spent in the house was when the problems began.

I woke up around 3:00am to something hitting my chest. My hand hit something off my bed and that is when the fluttering started. I had woken up to realize there was not one, but several bats flying around in my room! My first terrified thought was to get out, but when I opened the door the pack flew into the kitchen and throughout the rest of the house. 

After this incident my roommates and I tried to call the rental company’s complaint and emergency hotline, but received no answer. Due to receiving no answer we all went into the office the next morning to sort out how to get rid of the families of bats living in our home. We explained the situation and our concerns – bats can carry rabies, their bite can’t be felt, and their faeces is a health hazard. After the story and explanations of concern, I was told that it was bat season; therefore there was nothing that they could do!

After being told that there was nothing that our renting company could do to rid our house of the infestation, we decided to be hopeful and leave our front door open to try and let them fly out on their own. This didn’t end up working; instead the bats went to sleep, hanging from the living room ceiling away from the door, due to it being so hot outside. They liked our house because it was nice and cool!

We had numerous run-ins with the bats. There were many times when one would be hanging inside the door frame and then when the door was shut, it would accidentally be smashed and injured or killed. Due to being concerned about rabies and other diseases, we decide to keep a few of the dead bats to send to be tested. After receiving positive results for the bats caring diseases, we became increasingly concerned and continued to seek out our landlord for help. The battle lasted for over 2 months and included several sessions of the five of us planting ourselves in their office and asking to speak to manager or company head. We even resorted to bringing in and leaving the bats in the office that had died in our home to try and prove a point.

We could go no longer go into our basement and finally after the two-month plea for someone to come out and do something about our bat invasion, our landlord sent over a maintenance crew.  These two men had no idea what to do about bats and were only trained in carpentry; they claimed they couldn’t find any bats. Since our landlord had sent someone out as we had asked, they acted as if they had done all they could to help.

It wasn’t until a few days after the carpenters had visited that a police officer was called and he kindly collected all of the bats in our living room and removed them. This process took him over two hours to catch and release the creatures, because they are protected in Iowa and much of the United States.

Even though our bat problem had been solved, we continued to have animal problems in the home throughout the rest of our tenancy. There was a large nest of mice living in the basement and they would also get into cupboards, but when we complained about this we were told the house is old and that is to be expected. If we wanted anything done about the mice, we were told we’d have to figure it out ourselves. Later we had squirrels and mice in our walls and again we received no help and were told it is just part of living in Iowa and in an older home. So, we dealt with the scratching noises that they created at night in the walls. Another problem we had was the power would randomly go out. When we complained about this, we were told it was due to the mice chewing away at cables and they weren’t responsible for such instances, even though we had complained about the mice problem previously!

The company we rented from was unhelpful and eventually became rude whenever any of my roommates or myself even entered the office building. We were treated more as a nuisance than customers, or even tenants. All of our requests for help were met with excuses and explanations of “that’s just how it is.” Unfortunately this isn’t an uncommon scenario in my college town, because a single company owns a very large majority of the homes and apartments for rent in the area. This allows the company to provide unsatisfactory tenancy experiences but still not go out of business. This is a huge problem where I am from and the company has been taken to court on many different occasions for their actions (or inaction). In fact, they would often only respond to tenants who were paying rent above a certain grade and the rest of the tenants who didn’t pay as much were never helped or even received a response to complaints or maintenance requests. Students have even come to expect that they will never see their deposit money back, even if they were perfect tenants and did not damage the home at all.

This company is the backbone of the renting industry where I am from, which allows them to get away with their mistreatment of tenants. Students are forced to just deal with their tenancy problems – like living in a pest menagerie –, because we have no other option of places to rent from within in a reasonable distance from campus. 

2018 Renting World Cup - Group Stages

Australia has been performing better than expected at the FIFA World Cup in Russia and we've been watching, cheering and hoping we'll find a path out of the group stages. But how would we perform if countries were being judged on the way renting works in each country? We decided to try and find out!

There is not a lot of information for many countries in the World Cup, so sources are a little sketchy. We apologise in advance for any errors. For a more serious comparison of Australia to other countries, check out this recent AHURI guide. We've based the group stages on the rating given by property investor website Global Property Guide, which judges almost all 32 countries on a scale from "Extremely Pro-Landlord" to "Extremely Pro-Tenant". We have converted that to a number scale of 1 to 5. For tie breakers we've referred to the amount of public housing in the country. The full groups stage list is here. We don't necessarily agree with every referee's decision here, but that's the fun of sport!

Click for full-size!

Here is each group, zoomed in for easier reading.
Group A: Russia and Egypt make it through, leaving Saudi Arabia and Uruguay behind. Russia with a strong public housing presence looks like they may go far in the tournament.

Group B: Spain was the clear winner out of this group, with Iberian rivals Portugal only a point behind. Morocco and Iran both left to consider whether pro-landlord systems was the right playbook.

Group C: Denmark and France dominated this group, with Australia left at the bottom of the group behind Peru. Hopefully in 4 years time we'll have sorted some of the problems that kept us down this time!

Group D: Iceland and Croatia shared top spot in this low-scoring group, Iceland taking the number one spot with a relatively high 12% public housing. The group also saw the first 1 - Extremely Pro-Landlord score for Nigeria. The country actually has some strong protections on paper, but they fail to deliver when it matters.

Group E: 3 teams competed for the top spot in this pro-tenant group, but Serbia and Switzerland's higher public housing meant they edged out Costa Rica. Football powerhouses Brazil were left in last place with very few protections for tenants.

Group F: Sweden dominated this group beating out the more famously pro-tenant Germany for top spot. Mexico equaled Germany's score but Germany scraped through to the round of 16 with a higher public housing. South Korea was left behind perhaps judged unfairly for their unusual jeon-see system which sees tenants pay rent for 10 years up front.

Group G: Belgium easily won this group, with England only just holding off Panama and Tunisia. England managed to scrape through on their significant public housing numbers, but with this stock under threat, will they do the same next time?

Group H: Poland and Colombia were lucky to make it to the next round in another low-scoring group. Senegal managed to beat Japan to avoid bottom of the group status. Japan has fallen a long way since the turn of the century with GPG moving them from pro-tenant to extremely pro-landlord in the last two decades.

See you next week for the finals, tenancy fans!

Flag icons in this post designed by Freepik

Hit the pause button

Front page of The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 July 2017

A fortnight ago ABC News reported that Australia looks almost certain to win a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, do we deserve a seat?

In recent years Australia's human rights record has become very blemished ... not just in the area of treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. Back in August 2014 Ms Kim Boettcher, solicitor for Seniors Rights Service addressed the United Nations' Open-Ended Working Group on Ageing (5th session), and drew attention to the plight of tenants of social housing at Millers Point and The Rocks. She told the Working Group how one of the elderly residents said to relocate her away from her community is ‘one step short of putting you up against a wall and shooting you because it’s saying you are of no value to society. You are worthless.’ You may read her full address here. Indeed, last year The Millers Point Community Working Party and Tenants Union of NSW made submissions to the Australian Law Reform Commission on 'Protecting the Rights of Older Australians from Abuse', arguing that the actions of the NSW Government in Millers Point constitute systemic elder abuse.

The NSW Government's sale of public housing in Millers Point continues. As at 11 July 2017, there have been 151 sales, some of multiple properties. Altogether the sale of 200 properties at Millers Point has raised $422.77 million (with a further $22.09 million being generated in Stamp Duty!). You may check the NSW Government's dedicated website for their figures at the end of June 2017 here.

But at what cost? At the time of the Minister's announcement to sell all social housing stock in Millers Point, there were 579 residents in 399 tenancies in the portfolio.

At 19 July 2017, 16 residents in 10 tenancies remain. So, altogether 563 tenant and household members in 389 tenancies have either vacated or are committed to moving. There are 2 tenants remaining in the Sirius Building. We have previous reported extensively on the impact of forced relocation on the residents.

So when is enough, enough? This once proud and historic community indeed, the only community to have bestowed upon it the status of 'A Living Heritage', has been decimated by the cruel edict in March 2014 to remove all social housing tenants from their community and sell off their homes, resulting in great pain and suffering! The last few surviving elderly, vulnerable tenants ask the NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, to end this abuse of their basic human rights and allow the few to stay, and 'age-in-place'.

A new development gives our Premier the opportunity to redress this great injustice. On Tuesday of this week, the NSW Land and Environment Court made a ruling that the NSW Government's decision not to put the iconic Sirius Building on the heritage list was invalid. This gained wide media coverage on the ABC News , The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian . Shaun Carter, Save Our Sirius chairperson, said it was a good day for the building, the local community and the whole of NSW. He urged the Premier to hit pause on the demolition and and sale of Sirius. He said let's talk about the heritage listing of Sirius and how the building could be used for social housing again. He added: 'We are desperately short of social and affordable housing, let's now use it for what it was intended.'

Last two remaining Sirius residents Myra Demetriou and Cherie Johnson
and Save our Sirius chairperson Shaun Carter. (ABC News)

So the question becomes: Will the NSW Government show compassion and allow Myra and Cherie (and the other older residents of Millers Point) to age-in-place in their homes? Yes, stop the evictions, with more residents facing hearings at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Yes, seize the opportunity which the Land and Environment Court has provided and let's talk again about the importance of retaining social housing in Millers Point. You have received oodles of cash from the sales to date and you also announced a billion dollar windfall in revenue from stamp duty in this year's State Budget. If you still insist on selling the homes which are not in the Sirius building, then defer this and do so when these few remaining residents don't require them. 

Over to you, Premier! Show the nations of the world that our great state, New South Wales, has a government that leads the way by being fair and compassionate when it comes to its citizens, no matter of age, race or creed! Let's make a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council more than mere words.

The authors of this post are Barney Gardner, member of the Millers Point Community Working Party, and Robert Mowbray, Project Officer - Older Tenants with the Tenants' Union of NSW.

Australia, the land of indefinite, insecure tenancies

There's been a lot of talk lately about the insecurity of renting in Australia, and how things would be better if we can somehow get everyone onto longer leases. There's a perception that Australian tenancies are notoriously short, with the majority of leases lasting around 6 or 12 months.

We're often asked how long leases ought to be in order to give renters the security they need. Take, for example, this recent interview Leo did with ABC 24's Breakfast program, where he is asked (at 1:50) "what length of tenancies would you like to see become available for people?"

And Su-Lin Tan's latest piece in the Australian Financial Review - Renting in Australia is generally 'miserable' but doesn't have to be - wades into similar territory. Tan notes the growing number of Australians "not interested in buying a home" and adds:

But one of the biggest obstacles is the lack of long-term leases, a stumbling block for people who have kids in school, long-term job commitments or simply want a settled life.

Referring to data and commentary from the recent Unsettled report, Tan also notes that the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark offer "infinite leases".

For a more comprehensive look at how European tenancies work, there's the recent publication of the International Union of Tenants report from members to its 20th congress, Rent Regulation and Security of Tenure in the Private Rental Sector. Or, for a quicker grab, there's UK Shelter's map of renters rights in Europe. These tell us that for the majority of European countries tenancies are "protected" with fixed terms of three years, if indeed they are not "permanent" and can only be ended with legal grounds.

And what of Australia? In all jurisdictions tenancies tend to begin with a fixed-term agreement. It is for the parties to decide the length of that term, and it is a matter of convention rather than law that most tenancies begin with a term of 6 or 12 months. If a tenancy agreement is not formally terminated following the processes set out in our renting laws, or a new fixed term created, it carries over and becomes a periodic or continuing agreement once the fixed term expires. It does not end simply because the fixed term expires. These are essentially permanent agreements similar to what we see in parts of Europe, where tenants' have some of the strongest protections against eviction and unreasonable rent increases in the world.

So what makes Australia different? What's missing from our laws, that operates in those parts of Europe that we look to for inspiration, is the part about not being able to end tenancies without legal grounds. Or rather, in all of the Australian states and territories it is lawful to end a tenancy without a reason, so the legal ground becomes "no grounds". In New South Wales this can happen at the end of a fixed term agreement with 30 days notice to the tenant, or at any time during a periodic agreement with 90 days notice to the tenant.

When issued with a valid notice of termination without grounds, there is generally nothing a tenant can do to save their tenancy but beg. The rationale for this is that "landlords should be able to deal with their property as they see fit". While in Europe, landlords presumably still manage to deal with their property as they see fit, but they must do so within structures that protect tenants from unfair or unreasonable evictions.

A tenancy cannot be terminated without grounds during a fixed term, which is why it's often suggested that longer fixed terms would be a good thing. It might also explain why some tenants enter into new short fixed terms at the expiry of their term, although this might also be because landlords and real estate agents often insist - threatening termination without grounds if a "new agreement" isn't signed. And while longer fixed terms may suit some people, we can't help but notice that tenants frequently ask for advice on how to end a fixed-term agreement early. Some might be encouraged by the use of longer fixed terms, but they are not the catch-all solution we're after. Indeed, long fixed term agreements might present unacceptable risks to many tenants, if the means by which they are encouraged is the erosion of tenants' rights.

How long are Australian tenancies then? The Unsettled report doesn't give us much detail on this, focusing instead on the length of fixed terms for Australian renters. Unsurprisingly, it found that 83% of Australian renters have no fixed term agreement, or are on an agreement of 12 months or less. It also found that half of Australian renters have moved three times or more, including 19% who have been renting for less than five years, and 42% of those under the age of 35.

For tenancies in New South Wales, tenants' bonds lodged with the Rental Bond Board reveal a little more. From data released under a freedom of information request in 2016 and made available as part of the NSW Government's open data portal, it is clear that only a small proportion of tenancies end within 12 months or less. The majority continue into a second year and a significant amount go on for a third year after that. Slightly more than one in ten rental bonds have been held by the Board for more than three years.

Bonds lodged with the NSW Rental Bond Board, by duration

Whether they are (or were) attached to agreements with a fixed term of 6, 12 or any number of months, these tenancies are indefinite. They are insecure because they can be brought to an end without grounds. If predictability and stability for long-term renters is what we're after, we should focus less on encouraging longer fixed terms, and more on getting reasonable grounds for termination into our renting laws. As long as their home remains available to rent, and they continue to meet their commitments under the agreement, tenants should not be asked to leave without a good reason.