Happy anniversary, Residential Tenancies Act - part 3

Here on the Brown Couch we're still celebrating the 5th anniversary of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010's passage into law - even though it's been more than a month since the actual date. We're excited because this anniversary means the Act must now be reviewed, and while it does have some good parts we reckon it needs more than just a tune-up.

It's a bit of a fixer-upper...

We started our celebrations with a look at the policy objectives or the Act, and we discussed how the New South Wales rental market has changed over the last five years. As it happens, there's a whole lot more of it... more tenants, more rent, more landlords, more debt, more high prices, more tenants, more rent - you get the picture. Now this might come as a surprise to some, such as those who suggested the market might dry up if, for example, landlords had to install water efficiency measures before passing on water usage costs to tenants. But it's no surprise to us.

And it's no surprise that tenants aren't doing as well as others out of it, either, given the architects of the Act set out to 'balance' the interests of those looking for wealth in the rental market with those who live in it. If such a balance is possible, or even desirable, it hasn't been achieved, and the New South Wales rental market remains a dangerous place to live. This can be fixed.

When the Act is reviewed, this question of balance needs to be revisited. Increased investment amid rocketing house prices over the last five years should give the NSW Government an incredible amount of comfort that shoring up the position of tenants will have no impact on landlords' appetite for more. Landlords will always occupy a position of relative power in their relationships with tenants - they own the property, they call the shots. Our renting laws should be designed to protect tenants from the careless, reckless or deliberate exercise of that power to their detriment, at the same time as ensuring they take responsibility for their own detrimental acts or omissions within this relationship. That's less about balance, and more about acknowledging how the power imbalance actually works.

There are a couple of key points where the Residential Tenancies Act completely fails to do this, and these should be the focus of its review. Most notably, the Act allows landlords to end tenancies without a reason, which makes the rental market extremely insecure for those who live in it. It also makes tenants very wary about how and why they approach landlords on questions of repairs and maintenance, or whether a rent increase is justified, or perhaps even how often they've been coming around to check up on the place...

The Tenants' Union says we should make ending tenancies without a reason a thing of the past. This will be very easy to do, by replacing the 'no grounds' provisions in the Act with a number of grounds on which landlords might genuinely need to end a tenancy. The question should be whether the landlord has a valid purpose that genuinely requires the property to be vacant, because displacing an established household should require nothing less than a good reason.

Then there are the provisions about repairs and maintenance. Currently, the law lets landlords off the hook too easily for failing to carry out repairs. Tenants can observe this in two ways: first, when they try to get repairs done; and second, if they try to end their tenancy because repairs are unsatisfactory. The problem is that landlords can avoid their repair obligation by showing they have acted with 'reasonable diligence' - which may sound fair enough on a first reading, but what it does is actually not fair enough at all. It moves the question of what the landlord has done to repair something away from the question of what else they could be doing, and places it instead within the question of whether there is a need to fix something at all. The Tenants' Union says this can be made better by moving the 'reasonable diligence' considerations to the question of remedy, rather than breach, when a tenant asks for repairs.

And of course, there are issues around how and when landlords can increase rents. We've been involved in quite a bit of talk about these issues of late, as have others. The law allows landlords to increase rents almost at will, leaving it up to tenants to put the brakes on rent hikes by showing them to be excessive. The Tenants' Union says this is not reasonable, as it is more often the case that landlords will have access to the kind of information needed to show such a thing. Instead, landlords should be required to show that a proposed increase is not excessive, if it is to exceed the consumer price index. For proposed increases that are below this index, it could remain up to tenants to show how they are excessive.

There are several other aspects of the legislation that should be given a seriously close look during the course of the coming review. These include the coverage of the Act, which expressly excludes a number of renters on the basis of the type of accommodation they rent, or the kind of agreement they have - and for most of these marginal renters there is no other statutory regime to give them consumer rights, or giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to mediate disputes with their accommodation providers. Included in this category are a growing number of share-house residents who might believe themselves to be tenants - and for whom the substance of their agreement with a head-tenant may give rise to such a belief - only to be left out of the Act because they have not committed to their agreement in writing. This needs to change.

Finally, there are the new provisions that regulate the use of residential tenancy databases. These are generally good, but they have left a few small gaps that need to be plugged so that database operators can't continue to exploit them. In particular, the definition of a residential tenancy database is too narrow; there needs to be a requirement to prove debts if they are to be the reason for a database listing; and database operators need to be discouraged, with penalty terms, from charging excessive fees to tenants who ask to see their listing.

Of course, after watching it, working with it, and living with it for nearly five years we know that many other parts of the Act could use a little attention. We've recently produced a detailed report outlining where we think more changes should be made, which you can download and share from our website.

The coming review is an opportunity for tenants and advocates to talk loudly about what we know - the big stuff, and the small stuff too. This opportunity may not come around again for some time, so let's make the most of it.

Let's make sure these questions continue to be asked: what do we like about our current renting laws? What needs to change? How do we bring about the kind of Residential Tenancies Act we want for New South Wales, where we live?

Under 30, renting, working...

In today's guest appearance, former Tenants' Advocate Hayley Stone discusses housing and income support for young people in Sydney.

***

I recently applied for a rental property. As part of this process, I provided my licence and my employment history, including the direct contact details of my past and current employers, to a real estate agent.

Federal government proposals around income support for jobseekers under 30, combined with an increasingly 'flexible' job market, could bode ill for under 30’s seeking to live independently in rental accommodation. The repercussions could impact upon a person's housing security for years to come.

The introduction of a waiting period - for as long as six months - before being eligible for government assistance, and a six month cap on assistance in any 12 month period of unemployment, would put pressure on families to provide for younger relatives who find themselves jobless. It assumes that parents will be able to, and will want to support adult children who fall on hard times. But this isn't always true. In any case, many people under 30 already live independently in the rental market.

But with no guarantee of income support, a person under 30 will become an automatic risk for landlords, so under 30s may face discrimination when applying for new tenancies. Real estate agents already have access to birth dates through licences, passports and other forms of personal identification. They can determine employment status through pay slips and calls to employers.

As part of their responsibilities to landlords, real estate agents must determine the ability of potential tenants to pay the rent. Changes to income support for under 30’s might lead to prejudice against even highly paid under 30s working to contracts or in casual jobs, as income support may not be assured if those jobs dry up. If applicants are already unemployed, there is little incentive for landlords to take them at all, as there may be no guarantee of income past six months.

The problem is, this discrimination will only be able to be speculated on, as the way that tenancy applications are assessed makes it impossible to know the reason why an application is rejected. Unsuccessful applicants will never know who they were up against or what criteria was used to rule them out, making it all but impossible to demonstrate if discrimination is unlawful.

Changes to income support would mean that even if real estate agents and landlords don’t stop taking under 30s as tenants, they might start putting them on shorter term leases to coincide with their employment contracts or limiting those on income support to 6 month agreements. They might also look to introduce “rental guarantees” or asking under 30’s to declare assets in the case that they are unable to pay the rent, to make it easier for landlords to take debt recovery action.

For those under 30s who are in fixed term residential tenancy agreements, proposed changes to income support could be catastrophic if their employment situation tanks. Two weeks rent arrears is sufficient to start the eviction process. Even those unemployed with good employment histories are looking at a waiting period of 4 weeks if they lose their job. It is safe to anticipate that under 30s will have to utilise break-fee clauses to leave properties they can no longer afford to rent, or to apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to terminate on hardship grounds (which is not without the risk that compensation will need to be paid to the landlord). If tenants are unable to pay break-fees (6 weeks in the first half of the fixed-term, 4 in the second half) there is the risk of being placed on a tenant database for outstanding debts. These databases are regularly searched by agents prior to selecting tenants and listing last for years, and a listing remains until the debt is paid.

While these income support measures are being considered in Canberra, we are experiencing a rental crisis across Australia, and a massive shortage of affordable housing. Housing support is stretched to the point where only the chronically unemployable will receive assistance to secure an affordable home. The National Rental Affordability Scheme, which seemed to promise some relief, has been discontinued by the Australian Government. In an additional blow, the NSW Government has delivered a funding shake-up to homelessness services across Sydney.

Applying the proposed income support measures for under 30s in the current climate would be setting young people up to fail. Many Australians are already struggling in a hostile housing market, and it can be difficult to achieve permanent employment in the jobs market as it is. Proposed changes to income support simply direct the focus away from housing and employment policy failings, and seem ambivalent to the impact these measures could have on future demands for social welfare.

For more on proposed changes to income support in Australia, check out the Welfare Rights blog at www.welfarewrites.org

TICA's excessive fees are not excessive, says TICA

TICA is a database operator, as defined in the Residential Tenancies Act. It is in the business of courting landlords and real estate agents for information about 'bad tenants', and selling it on to other landlords and real estate agents. As we discussed earlier in the year, TICA also sells its information to tenants. You can find out what TICA says about you by paying them $5.45 per minute over the phone, $19.80 by mail, $33.00 by fax, or $55.00 for an online subscription.

Real estate agents and landlords who use TICA's 'services' are required to provide the same information to tenants for free. Database operators are entitled to charge for it - provided their fees are not excessive.

We wrote to the compliance unit at Fair Trading NSW in July, to see what they think of TICA's fees. We pointed out that TICA's fees appear to be excessive, putting them in contravention of section 216 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. We suggested this warrants an investigation into TICA's compliance with the law. Here's what Fair Trading said in reply:

"The issues you've raised have been brought to the attention of TICA's CEO. In answer, documentation was provided setting out the basis on which fees are charged. The explanation was determined to be acceptable. We do not propose to take any further action."

Seriously. Fair Trading asked TICA whether their fees are excessive. TICA said no. Fair Trading said 'that concludes our investigation'.

We're not entirely comfortable with this, and we urge anyone who has concerns with TICA's excessive fees to drop Fair Trading NSW a quick note, just to let them know. This can be done quickly and easily, by cutting and pasting the following text into a letter:

I am concerned that the tenancy database operator, TICA Pty Ltd, is charging excessive fees to provide interested parties with copies of ‘personal listed information’. 

Under section 216 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, landlords and agents must provide copies of personal listed information, without the payment of a fee, when the listed person requests it. Section 216 also requires that database operators provide copies of personal listed information upon request, but it allows them to charge a fee. The qualifying proviso is that the “fee must not be excessive” (s216(3)(a)).

TICA Pty Ltd offers copies of personal information at the following excessive rates:
- By telephone, charged at $5.45 per minute;
- By mail, charged at $19.80;
- By facsimile, charged at $33.00; and
- By an online subscription, charged at $55.00 annually. 

Please investigate TICA's fees and take whatever action is necessary to ensure they are brought into compliance with the law.

If you have any further information you'd like to add - such as details of how and when you've been caught by TICA's excessive fees - please do.

Send your complaint to the Director of Compliance, Fair Trading, at PO Box 972 Parramatta 2124.

Save your money. Don't use 'My TICA File'

Tenancy database operator TICA Pty Ltd is offering to rip you off with a new service it calls 'My TICA File'.

(Blacklisted? Blackmailed, more like)

Please: don't sign up for this 'service' and don't give TICA any of your money.

You are entitled to know if you are listed on a tenancy database.  And you're entitled to a copy of the listing free of charge.

If you apply for a rental property and the landlord or agent finds that you are listed on a tenancy database, they are obliged to tell you that you're listed and who listed you (section 211 of the Residential Tenancies Act). If they don't say anything, ask them directly if they've found a listing, and remind them of their obligation.

The landlord or agent who listed you is obliged to give you a copy of the listing (section 216(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act). The copy must be given to you free of charge and within 14 days; if they don't comply, they're liable for a $2 200 fine.

It should be noted that TICA is also obliged to give you a copy of the listing (section 216(2)). The Act allows it to charge a fee for doing so, but the fee must not be 'excessive' (section 216(3)(a)).

TICA charges fees for each of its methods of giving a copy of the listing – $5.45 per minute by phone; $19.80 by mail; $33 by fax; $55 by My TICA File – and we reckon each is excessive, considering that it costs nothing for an agent to call up a listing and every other database operator manages to provide copies free of charge.

So if you absolutely must deal with TICA directly, write and tell them that their fees are excessive and consider complaining to Fair Trading about it.

Save your money. Don't use 'Tenant Check'

If you're looking for a place to rent through rent.com.au (allegedly 'Australia's #1 rental property website), you may have noticed a banner on the homepage for its 'Tenant Check' service. 'Don't risk missing out on a rental', it implores; 'Check yourself now' with Tenant Check, for $35 including GST.

Better yet, don't. Save your money. There are much cheaper and more effective ways of finding out if you're on a tenancy database.

(Young couple reads credit card statement,
can't believe they threw their money away.)

The simplest way is just to put in your rental applications with agents, as usual. If in checking your application an agent finds that you're listed on a tenancy database, they must inform you (in writing) that you're listed. They must also give you the particulars of the landlord or agent who listed you, contact details for the database operator, and information about your legal rights in relation to getting access to a listing, and getting it removed or amended. (See section 211 of the Residential Tenancies Act).

And if you're knocked back and not told why, ask the agent – and ask specifically whether there was a tenancy database listing.

Now, if you're informed that you are listed, write to the landlord or agent who listed you for a copy of the information they listed. They must provide a copy, free of charge (see section 216).

You can also ask the database operator for a copy (see section 216 again). Note, however, that unlike landlords and agents, the database operators can charge a fee, provided it is not excessive. Most database operators give you a choice: pay a fee for quick access, or get it free if you're prepared to wait a couple of weeks. By the way, the database Tenant Check checks, NTD, charges $15 for quick access, and nothing if you can wait 10 days.

It's true that Tenant Check also checks a bunch of other non-tenancy databases; whether this is at all useful or relevant is another question. But it checks only one tenancy database – and there are several of them out there. 

So for $35 you may well get a blank piece of paper from Tenant Check, but no assurance that you're not listed on some other tenancy database.

Save your money and find out what you need to know using your rights under the Residential Tenancies Act.

And for what to do about a listing that's wrong, unfair or out-of-date, see the Tenants NSW factsheet.

A note on database listings and the CTTT

A quick update on CTTT proceedings concerning the removal of residential tenancy database listings:

The Residential Tenancies Act says that a database listing should be removed after three years. It also says that tenants can apply to the Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) to resolve any dispute about a listing. This includes seeking orders for the removal of a listing that is more than three years old.

In a recent example that was handled by a Tenants' Advice & Advocacy Service, the landlord responsible for the listing could not be located. Instead, the database operator was listed as the sole respondent in the tenant's CTTT application.

The Tribunal didn't accept this. Instead, they rather unexpectedly located the landlord and served them with notice of the Tribunal hearing. They also removed the database operator as a respondent.

At the hearing, the Tribunal Member assured the tenant that the database operator would have to comply with any order made, notwithstanding that the operator was not a party to the proceedings. The Member relied on section 217 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 in reaching this conclusion:

217   Disputes about listings

(1) ApplicationA person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under this section if personal information about the person has been ... listed in a residential tenancy database.

(2) Grounds for orderThe Tribunal may make an order under this section if it is satisfied that:
(a)  the residential tenancy database includes personal information about the applicant that … has been listed on the database for longer than the applicable period specified in section 218
...
(3) Orders by TribunalThe Tribunal may order personal information about a person in a residential tenancy database to be wholly … removed … The Tribunal must give a copy of the order to the landlord, tenant and database operator.
(4) Orders affecting other personsIf the Tribunal makes an order directing a person other than a landlord or agent to remove … information in a residential tenancy database, the Tribunal must give a copy of the order to the person.

The result was that, once the CTTT hearing commenced, the tenant found it relatively easy to obtain an order for the listing to be removed. After three years the landlord was no longer concerned about the listing, and the database operator was never brought into the discussion.

(We should note here that, as the law is clear on the three year limit for database listings, there is no good reason why the order should not have been made anyway. But it's always nice to get a remedy in the Tribunal without being backed into an argument about whether or not you're entitled to it).

Our next lot of questions will concern the database operator's compliance with this order, and what the tenant might do to enforce it if the listing is not removed. We'll be keeping an eye on this.

More information on residential tenancy databases can be found at this link on the Tenants Advice & Advocacy Services' website.

Residential Tenancy Databases: One year on

The Brown Couch has been asked a number of times recently about tenant's databases, and how it's working under the New Act. We last discussed the databases back in 2010, so we thought it might be worth a revisit.
As a quick refresher, the change to the old system is that real estate agents, landlords and database operators now have clearer responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act regarding the provision of information to tenants as well as the quality of listings. Tenants now have options available to them through the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to address listings that do not comply with the Act.
The full provisions are lengthy so we won't reproduce them here, but you can access the whole provision on NSW's Legislation website.

Now that we're 12 months in to this new system, how has it been working in practice? While there are still no cases available to refer to, we have received numerous reports from Tenant Advocates around the state that cases have been proceeding to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. All those reported have been resolved in conciliation.
While the ability to have these listings addressed is is positive news for tenants, it does lead to a question. Why are agents, landlords and operators continuing to list former tenants inaccurately with the knowledge that they will have to remove them when confronted? It should not be up to the tenant to correct dodgy listings where the law is clear.

Happily however we are also receiving reports that real estate agents are generally reporting to prospective tenants that they are listed. This allows a tenant, who has been listed wrongly, to take the necessary steps to have their listing removed or altered.

If you find yourself listed on a tenants database, check out the Tenants Union factsheet here, and get some advice from your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service!

More on tenancy databases

Previously, we were talking about the tenancy database operator TICA Pty Ltd and its new facility for tipping off agents whenever a current tenant applies for a tenancy elsewhere. It's timely, then, to take a look at how tenancy databases ordinarily operate – quite apart from the new tip-off service.

Tenancy databases have been around for about 20 years (by contrast, we first noticed the tip-off service a few months ago). There are a few of them around – TICA, TRA, Barclays and NTD are the main ones – all of them private companies. They are separate from credit reference databases (NTD is owned by the credit reference company Veda Advantage, but the databases are separate), but they make a similar claim: that they are in the business of 'risk management'. They do this by taking listings from agents of the names and other identifying info of supposedly 'risky' tenants, and making these listings available to agents to search against when a person applies for a tenancy. If you're listed, you may have trouble getting a tenancy.

('Computer says no'. Tenancy database-style thinking.)

We've never thought very highly of the risk management claim. Agents can and do ask applicants for references; and where there is a gap in an applicant's references, an agent is entitled to ask for an explanation. Whether it is satisfactory or not means the agent applying a bit of nous. By contrast, 'computer says no' is not a very smart way of assessing applications.

This is especially because there are real questions about the quality of the information stored on tenancy databases. For most of their 20 years of operation, tenancy databases were not regulated, and in that time they collected a lot of rubbishy, even abusive listings: for example, listings of tenants who had been late with rent but caught up, or who settled debts out of the bond, or who had dared to apply to the Tribunal for orders against the landlord. And listings could hang around for years – long after they were at all representative of the 'risk' posed by a person.

These problems have been somewhat tidied up by a patchwork of regulation, including the 2004 NSW Rule of Conduct under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act, which provides that NSW agents can list only for certain reasons and in certain circumstances, and sets timeframes for listings depending on the reasons they were made. Nonetheless, TICA still claims to have 'millions' of listings, a fact that TICA boasts as if it is a strength. On the contrary, with this many listings you have to wonder how many are at all relevant for present risk assessment purposes. Also, from the copies of listings we've seen, it appears that TICA no longer includes the reason for a listing in the listing – a move that we assume is designed to exploit a loophole in the timeframe provisions (ie no reason, no applicable timeframe), but which would appear to diminish the usefulness of the listing for risk assessment purposes. Furthermore, TICA is happy to take otherwise non-compliant listings from landlords who, not being real estate agents, are not covered by the Rule of Conduct (another loophole exploited).

Anyway, that's the traditional risk-management role played by tenancy databases – notwithstanding our misgivings about how well they actually play it. The Virtual Manager tip-off service is quite different, and the surveillance it insinuates into tenants' decisions about whether to look for other places to rent derives no justification from proper risk management principles.

The new service, however, is not the first time TICA in particular has departed from the traditional role. For some years now TICA has operated, in addition to its 'Tenancy History Database', an 'Enquiry Database'. Here's how it works:

• you apply for a tenancy with an agent who is a member of TICA;
• the agent enters your name and the other info you gave in your application into the search fields of the Tenancy History Database, to see if there's a listing about you;
• zap – you're now listed on the Enquiry Database.

That's right - you're listed. It doesn't matter if there's no listing about you on the Tenancy History Database – it doesn't matter if you've never rented before. It doesn't matter if you're not offered the tenancy, or if you knock it back. You're listed.

The Enquiry Database is, like the Tenancy History Database, searchable by TICA members, so they can see how many applications you have made, to whom, where and when. None of which is of the slightest use in a sensible assessment of the riskiness or otherwise of an applicant for a tenancy. Some time ago, the Tenants' Union complained to Fair Trading NSW that listings on the Enquiry Database were also listings in breach of the Rule of Conduct: Fair Trading's view then was that even though the listing is made when an agent enters information into the search fields, this is incidental to the search and it is actually TICA that is doing the listing – and not being an agent, TICA is not covered by the Rule of Conduct (that loophole again).

In a way, the Virtual Manager is the mutant offspring of the Enquiry Database: whereas the Enquiry Database waits passively for an agent to search its listings, the Virtual Manager actively tugs on an agent's sleeve and tells them what it knows whenever one of the agent's current tenants applies elsewhere. And to be clear, the Virtual Manager does so because the agent has set it to, by 'flagging' tenants for email alerts – and this act of 'flagging' is not incidental to anything else.

Bring on the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. In contrast to the present patchwork, its regime of tenancy database regulation will apply to agents, landlords and tenancy database operators, set clear circumstances, reasons, and timeframes for listings and – correcting the most serious deficiency on the current regime – allow disputes about listings to be heard and determined by the Tribunal.

Tenancy database operator offers new way to invade your privacy

Tenancy databases (aka tenant blacklists, bad tenant databases) are in the news today, with the revelation that the big tenancy database operator, TICA Pty Ltd, has hit upon a brand new way to invade the privacy of tenants.

This is TICA's new 'Virtual Manager' service – a bit of software that TICA is selling to real estate agents.

(Tenants Winston and Julia consider finding a new place to rent.)

Here's how it works:

• An agent enters their current tenants' names and other personal info into the Virtual Manager, and 'flags' them.
• Whenever one of these tenants applies for a tenancy with another TICA agent (and the agent does a search of TICA's database), an automatic email alert is sent to the current agent. The email alert contains the location and contact details of the agent who took the application.

In other words, the Virtual Manager tips off the agent when a current tenant applies elsewhere. This is a gross invasion of a person's privacy. When a tenant decides to move out, the agent is entitled to receive a termination notice. They are not entitled to receive prior email alerts and tip-offs.

The potential consequences of the Virtual Manager tip-off service are worrying. Having received the email alert, the current agent might then contact the other agent and cruel the tenant's application, or take some other form of revenge (no repairs, bothersome inspections, etc, etc). A particularly creepy agent (or indeed, anyone who should get their hands on the service) might also use it to receive email alerts about the possible movements of ex-girlfriends, spouses, etc. But even where it is not abused like that, this service, in its ordinary operation, tells agents about things that are none of their business.

TICA boss Philip Nounnis says TICA cannot police the way agents use the Virtual Manager – nor can the Government, because the Virtual Manager is an 'internal database' for each agent who buys it, and internal databases are excluded from the current regime of tenancy database regulation and, for that matter, from the soon-to-commence Residential Tenancies Act 2010.

With due respect to Mr Nounnis, the Tenants' Union disagrees. It's not 'internal.' Each application of the Virtual Manager is intergrated with TICA's other databases. (After all, where do the email alerts come from? How does the system know to send an email alert about any particular person?)

Our view is that any NSW agent who enters a tenant in the Virtual Manager and flags them for email alerts is listing them on a tenancy database in breach of the Rule of Conduct under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act and, when the new Residential Tenancies Act 2010 commences, in breach of that Act too. The NSW State Government should act now to make it clear to agents that using TICA's Virtual Manager in this way is unlawful.

Some home truths about property reviews...

Readers of the Brown Couch may be aware of an innovative new website where tenants can share news and views of their rental properties throughout Australia.

Home Truth: The online voice for the rental community looks great at first glance. Indeed an opportunity for disgruntled tenants to publicly vent some spleen is long overdue. But there are several things to consider if you're going to regard it as anything more than light entertainment:

• The website will be of more use to those who are able to "pick and choose" where to live, than those who need to find a new home pronto. With this in mind, it represents good value for the socio-economically blessed, but it offers very little for the rest of us (especially when vacancy rates are low).
• The website invites reviews of properties and real estate agents. It does not review landlords. It is therefore not on the same footing as a residential tenancy database which collects tenants' names, and holds them to ransom.
• There is an inherent problem with reviewing properties and real estate agents, and that is the transient nature of both. With property, ownership can change, and so can its level of repair. With agents, a person's employment can change. The review of a property or agent may become inaccurate or irrelevant by virtue of such change. It follows that such reviews could be apt to mislead.
• Reviews are likely to be made in response to a particular set of circumstances. While one person's experience may be defined in a certain way, it is unlikely that their story will resonate with others to the extent that a property or real estate agency will be boycotted.
• There is no way to verify whether reviews are genuine. Anyone who makes a decision to rent a property based on a website review must have rocks in their head.
• The website has potential as a pool of information to draw from while pushing the law reform agenda. But given the problems outlined above, tenants are better advised to take their grievances direct to the Office of Fair Trading. This can be done on a website too!