Renting laws debated in parliament

Yesterday was a huge day for renting law in  NSW.

At lunch together with Everybody's Home, we organised an event today at Parliament bringing together renters, housing academics, campaign supporters, and MP decision makers.

We heard from Keith – a renter who has lived in seven homes over the last ten years.

"I am sick and tired of being forced to move. I’ve figured out that each time we move it has cost us around $3000. No grounds evictions have totally disrupted my family’s life."

Dr Emma Power spoke about her research on the experiences of older women renters and the hardships they face. Russell Rodrigo, a property investor, spoke about how the proposed reforms are actually in landlords' interests - because they will foster better relationships and improved stability.

Russell, Dr Emma Power, Dr Chris Martin and Keith Young.

Then at around 5pm the fun really started. The debate started for the Residential Tenancies Amendment. As expected, the Government spoke to their bill and emphasised the positive steps it is taking.

Labor spoke strongly for the need to end unfair no grounds evictions and made clear that while there other issues in our renting system, that getting the fundamental fix of ending no grounds evictions would be the focus of their work on this bill.

Jenny Leong for the Greens moved 20 amendments to the bill raising a number of issues that so many tenants raise. Her amendments ranged from big ticket items like pets and rent increases, to more focussed improvements to the current bill, like a number of additional minimum standards.

The three Legislative Assembly Greens were joined by Alex Greenwich of Sydney to vote and support these amendments. With independents Joe McGirr of Wagga Wagga and Greg Piper of Port Macquarie. joining them for some issues, like supporting an end to blanket bans for tenants to keep pets.

Labor did not support these various amendments in the current bill, but made several commitments throughout the night to return to many of these issues and we look forward to discussing those issues with them soon.

Once the Legislative Assembly completed their deliberations, the bill was immediately raced over to the Legislative Council. The parties made generally the same points again. But significantly, Paul Green speaking for the Christian Democratic Party stated:

We believe this bill, for the most part, strikes a good balance... However, I encourage the Government to acknowledge the challenges faced by tenants regarding no grounds termination and implore it to approach such terminations based only on reasonable grounds. I have contacted the Government about this matter but is chosen not to go that way. I give an early indication that we will listen very carefully to consideration of amendments moved by Labor and The Greens in Committee. We feel that we are compelled to do so, given the Government has fallen short of supporting some of the State's most vulnerable people.

We applaud the CDP for making this statement. It reminds us all that good law-making is the responsibility of all within Parliament. A commitment to that responsibility is not confined to any one party, or any one approach. 

But with that, the debate was adjourned - it will be back on October 16. This is a crucial time for renters rights in NSW. Get involved with the Make Renting Fair campaign to hear about how you can help bring this thing home.

What you need to know about renting reform in NSW: Part 1

This week saw the introduction of the Residential Tenancies Amendment law reform. Overall it attempts some very positive things, with only a few parts we quibble with. Unfortunately it's effectiveness will be let down as it does not address the fundamental imbalance in our renting laws caused by unfair 'no grounds' evictions. We support the bill being passed, but with amendments to ensure the reforms can do their job. The Make Renting Fair campaign is asking supporters to email key members of the Legislative Council to ensure the reform is effective and fair.

But let's take a closer look at the bill and what it will mean for renters in NSW. Here's five of the biggest changes. We'll return with the remainder of the proposals in Part 2 and Part 3.

Domestic Violence provisions

We will leave this to our phenomenal colleagues at Women's Legal Service who have led the way on these reforms. They said in their media release the following.

These are the ways the Bill will make a significant difference in the lives of domestic violence  victims-survivors:

Victims-survivors of domestic violence will be able to terminate their tenancy immediately without penalty when they provide a domestic violence termination notice to the landlord and each other co-tenant.

The notice must also include evidence of domestic violence which includes:

a domestic violence order, or
a personal protection injunction under the Family Law Act, or
a copy of a certificate of conviction in proceedings against the relevant domestic violence offender for the domestic violence offence, or
a declaration by a ‘competent person’ as prescribed by the regulations. A ‘competent person’ includes only medical practitioners.

Perpetrators of damage to property will be liable for that damage. A victim of violence or another tenant who is not the relevant domestic violence offender will not be liable for damage to residential property caused during the commission of a domestic violence offence.
A victim-survivor of domestic violence who terminates their tenancy by providing a domestic violence termination notice cannot be listed on a residential tenancy data[base] list.

While we would have liked the reforms to have gone even further with an expanded list of ‘competent persons’ beyond just medical practitioners being able to provide evidence of domestic violence through a declaration, the reforms included in the Bill are a major step forward and we believe will make a significant difference in the lives of domestic violence victims-survivors and their children.

We at TUNSW agree with the Women's Legal Service.

Minimum standards

Currently landlords are required to provide premises in a state that is 'fit for habitation'. However, what constitutes 'fit for habitation' is not defined and it can be quite hard to work out what it does mean.

The proposal before government is a start on clearly defining what fit for habitation might mean. The government's proposal is a good first step and includes some features which moves to reflect a modern understanding of fit for habitation.

Premises must be structurally sound, which means if the floors, ceilings, walls, supporting structures (including foundations), doors, windows, roof, stairs, balconies, balustrades and railings:

(a) are in a reasonable state of repair, and
(b) with respect to the floors, ceilings, walls and supporting structures—are not subject to significant dampness, and
(c) with respect to the roof, ceilings and windows—do not allow water penetration into the premises, and
(d) are not liable to collapse because they are rotted or otherwise defective.

Other requirements are to ensure premises:
- have adequate natural light or artificial lighting in what we might call living spaces, such as bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens.
- have adequate ventilation, and
- are supplied with electricity or gas and have an adequate number of electricity outlet sockets or gas outlet sockets for the supply of lighting and heating to, and use of appliances in, the premises, and
- have adequate plumbing and drainage, and
- are connected to a water supply service or infrastructure that supplies water (including, but not limited to, a water bore or water tank) that is able to supply to the premises hot and cold water for drinking and ablution and cleaning activities, and
- contain bathroom facilities, including toilet and washing facilities, that allow privacy for the user.

Our recommendation
In order to really create homes which are fit for habitation we also recommend including requirements to ensure there are:
- adequate cooking or food preparation facilities,
- adequate laundry facilities,
- adequate waterproofing in bathroom, kitchens, laundry areas,
- free from infestation by vermin, mould or other biotoxins,
- adequate insulation and weatherproofing.

Many people are also often surprised that there is no obligation to ensure premises are safe apart from things which are legislated elsewhere like smoke alarms. This could be fixed up in a number of ways, but one of the simplest is simply to insert safe into the current obligation (section 52) so that it become: “A landlord must provide the residential premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, safe, and fit for habitation by the tenant”.

As a first step, parliament should pass this current proposal but we would support amendments to the bill to make it even stronger and more effective.

Fairer 'break fees' for leaving tenancies early

Occasionally tenants find that for work, personal or other reasons they can't maintain the contract until the end of the fixed term. When they leave, there is compensation payable for breaking the contract early - known as 'abandonment'. The current system is a confusing, two-tiered one which often has no relationship with the actual costs to the landlord of the tenant leaving early.

Currently landlords choose one of two compensation systems. They can choose a 'break fee' of either 6 weeks or 4 weeks (depending whether abandonment occurs in the first or second half of the agreement) as a fixed compensation.  Alternatively they can rely on a compensation scheme which comprises of rent until new tenant moves in, advertising, any relevant agents re-letting fee. This method involves adjusting the fees depending on how far through the contract the tenant is, as well as 'mitigation of loss' for landlords not attempting to raise the rent or being overly picky about choosing new tenants knowing that the outgoing tenant is picking up the tab while they choose.

Ensuring the proper amount is charged requires a lot of time and effort by the outgoing tenant.  At the moment, landlords choose whichever one they think will get them the most money.

The proposed change is to require the tenant to pay a fee more closely related to how far through the contract they are. Either, 4, 3, 2 or 1 weeks rent as a penalty depending on which quarter of the agreement (up to 3 years) they are in.  This is much closer to the real costs experienced by landlords once costs are considered in Tribunals.

Our recommendation

We think this much better reflects the average costs payable in 'abandonment'. It does have downsides for tenants who are in high demand areas - they may well pay more in break fees than under the 'compensation' scheme. However we think this is a fair trade for the certainty in not having to keep a close eye on the property once you've left and fighting unfair compensation claims in the Tribunal. A tenant's time and energy should be respected!

This proposal should be passed without change.

Changes to rent increases

Currently in NSW the rent can be increased at any time outside a fixed term, and can seek any amount. It is up to the tenant then to dispute whether the increase is excessive. Often this is very difficult as most of the information required to dispute an increase is in the hands of the real estate industry who may well charge for access. Not only is the landlord or agent more likely to have the funds to pay for the information, but this is an expense that can be written off as a tax deduction by the landlord or agent. Tenants on the other hand, are simply out of pocket.

The government is proposing two changes - one representing a little step forward, and one representing a step back.

Rent increases in periodic agreements will only be able to be increased once every 12 months. This is a good step on its own terms as it provides much more certainty about when increases will come. However, there are two issues - first, that it does not address the information asymmetry, and second that it does not apply to fixed term agreements. A landlord wanting to use rolling 6 months agreements will be able to increase the rent every 6 months.

Indeed the second change makes this issue even worse. In some contracts, landlords or agent write a future rent increase into a fixed term contract of less than 2 years. So long as the date and amount of increase is included, the government's proposal is that the landlord will not have to then issue another rent increase later on. Currently, very few landlords offer leases of more than 12 months (other than the state's biggest landlord - FACS - which generally offers 5 or 10 year leases, without break fees).

A landlord who wants to avoid the 12 month restriction on rent increases in periodic will now be incentivised to move to rolling short fixed term leases, which allows more frequent rent increases. The Minister, Matt Kean, claims one reason they have not acted on no grounds evictions is that retaliatory rent increases are the bigger issue for tenants. We might disagree about which has a bigger impact, but if it is true, these two proposals taken together mean tenants are still very much vulnerable to retaliatory rent increases.

Our recommendation 

Rent increases should be more balanced in two key ways. A time restriction on rent increases should apply regardless of the contract term and be restricted to 12 months since the beginning of the tenancy or the last increase.

There also should be a sharing of the onus of proof around excessive increases. Where the landlord wants to increase the rent above a fair marker, like the Consumer Price Index, we think it's reasonable that they should provide the evidence to support the claim. If the increase comes in at or below CPI, then the tenant can choose whether or not they agree with the claim and demonstrate the evidence for why the property doesn't meet that level. This is a far more equitable approach. 

As a first step, Parliament should pass this current proposal but we would support amendments to the bill to make it even stronger.  

Repairs inspectors assess the need for repairs and make rectification orders

This change would see Fair Trading take a much more active role in repairs processes. At either the tenants or landlords request, an investigator will attend the premises to assess the repairs and make rectification orders. If the rectification order is not followed the Tribunal can make further orders and penalties may apply.

While this idea has potential, its success will mostly rely on whether it is adequately funded - especially for tenants in regional areas where wait times could potentially render it unusable. Where the funding comes from will also be crucial - it would be unacceptable for it to come from the Rental Bond Board whilst Tenants' Advice and Advocacy Services remain grossly underfunded and have been told for many years there is simply not enough money (despite there being a $60million surplus!).

Our recommendation 

We really need to see a more concrete details around how this plan will be implemented - it has capacity to be a game-changer or a dead rubber. It is certainly worth giving a chance.

The sad truth of Aboriginal homelessness in NSW

Today's post written by the Tenants' Union of NSW's Jessica Massa, Legal Officer - Aboriginal Support.

The most recent estimate of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander resident population in Australia was 798,400 people - that’s just 3.3% of the total Australian population. Of this number, an estimated 216,176 are living in NSW, meaning that NSW is home to the highest number of people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin.

Shockingly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could make up over 24% of those accessing specialist homelessness services in 2015–16, and 6% of the entire homeless population in NSW. These alarming and growing rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander homelessness need to be addressed. But first we must understand how we got here.

There are a myriad of issues and injustices that have contributed towards these figures. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face:

• Lower life expectancies than that of non-Indigenous Australians;
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women being three times more likely to experience sexual violence than non-Indigenous women;
• Around one in twelve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults being part of the Stolen Generations; and
• The national imprisonment rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults being 15 times higher than that for non-Indigenous adults.

However it is hard to go past the historic and ongoing injustice associated with the way Australia has treated land and property since it acquired it under a false legal claim in 1770. It isn’t surprising that a people whose land was stolen are now largely excluded from the wealth generated by property ownership on which modern Australia relies so heavily.

ABS Data

Included in the rising homelessness figures are persons living in boarding houses, persons in severely crowded dwellings and persons in temporary lodgings – all renters in some form. A large number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people reside in public housing under Family and Community Services, and the Aboriginal Housing Office, largely because they are unable to afford or be accepted in the private rental market. All told, 60% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in NSW are renters.

Homelessness NSW

At the Tenants Union, working directly with the four Aboriginal Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services across NSW, we hear first-hand of the myriad of tenancy issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander renters. There are continuous instances of illegal lockout, failures to repair, no grounds terminations, retaliatory evictions, domestic violence from co-tenants, and uninhabitable premises. These issues face tenants across the array of Aboriginal Housing in NSW, from public, to community, to private housing, Land Council houses, reserves, and Aboriginal Co-operatives. All contribute towards the increasing percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experiencing homelessness.

Until these issues can be eradicated, and we can adopt a more just approach to land and housing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and for all of us,the sad truth is that the rate of Aboriginal homelessness in NSW will continue to increase.

The Tenants Union is currently working on developing an Aboriginal Renting Policy, in consultation with Aboriginal tenants and Aboriginal organisations, to find out more about what the community feels are the most pressing issues in need of change in tenancy law and policy in NSW. This policy will form the platform for the TU to advocate for change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenants in NSW.

Auditor-General calls 'three strikes' on anti-social behaviour policy

The Auditor-General office today released its report into FACS' anti-social behaviour policy. If we lived in a world led by evidence-based policy decisions it should be the nail in the coffin of the punitive anti-tenant approach to social housing.

But let's take a brief look at the key point in the report, which does make other recommendations about the systems and training in FACS, and focus on the key question of - is the scheme doing what it is meant to?

As the Report says the stated aims of the three strikes approach was  supposed to:
• improve the behaviour of a minority of tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour
• create better, safer communities for law-abiding tenants, including those who are ageing and vulnerable.

It is clear from the report that these aims have failed, and the government should reconsider its approach.

 

Only 21% of tenants thought that things had improved since the strikes system was bought in. But even worse - what do FACS think. Has it made neighbourhood safety and security better?

A resounding no.
But this shouldn't come as a surprise to the government or the Department - at its introduction, we told the government the policy would not help and that more support, not more punishment was the answer.

Since it's still relevant here is our recommendation to government at the time:

The Tenants’ Union of NSW agrees that a better response to dysfunction in neighbourhoods should be a high priority for Government. We accept the prevalence of dysfunction is a genuine concern for residents in neighbourhoods with high concentrations of social housing tenancies, and areas of relative socio-economic disadvantage. But the schemes set out in the Residential Tenancies and Housing Legislation Amendment Bill (Public Housing – Antisocial Behaviour) Bill 2015 go too far.
The Tenants’ Union does not support the bill. We call upon the NSW Government to withdraw the bill, and embark instead upon a genuine process of consultation with tenants, housing advocates, social housing landlords and other interested parties to develop and implement strategies to improve cohesion and resilience in all neighbourhoods where there are high degrees of disadvantage. By contrast, the bill will only encourage adversarial and punitive responses.
Where criminal and antisocial behaviour cannot be tackled through greater investment in neighbourhood and community cohesion, the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 already provides adequate avenues for social housing landlords to end tenancies, including on all of the grounds set out in the bill.

This aligns with the views of many other experts in this area. The experiences of Queensland and WA also demonstrated the ineffectiveness. It is unfortunate that government did not listen then, and continues not to listen now.

Instead it appears that rather than address the evidence presented, the government is doubling down on the punitive approach - introducing new mandatory evictions, bonds on public housing tenants, and changing the strikes process to make it more likely first strikes will be issued.

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. 

Because of her, we can: NAIDOC Week 2018

Here at the Tenants Union, we are lucky to have an incredible network of Tenant Advocates working actively across the state with tenants to help resolve their tenancy issues. They are an incredible bunch of people, who help to keep the wheel of justice running (somewhat) smoothly.

The four Koori Tenants Advice services are dotted across all corners of NSW, with the Western Aboriginal Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service in Dubbo, the Greater Sydney Aboriginal Tenants Service in St Mary’s, the Southern Murra Mia Tenant Advocacy Service in Batemans Bay, and the Northern NSW Aboriginal Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service in Grafton and Newcastle – supported by the Dtarawarra Aboriginal Resource Unit.



These services work tirelessly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenants across NSW, managing every range of tenancy issue you could imagine, as well as the intricacies and difficulties that come with the Aboriginal Housing sector.

Each of the services are bolstered by some incredible female tenant advocates, who we are celebrating with our 2018 NAIDOC video, tying into the NAIDOC theme for 2018 being ‘Because of Her, we can’. Some of our advocates are shyer than others about appearing on camera and we couldn’t quite coax them all into filming an interview, but we are very grateful to each of them for the wonderful work that they are doing in supporting and advocating for the rights of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tenants across NSW.

Thanks to all of the extraordinary women who make up our Koori TAAS network, you are truly remarkable!

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