Re: Housing Justice Response to the Residential Tenancies Act Review Discussion Paper 2017
Dear Residential Tenancies Act review team,
ARC Justice incorporates Housing Justice, Goulburn Valley Community Legal Centre and Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre. Our Housing Justice program holds extensive experience providing tenancy services to vulnerable and disadvantaged tenants in regional and rural Victoria. For over 12 years we have provided the Tenancy Advice and Advocacy Program (TAAP) and SHASP programs in the Loddon Mallee regions. Last financial year we supported 495 vulnerable tenants both in public and private rental market.
We were grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Review throughout the consultation period and pleased to see that many priority areas we raised to the Tenant’s Union through the Tenancy Working Group as part of the process have been captured in the Options paper.
Due to resource constraints we have not had capacity to respond in full to the Options Paper. However I have had the opportunity to consult with our Housing Justice team to gain their feedback on a couple of areas that they feel are critical that we make comment.
11 Terminations and security of tenure
Q 197 What are any alternative reforms to the provisions for terminating a tenancy for no specified reason that could better protect tenants against unfair termination while providing adequate scope for landlords to exit an agreement other than by at-fault evictions or specified changes of use?
We recognise that a landlord has the right to terminate a tenancy, however labelling the notice to vacate ‘no specified reason’ is vague and does not afford the tenant rationale for their tenancy ending, which also limits their security. We believe a reason should always have to be given by the landlord to the tenant and allow the notice to be challenged.
Q 198 What are any alternative reforms that would provide appropriate additional protections to tenants who have been in a tenancy for five years or more?
A notice to vacate that allows 182 days, with the option for the tenant to give the landlord 14 days’ notice of intention to vacate upon receiving the notice to vacate.
12 Family violence
Q 216 – which alternative option do you support and why?
The consideration of alternative forms of proof when considering the termination of a tenancy in family violence cases is to be commended. We support Option 12.C “Allow VCAT to consider anything it believes relevant” in proving family violence has occurred, as this option enables VCAT to consider the broadest scope of criteria relevant.
Not all victims of family violence report to the police, especially in small country towns whereby the local police officer for example is also on the same football team as the perpetrator. There is often a lot of shame held by a victim of family violence and reporting this to authorities is not always an option. Where a fiduciary relationship occurs (for example the local doctor), this may be the only person whom the victim has disclosed. The ability for a victim to be able to present alternative forms of proof for reasons such as above will ensure the applicant to the proceedings has the opportunity to terminate the lease without having to go through the current process of reporting to police and attending court.
Our experience is that VCAT members vary in their understanding of the issues surrounding family violence and the above option would only be successful in the context of fully trained VCAT staff in family violence matters.
In addition, option 12.1C should specify that it applies to any order, whether interim or final.
Q 217 - What would be a reasonable time within which VCAT should hear a family-violence related application?
These matters should be listed with the same amount of urgency as do ‘urgent repairs’. However we recognise this is not always possible in regional and rural Victoria where VCAT sits on a fortnightly basis and travelling long distances for the majority of people would not be an option. Measures would need to be in place to ensure that all applicants in these situations are provided with a safe and private venue to have access to phone link up with VCAT.
Q 218 - Which option best addresses the needs of victims of family violence while providing for any potential impacts on landlords and other co-tenants? Why?
We endorse Option 12.4B as being the most respectful consideration to the victim and at the same time careful consideration has been given to the landlord and the remaining tenant/s. We believe that option 12.4B lessens the impact on landlords as there is an ongoing tenancy without having to go through a costly process of eviction, and all fees associated with re-tenanting a premises.
This proposed option is a much faster process for the victim and again, in regional and rural areas where VCAT sits every fortnight; impacts on potential rent arrears should the perpetrator be excluded from the premises and the victim left to pay the whole rent. From our experience this often results in rent arrears which impacts not only on the victim but the landlord is then compromised.
In some cases where a victim is planning to flee the perpetrator, option 12.4B would allow the victim to ensure they have everything in place prior to issuing the NTV and vacating the rented premises. Such as having sought secure alternative accommodation and have the removalist booked for a time after the perpetrator has left for work. This scenario is not uncommon, with women reporting to our service that they are fearful of even attending our office for fear of being seen let alone attending court for a VCAT hearing. Again, the likeliness of this occurring is more probable and reflective of regional and rural towns.
Although Option 12.4A is broader than the current legislation and allows a co-tenant to apply to VCAT without the consent of the other tenant, it adds another layer to the complex process in which the victim is already experiencing. Another “court” experience, the stress of cross examination and having to re live the trauma and repeat their story again. It should be noted that in regional and rural Victoria the court houses are old and heritage listed with no allowance for privacy and security thus leaving the victim in an extremely vulnerable position. Current practice in country court houses has both the victim and the perpetrator standing in the foyer with no other alternative space in which to wait until the matter is called before the judge. This must be addressed should Option 12.4A be adopted.
In conclusion we thank you for considering our input in to the RTA Discussion Paper and look forward to the outcome of this process.