Queensland - Call to Arms

Further to our story Something smelly in Queensland  the case is going to court

From Helen Wedlake:
In a test case to reverse a common practice of putting the tenant at fault in disputes concerning the condition of housing, there is a Court Hearing on 29th March, 2012, in Court of Appeal, Supreme Court George Street Brisbane pertaining to the Matter of Underwood v Dept. of Communities. It is in the public interest and a matter of belief that all Landlords whether private or public have a duty of care towards their tenants. The premise for an Appeal to the Supreme Court relates to judgment in QCAT tenancy tribunal that did not consider that a structurally defective unit subjected to repeated inflows of storm-water mixed with raw sewerage should have an abatement of rent.



The circumstances were such that Chermside Housing, on notification of a serious toxic risk, failed to remove the tenant to emergency accommodation. They failed to rectify the problem of utilities but as a counter approach to a problem they instigated eviction notices to Helen, repeatedly taking her to the Tenancy Tribunal QCAT. They failed again, in their actions to make her homeless. Sustained bullying and abuse metered out by Chermside Housing became so intense, continuous and relentless that Helen can only liken the mental and emotional anguish to 'clean' torture ie there are no visible scars however the post traumatic stress from the ordeal, of more that two years, continues. She has become one of the new breed of disabled, stigmatized persons affected by the Public Housing system of 'get em in' and 'force them out'. How is it fair that the Court Judge would rule that 'the applicant was in receipt of subsidized housing' and for this reason, there is no entitlement to an abatement of rent"?(are they to be judged differently to private tenants?). To the applicant and to all public housing tenants this effectively implies 'that living in public/social housing exempts you from the entitlement or expectation that your dwelling will be fit for habitation or can be fixed and maintained. Does affordable housing come with the 'lean' that they are to be victims of charity? Due to desperation must they be forced to decide whether or not he or she can accept living in conditions that put their safety, health and well being at risk and risk of sustained abusive behaviours? If the most used option to difficulties is threat of homelessness how long would the Chermside Housing Department expect a fearful and disabled tenant to sustain rental in untenantable conditions?