"I am not a criminal" says alleged slumlord

Apparently he owned 8 houses in the A.C.T. The Canberra Times failed to provide the correct information, only what Mr. Fan alleged. He alleged he only had 50 people between 4 houses, when it was more like 20 people per house. He was earning a very nice sum of money off the neady and should be labelled a criminal.

dtc said :

my uni days comprised living in a concrete box (B&G)

Hah, you were fortunate with a concrete box. I had to live in a concrete box with the corners cut off (Toad Hall).

The Canberra Times has followed this up with an interview with five “Irish workers” who lived in one of the houses. They claim they were not aware that 25 people were living in the house, too. Seems a bit unlikely…

Well you tell the youth of tomorrow that there were *only* 50 of us living in a MDF cubby holes and they wont believe you.

Mind you, we had it tough; there were 350 of us living in shoebox in middle of road!

Mr Fan says ”I’m not a criminal … I want to be the good person,”

Well, start acting like a good person then, you dodgy pr*ck!

I hope the ATO gets up him like a rat up a drain pipe now, as I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he wasn’t declaring all his income either.

partitioning normal rooms into tiny cubicles, each with hotplates, sounds like a serious fire risk.

if he did his own rewiring that would be scary too.

georgesgenitals said :

I’m not suggesting what he has done is nice, or the right thing, but I’m not convinced he’s broken any laws.

No no, your comments are fine.

But, would you want to associate yourself with this person, who isn’t technically a crim, but is taking advantage of the vulnerable people. Or, is he?

Personally as a landlord I would be a bit concerned with more than five people living in my rental house before I try to take advantage of the situation for a quick profit. But I guess some people have different priority (e.g. financial gain) than I, and I don’t think I’d associate myself with those kind…

The article in the CT said he funded the purchase of the properties from a compo payout.
I believe the authorities are trying to get the landlord on OH&S issues rather than criminal ones.

Part of the problem might be that the people didn’t collectively sign a lease, like my wife and I might, hence taking control of the whole property from the owner.

If all ten residents have separate agreements, there might be some legal responsibility for the owner to maintain communal areas? Just a thought. Plus, was he charging a bond? And if so, were they lodged with the bond board?

poppy said :

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this article (or others) stated that the tenants were living in “filthy conditions”.

Normally it is the tenant’s responsibility to clean the property. In the absence of any evidence that the landlord agreed to clean the premises as part of their rent, it is completely the tenant’s fault that the property was “filthy”. Even if the landlord HAD agreed to clean the property, any self-respecting person would have maintained some basic levels of hygiene if the landlord had failed to deliver.

yuh huh. did you read the bit about 4 families living in a garage, a two bedder housing 24 people with 1 kitchen and 1 toilet… when you live in conditions like that you can judge how “self respecting” people are.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this article (or others) stated that the tenants were living in “filthy conditions”.

Normally it is the tenant’s responsibility to clean the property. In the absence of any evidence that the landlord agreed to clean the premises as part of their rent, it is completely the tenant’s fault that the property was “filthy”. Even if the landlord HAD agreed to clean the property, any self-respecting person would have maintained some basic levels of hygiene if the landlord had failed to deliver.

The only problem here appears to be that he called it housing and not ‘hostel’ or ‘refuge’. If housing went into a refuge for domestic violence victims, and announced they all had to return home or find somewhere else for them and their kids, imagine the uproar? But if its some immigrant families, its the landlord seen as doing the wrong thing, or maybe he just didnt apply for the right permits?

Ive stayed in backpacker hostels before, run by reputable groups, who often put 6-8 random people in a room and Ive never heard any complaints about that being overcrowding, even when they might have 20 of these rooms per floor (and have multiple floors).

busgirl said :

Grrrr…you need to get your calculator fixed.

How do they need to fix their calculator… ???

Mr Fan admitted having 50 people paying $100-$110 per week…

50 people x $100 = $5000
$5000 x 52weeks = $260,000

At almost $22k a month.. he could easily be paying off 2.5million worth of property. With plenty of spending money left over to turn more houses into 13 bedroom properties…

Diggety said :

The overpriced housing problem in Canberra will not be fixed until public servants get the salary they deserve.

Diggety said :

And by “salary they deserve” I mean a LOT less.

*sigh* I remember when I had my first beer.

There’s often a really ugly element of racism that goes into the way these situations come to exist. As a tall blonde businesswoman I can get any house I want even if I don’t actually have any work but an Indian family of overpaid professionals can struggle. It’s not just about the money.

I’ve heard plenty of people bragging about how “foreign students” will pay top dollar for a bed in a shed or how they can shove a couple of students into a bedsit or a granny flat and it makes me sick.

Are there laws as to how many people can live in a 3 bedroom house?
If there are, I’ve never heard of them.
If there’s not, what’s the fuss?

I’ve not heard allegations that this fella made anyone live there. Just that he crowded them in and charged like a wounded bull. But aren’t we told every day how wonderfully the market solves problems with the law of supply and demand?
What’s the problem?
If I could find a family of 17 people who’d rent my garden shed for a couple of grand, I’d do the same.

Jivrashia said :

georgesgenitals said :

Very interesting. I wonder which laws, if any, this ‘slumlord’ has actually broken?

Spent about 15 minutes googling this, and I have to admit I couldn’t find anything.

But I am sure it has to do with the well-being of the tenants, and that they’re better off out in the Canberra’s bitter winter… (The authorities know what’s right for them).

I’m not suggesting what he has done is nice, or the right thing, but I’m not convinced he’s broken any laws. As such, he would be correct in asserting that he isn’t a criminal.

Jivrashia said :

georgesgenitals said :

Very interesting. I wonder which laws, if any, this ‘slumlord’ has actually broken?

Spent about 15 minutes googling this, and I have to admit I couldn’t find anything.

But I am sure it has to do with the well-being of the tenants, and that they’re better off out in the Canberra’s bitter winter… (The authorities know what’s right for them).

Fire regulations, maximum occupancy for dwelling as per declared DA, decleration of purpose for dwelling use (anything above 12 needs a special title) and these are just off the top of my head.

And by “salary they deserve” I mean a LOT less.

The overpriced housing problem in Canberra will not be fixed until public servants get the salary they deserve.

georgesgenitals said :

Very interesting. I wonder which laws, if any, this ‘slumlord’ has actually broken?

As someone above has suggested banks probably wouldn’t finance all the houses at one. I wonder if he has been building his portfolio for some time, or has financed it from less reputable lenders?

georgesgenitals said :

Very interesting. I wonder which laws, if any, this ‘slumlord’ has actually broken?

Spent about 15 minutes googling this, and I have to admit I couldn’t find anything.

But I am sure it has to do with the well-being of the tenants, and that they’re better off out in the Canberra’s bitter winter… (The authorities know what’s right for them).

+1 to all the negative comments about Mr Fan.

Discraceful

Very interesting. I wonder which laws, if any, this ‘slumlord’ has actually broken?

Only four that we know of at the moment and that’s just in Canberra.

I wonder the pitch to the bank for the investment loan.

Slum Lord ‘Hi i need 2 mil for investment properties’
Bank ‘How you affording the repayments’
SL ‘3br house – 20 tenants – $100/wk – no problems’
Bank ‘sure sign here.’

I have a large bedroom I rent out to a couple of nice Chinese girls @ $70/pw each. It includes all utilities, internet etc.

Clearly I am not charging enough! ROFL

Grrrr…you need to get your calculator fixed.

$100-110 pw in a “slum house” (apparently sharing with about ten others) is better than being at the mercy of the private rental market? .. If it includes all expenses other than food, maybe!

Obviously his tenants don’t have a clue and are being preyed upon or they’d quickly realise that $120 per person per week gets your own bedroom in a share house in the private rental market. Possibly less than $100 per week if you look hard or a couple take the master bedroom etc.

Holy crap though – 50 people at $100 per week is quarter of a million a year, which would pay rates, tax and $2.5 million of mortgages. The big suprise is that he only owns 4 houses!

Does Canberra have any official long term ‘dormitory’ or boarding house type accom? Particularly housing for family groups. I know there are various guest houses around the place, but I think they are more short stay/tourist types.

Its an interesting issue – if someone chooses to pay $100 for a very basic and crowded house presumably its because they couldn’t find somewhere else they could afford (or chose not to) – ignoring (for the moment) the issue of having 10 people living next door to you, is there any reason why the govt should stick its head in? People living crappy conditions all the time – my uni days comprised living in a concrete box (B&G) and in old fibro uni housing, including a house that where someone had kicked a hole thru the exterior wall, which created something of a winddraft (the hole was covered by that useful material, cardboard, since the uni refused to do anything). I was a student and I knew it was only for a few years and I didnt have kids, so it was bearable.

Although it does seem a bit strange – for $100 per week there are plenty of houses people could afford in groups of 4 or 5. Admittedly, that only works for single people and doesnt help families (5 adults plus a few kids and you end up with the numbers in this case). And admittedly the tight rental market is such that a group of (for example) 5 male african migrants is unlikely to get the nod.

In any event, it seems to me that there is clearly a demand for very cheap housing and that people are willing to/prepared to/have to accept crowded conditions.

i want to vote for both options!

johnboy said :

…but said they were better off than being at the mercy of the private rental market in Canberra.

Actually, they were at the mercy of the private rental market.

Unless Mr Fan is working for ACT Housing?

I wonder what the impact of housing these people has now had on other vulnerable Canberrans waiting for somewhere to live. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be placed somewhere suitable, just that the problem goes beyond this group.

This guy was undoubtedly out to make a fast buck (and lots of them if you do the maths) but it does raise the question – where would these people have gone if they couldnt find affordable accomodation?

Your Stanhopliness are you listening?