ACT Housing continues to house those not entitled

Fayne 14 September 2013 32

I was happy to hear that ACT Housing were asking people to leave or buy their house once their household income reached $80k.

However, I am disappointed that ACT housing are not enforcing this rule.

I know of a fulltime EL1, earning in excess of $100k who continues to live by herself in a four bedroom ACT Housing house in Mawson.

Being a nosy parker, I rang ACT Housing to report this situation, and was advised that ACT Housing will not force anyone to move, even to a smaller place; thus freeing up a family home.

I have family and friends who are sleeping rough. Also, I have friends who live in ACT Housing with three children in a 2 bedroom flat.

Why should a single woman keep a four bedroom house when she earns so much? The house is ideal for families, being close to schools the hospital and Woden Plaza.

Please be fair, ACT Housing. Children should not be enduring homelessness due to inability to enforce legislation.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to ACT Housing continues to house those not entitled
Filter
Order
Anna Koorey Anna Koorey 11:45 am 26 Aug 19

I live in A.C.T Housing and the flat beneath me has been un-occupied for almost 2 years. I have reported it to A.C.T Housing and had a level one review and told they were satisfied the tenant was living there. I then had a level 2 review and was told the same thing. They actually ring the leasee and let them know they are coming around so of course they person will be there. I am now having a level three review which is done by an independent agency. Absolutely ridiculous the lack of avenues A.C.T Housing can take to investigate these people that are rorting the system. We have a housing crisis and this person is allowed to lease a flat and leave it un-occupied. I have contact the Minister for Housing in Canberra and am thinking of contacting the Canberra Times. I feel I have been fobbed off at every turn in regards to this issue.

beardedclam beardedclam 9:59 am 16 Sep 13

bigfeet said :

Maybe they could find a house for our Prime Minister elect?

He seems to be having trouble.

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/tony-abbott-abandons-possuminfested-lodge-to-live-with-afp-recruits/story-fncynjr2-1226719448305

haha, I could imagine if Abbott had to sleep with the recruits at the college in Goulburn. Abbott would be rushing back to the dorm under the cloak of darkness because he missed curfew on his run home from Flamingo’s Nightclub

beardedclam beardedclam 9:55 am 16 Sep 13

countach said :

There are many many ways for the undeserving to get free or nearly free housing from various government, and government funded agencies, not just ACT housing. If you waste your aggravation on all these situations, you’ll go crazy. Just pay your extortionate taxes, and be quiet like the government wants.

+1
Excellent advice. There are so many situations where others are receiving benefit when not entitled. Its not worth telling anyone about or worrying about because the ones responsible for enforcement just don’t do it, unless they have a vendetta and want to make the complainants life hell.

I seriously have given up worrying about others and what they are receiving and just look out for my family’s well being.

We dont even apply for any handouts or assistance schemes anymore because the agencies fuck it up, you complain and then get dragged through hell for the following 18 months in action taken against you for daring to comment on the 6 month delay.

breda breda 9:54 am 16 Sep 13

Yeahbuddy, it’s not a question of what you would prefer to pay, or what you think the market rent should be in a perfect world.

That house in Yarralumla was worth a lot more than the sanctimonious Green politician was paying, leaving aside the fact that people in genuine need were waiting in the queue.

YeahBuddy YeahBuddy 9:36 am 16 Sep 13

A thought based on the whole “$300/week is not market rent” argument:

Have you seen most of the Public Housing stock? I wouldn’t pay more that $300 a week for most of them. And maybe its our over inflated property market making us think that $300 a week for a 3 bedroom/one living area/ one bathroom place is cheap.

wildturkeycanoe wildturkeycanoe 7:14 am 16 Sep 13

eyeLikeCarrots said :

You have family and friends who are sleeping rough ?

You must really be an asshole to let them continue doing it.

Seeing that this really upsets you, are you volunteering then to assist in some way? Perhaps the OP is living in a 2 beddie with a couple of children themselves. Nice comment, real nice.

eyeLikeCarrots eyeLikeCarrots 8:55 pm 15 Sep 13

You have family and friends who are sleeping rough ?

You must really be an asshole to let them continue doing it.

no idea no idea 8:00 pm 15 Sep 13

Where did you hear that people were being forced to leave govt housing at $80k? Have you read the legislation you claim isn’t being enforced? Can you provide a reference to it? As far as I can tell, you’re wrong: People are not asked to leave once their income reaches $N. All govt tenants are offered the chance to buy their property at independently-valued (IE market) price – and the $80k number you’ve heard is in the sale policy as the suggested point at which tenant is paying full market rent, and may be able to afford the purchase:
Sorry,but I can confirm you are asked to leave after that you are advised you have 26 weeks to vacate your govie, of course you can appeal etc or buy the old place at market price provided you meet the banks criteria etc.

When we moved into our govie we signed a 75 year lease! I had lost my job while waiting for an operation so could not find work yaddah yaddah, when we got back on our feet and tried to buy the property (valued at $100,000 ) the manager from housing laughed at us. Years later housing tried to sell the house to us for $450,000 at my age no thanks.

bigfeet bigfeet 5:01 pm 15 Sep 13

Maybe they could find a house for our Prime Minister elect?

He seems to be having trouble.

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/tony-abbott-abandons-possuminfested-lodge-to-live-with-afp-recruits/story-fncynjr2-1226719448305

Masquara Masquara 4:20 pm 15 Sep 13

ACT Housing has always been corrupt. Years ago I knew an ACT Housing manager, ‘RP’. He had all his mates from the South Coast allocated three-beddies in Yarralumla and Red Hill. Most of them are still occupying those houses and variously bought them cheap or are psying subsidised rent while on back pocket incomes. The fraud was endemic.

Darkfalz Darkfalz 1:49 pm 15 Sep 13

People on high incomes pay market rents in these houses, as I was before I left public housing 5-6 years ago. So it doesn’t really concern me. What concerns me is using public housing, Centrelink income and subsidised rent as a percentage of it as an excuse never to better yourself. The number of trouble making 20 somethings in public housing bothers me a lot more than a few people paying market rents.

Grrrr Grrrr 1:28 pm 15 Sep 13

Fayne said :

blah blah fraud blah blah

Continuing to live in govvie housing with above-average income is not fraud because people like the EL1 you know pay rent according to their income, up to market value. Thus the govt makes money from such people, which they can use to – funnily enough – provide more housing.

Other posters here believe that the govt isn’t pricing the rent at market rates, and if so that requires fixing – but even if it’s true it’s hardly the fault of the legislation.

Where did you hear that people were being forced to leave govt housing at $80k? Have you read the legislation you claim isn’t being enforced? Can you provide a reference to it? As far as I can tell, you’re wrong: People are not asked to leave once their income reaches $N. All govt tenants are offered the chance to buy their property at independently-valued (IE market) price – and the $80k number you’ve heard is in the sale policy as the suggested point at which tenant is paying full market rent, and may be able to afford the purchase:
http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/hcs/buying

My real gripe is with people like my previous govt-tenant neighbour who spend their dole on booze and drugs, and have no interest in getting an income .. so, they don’t contribute anything to anyone.

breda breda 11:56 am 15 Sep 13

#15
JC9:44 am, 15 Sep 13

OpenYourMind said :

Even if rent reaches market value, I’ll bet each of those houses is still making a massive loss. The cost of a bunch of public servants administering a rental has got to be massive.

And if they weren’t getting market value the those losses would be even greater…
—————————————————
You are missing the point, JC. Assuming that we accept that there is a need for subsidised housing for some people, that will always run at a loss. Any public housing that allegedly charges “market rent” may or may not make a profit, since not all rental housing makes a profit even in the private sector. But that represents millions and millions of dollars worth of public money tied up in owning and maintaining housing for people who can afford to rent privately.

The more housing units the government owns and manages, the greater the administrative overhead and opportunity for rorts and waste. It makes no difference to the cost of providing subsidised housing to the needy, except possibly to increase it. But is absorbs a massive amount of public money that could be turned to productive purposes, including to lowering taxes. If people could keep more of the money they earn, they can use it for investment – or even to buy a home of their own.

JC JC 11:46 am 15 Sep 13

dtc said :

I’ll bet this comes down to it being the cheapest method for garbage collection (which is a surprisingly expensive activity) for the managers of the units, which of course has been contracted to the cheapest bidder who will point out the contract does not contain any restriction on the method of garbage collection and if the government wants to impose a different method then it will have to pay more money…

I think your right but the manager of the units is the ACT government and these units were designed specifically for the elderly so should be fit for use.

Genie Genie 11:08 am 15 Sep 13

To the OP. There is currently one 4 bedroom property in Mawson listed for rent at around $750-$770 a week. Perhaps you should question if that is infact what she is paying. After all that would be ‘full market rent’

Anyone earning an EL1’s salary without children should easily be able to afford to rent outside ACT public housing.

Genie Genie 11:04 am 15 Sep 13

I also find this frustrating and have expressed my annoyance several times in posts on this site. Sad reality is nothing will ever change.

People earning over a set amount should have to pay full market rent, and I mean FULL rent. I know of people barely paying $300 a week which is ‘full’ rent. Sorry but when you look at average rent being around $500 for something equivalent in the same suburb. It’s not full rent.

In my mothers street, her neighbour is living alone in a 3 beddy property while 2 others in the street are living alone in 4 beddy properties. All because they have been there for over a decade and the government ‘can’t do anything about it’ … Absolute BS ! These people should be downsized into smaller properties or be forced to pay a levy on the empty rooms. There are too many families who need properties like this that are stuck on emergency housing waiting lists

On the other hand, I also find it frustrating with the people who had 2 kids and got given a 3 beddy property many moons ago and are now expecting the government to find them a 5+ beddy property coz they kept having kids. If you’re on welfare and can’t afford things like rent. Stop breeding and expecting the government and taxpayers to fund them and upgrade your home.

Fayne Fayne 10:24 am 15 Sep 13

plumtree said :

Being a nosy parker, I rang ACT Housing to report this situation, and was advised that ACT Housing will not force anyone to move, even to a smaller place; thus freeing up a family home…..is that what its called these days? It wascalled being a

talebearer, telltale, tattler, informer, snitch, rat, squealer,nark and dobber .

If I had been encouraged to go so far. I didn’t get past questioning the legislation. I was not asked to provide details. It seems ACT Housing is the one government welfare service agency that do not have a fraud report process. It is one of the reasons children remain in over crowded homes or are homeless. May I ask plumtree, are you claiming something you are not entitled too? This may explain your aggression. Chill love

JC JC 9:44 am 15 Sep 13

OpenYourMind said :

Even if rent reaches market value, I’ll bet each of those houses is still making a massive loss. The cost of a bunch of public servants administering a rental has got to be massive.

And if they weren’t getting market value the those losses would be even greater…

OpenYourMind OpenYourMind 8:57 am 15 Sep 13

MissChief said :

Don’t know if the system is still the same but a few years ago when someone I know tried to downsize from her 4 bedroom govie, she was told she’d have to join the queue and wait for a smaller house. The queue for non emergency housing was several years.

I also understand that rent on govie houses increases with income up to market value, so it would be unfair to assume the person in question is getting a free ride. In fact, it’s more likely she’s saving the taxpayer, and at least the house isn’t at risk of being an exploding meth lab.

Even if rent reaches market value, I’ll bet each of those houses is still making a massive loss. The cost of a bunch of public servants administering a rental has got to be massive.

breda breda 4:34 am 15 Sep 13

The “market rents are subsidising the rest” argument is nonsense.

Firstly, the so-called “market rents” are significantly lower than real market rents. Remember the Greens politician who was living in a public, free-standing 3 bedroom house in Yarralumla? She was paying something like $300 per week, allegedly a “market rent.” You might just find a privately owned 1 bedroom flat in Yarralumla for $300 a week.

Secondly, it is assumed that private landlords make a profit on rents. Some do, but many don’t. Either they make bad decisions in what they paid for the property, or they are really after somewhere to park excess cash (an asset) with the hope of capital gain down the track.

Thirdly, all public housing represents taxpayer money. The assumption that governments should be in the real estate business (or any other business) using our money, in the hope that they will make a profit, is certainly the triumph of hope over experience – plus, it’s our money!

That money in the hands of private individuals and corporations (to whom it actually belongs) has the potential to generate real economic activity and wealth. We all know what happens to it once it disappears into the maw of government. The chance of that is vanishingly small, while the chance of waste and losses is correspondingly high.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site