10 November 2014

They destroy, you pay.

| Mike Jeffreys
Join the conversation
35
vandalise-stock

What to do with the ferals?

We don’t seem to have much by way of answers in this part of the world.

I’m talking about the wreckers who cost us money and make damned nuisances of themselves but not to the point where we are prepared to put them in gaol – in this case those who vandalize their taxpayer provided accommodation.

ABC Online reported recently that “According to an ACT Government department, public housing properties in the ACT received nearly $73,000 worth of damage each week last financial year.

ACT Housing and Community Services figures show in all more than $3.7 million in damage was reported at properties due to vandalism, misuse or neglect in 2013-14.

That amount was on top of damage caused through normal wear and tear.”

So, it’s deliberate – or certainly avoidable – damage.

Housing and Community Services executive director David Matthews sought to dilute the issue with some meaningless maths.
He averaged out the damage bill – to no point whatever – and told us that it worked out to $320 per property.
In doing so, he contradicted his previous position that most tenants are responsible types.

On the one hand Mr Matthews presumably wants us to believe that only a small proportion of the tenants are deliberately destructive but then goes on to amortise the cost over the lot.
This seems hardly fair to the people who look after the properties they live in, and I am prepared to believe Mr Matthews when he says this is true of the majority.

It acknowledges the real world position where in any given example a small number of miscreants usually cause most of the trouble.
He goes on to say “But in the context of 11,800 properties and the over 20,000 people who live in public housing, the amount is not unreasonable.
“I think we experience exactly the same issues as everywhere else in the country and even in the private rental market generally.”
Neither of those statements is correct.

It’s not reasonable for a few ferals to needlessly waste money paid in tax by the reasonably law abiding just because they hate the world, don’t value what is given to them free or are so lazy and dissolute they simply don’t care to keep their habitat in good order.
As to his second comment, apparently Mr Matthews’ Granny never told him that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Also I dispute the idea the private rental market operates the same way.
Bad tenants get found out, get evicted, lose their bond money, find it hard to rent again and so on.

When I was in Canberra I remember getting phone calls on the air from public service employees who told me that the files on the consistent troublemakers used to get put to the bottom of the pile (these days I assume figuratively speaking) because it was just all too hard.
I don’t think we’re really going to see anything much done, but for entertainment purposes only, let me recount what was told to me by a radio announcer from Singapore years ago.
He said that when the administration needed factory fodder to keep the production lines rolling, they encouraged thousands of what were described as “hill people” to leave their mud huts and move to where the urban action was.
They were provided accommodation in government buildings at a nominal rent.
These were people to whom indoor plumbing and cooking was a new adventure.

But here’s the clever bit: the authorities would leave them alone for six months or so to give them enough time to get used to enjoying the pleasure of having money to spend on all the goods and services a developed modern city can provide.

In other words, they trained them to become good, dependent members of the consumer society.
Then the housing inspectors would call.

For every careless use (or non-use) of the bathroom facilities, for all the nasty stains, rips, tears, holes in the carpet, the walls or whatever – they were heavily fined.
This meant that our by now committed consumers had their consuming curtailed because of the sharp decrease in disposable income as a result of having to pay those heavy fines over months and years.

My informant assured me that the next time the inspectors called, there would be hardly a burn mark to be seen or stain to be explained.
Of course I don’t expect anything like the above to happen in the ACT.

I’m just offering what I hope is a pleasant mental picture of what might be done in an alternate universe if the thought of your hard earned being deliberately wasted makes you angry.

Join the conversation

35
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

HenryBG said :

Antagonist said :

*All damage that is not fair wear and tear.* That means if I lock myself out of my house and need a locksmith to let me in, it will be reported in the Annual Report as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. Or the $500+ sliding door window that was broken by my kids playing cricket is an act of ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. And no matter how much noise you or Mike Jeffreys make, the money is still recovered from the tenant (or former tenant as the case may be). It is not lost revenue. There are no free rides.

This is just bizarre.

If I lock myself out and have to smash a windown, or if my kids whack a cricket ball through a window, I fix it.

Apparently, if you have been successfully attached to the Housing Commission teat for 37 years, you believe the taxpayers have to pay for these things on your behalf.

The sense of entitlement is actually quite horrifying.

Well said Henry ! Although the reality is it’s probably the minority who we actually hear about.

My mother’s elderly neighbour currently lives along in a 3 bedroom house. Despite being asked to, she refuses to move because it’s “her house”.

She also has someone from the Government come mow her lawn monthly, rubbish removal monthly and all sorts of other entitlements. Sad reality is, she is more than perfectly capable of mowing her lawn by herself as over spring/summer she does just this every couple of days. Sends my mother batty having to listen to a lawnmower every other day.

Also made for a good laugh when the paid contractors rocked up for her monthly mow, scratching their heads at a lawn that didn’t need mowing.

gazket said :

“Housing and Community Services executive director David Matthews sought to dilute the issue with some meaningless maths. He averaged out the damage bill – to no point whatever – and told us that it worked out to $320 per property.
In doing so, he contradicted his previous position that most tenants are responsible types.”

$320 a fortnight is way more than the Gov get in rent per property. Most Tennants would be paying under $200 a fortnight.

Bulldust. Source? I do not know anyone in public housing paying under $200 per fortnight. My family and I are paying more than $320 per fortnight.

gazket said :

Most if not all are on the dole so we won’t even get $5 a week payment from them.

More bulldust. While some people in public housing do receive the dole (Newstart), there are far more who are actually on disability/carer payments – which is LESS than the dole. And some people in public housing who are in low income jobs who get paid a comparable amount to the dole for their work. I have a fair idea of where you are pulling these imaginary figures from.

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

They only pay if they don’t leave the ACT. If they leave the ACT the tax payer pays . The ACT gov don’t chase these people interstate to pay the bill. Most if not all are on the dole so we won’t even get $5 a week payment from them.

“Housing and Community Services executive director David Matthews sought to dilute the issue with some meaningless maths. He averaged out the damage bill – to no point whatever – and told us that it worked out to $320 per property.
In doing so, he contradicted his previous position that most tenants are responsible types.”

$320 a fortnight is way more than the Gov get in rent per property. Most Tennants would be paying under $200 a fortnight.

HenryBG said :

Antagonist said :

*All damage that is not fair wear and tear.* That means if I lock myself out of my house and need a locksmith to let me in, it will be reported in the Annual Report as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. Or the $500+ sliding door window that was broken by my kids playing cricket is an act of ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. And no matter how much noise you or Mike Jeffreys make, the money is still recovered from the tenant (or former tenant as the case may be). It is not lost revenue. There are no free rides.

This is just bizarre.

If I lock myself out and have to smash a windown, or if my kids whack a cricket ball through a window, I fix it.

Apparently, if you have been successfully attached to the Housing Commission teat for 37 years, you believe the taxpayers have to pay for these things on your behalf.

The sense of entitlement is actually quite horrifying.

I have not lived in public housing for 37 years. Not even close to that long.

Living well below the ACOSS poverty line means I do not have the income to immediately pay for a glazier to fix this kind of problem. It would take me several pays to save up and pay for it. I cannot afford insurance that might otherwise pay for it either. I am *grateful* that ACT Housing have a glazier that can come and fix it. And charge me Sunday rates for that *privilege*. It is not ‘entitlement’. I entered into a repayment agreement so that I can pay the debt off at a rate my pathetic household income allows – and it is a LOT more than $10 per fortnight.

I care for three disabled household members, while balancing a full-time study load. My caring responsibilities interfered with my old career so much that I was unemployable. Maybe when I finish my degree next year and attempt a new career, I will be able to afford to move my family out of public housing. Then when somebody breaks a window and does not have the income to pay for it up front, I can be arrogant and condescending about it too. Just like you, Henry 🙂

HenryBG said :

Antagonist said :

*All damage that is not fair wear and tear.* That means if I lock myself out of my house and need a locksmith to let me in, it will be reported in the Annual Report as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. Or the $500+ sliding door window that was broken by my kids playing cricket is an act of ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. And no matter how much noise you or Mike Jeffreys make, the money is still recovered from the tenant (or former tenant as the case may be). It is not lost revenue. There are no free rides.

This is just bizarre.

If I lock myself out and have to smash a windown, or if my kids whack a cricket ball through a window, I fix it.

Apparently, if you have been successfully attached to the Housing Commission teat for 37 years, you believe the taxpayers have to pay for these things on your behalf.

The sense of entitlement is actually quite horrifying.

Sense of entitlement my a#se. My mother has looked after her housing commission house (not that we have a housing commission in the ACT) for 37 bloody years. Never asked for anything, never received anything either, paid her rent etc. As mentioned she accidentally dropped a bloody cistern lid. End result now is rather than her attempting to clean the gunk that gets into the cistern from the water tank, she now leaves it along, which in turn fouls the flushing system and it leaks. She calls maintenance and they come fix it, every 6 months like clock work. Who do you think this is going to cost in the long run?

As I said sense of entitlement my a#se.

Check out the 2009 film “Harry Brown” starring Michael Caine, set in a London housing estate, for a fantastic solution to the problem.

Antagonist said :

*All damage that is not fair wear and tear.* That means if I lock myself out of my house and need a locksmith to let me in, it will be reported in the Annual Report as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. Or the $500+ sliding door window that was broken by my kids playing cricket is an act of ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. And no matter how much noise you or Mike Jeffreys make, the money is still recovered from the tenant (or former tenant as the case may be). It is not lost revenue. There are no free rides.

This is just bizarre.

If I lock myself out and have to smash a windown, or if my kids whack a cricket ball through a window, I fix it.

Apparently, if you have been successfully attached to the Housing Commission teat for 37 years, you believe the taxpayers have to pay for these things on your behalf.

The sense of entitlement is actually quite horrifying.

Realm said :

JC said :

HenryBG said :

Realm said :

JC said :

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Yeah, *normal* people should pay for the damage they cause, but *he* is special and shouldn’t have to.

Welcome to the wonderful post-modern world of personal exceptionalism. Infects everything.

So typical a snide comment from someone who didn’t even read what was written. For one I am not an act housing tenant I own my own place. Secondly the story was about my mother and to be honest a tenant of 37 years with no previous damage I think it was a bit rich considering it was accidental and considering the cistern in my opinion was not fit for purpose. Heavy in a unit designed for old people connected to a rainwater rank that is filthy. That was the argument I used and housing agreeded. They also agreed with some plain dumb design and build issues with her place that they have fixed.

But if you want to be like that I would say over the past 37 years ACT housing and it’s predecessors has got out a lot of maintenance they were responsible for that me and my family did. All the while neighbouring houses got trashed and upgraded time and again.

Besides the purpose of that story was to show they will go people over relativily minor issues but trash the joint they will give you a new place and you get off Scott free.

If it were her own house, or a privately rented property, she would be expected to repay the costs of repairing the damage, or fix it herself if it were indeed her own property. Why because it is an ACT Housing property, should that mean the government should pay for it? It’s her damage.

She could have had contents insurance which probably would have covered it.

Realm said :

If it were her own house, or a privately rented property, she would be expected to repay the costs of repairing the damage, or fix it herself if it were indeed her own property. Why because it is an ACT Housing property, should that mean the government should pay for it? It’s her damage.

If it were her house it wouldn’t have a porcelain cistern tank. If it were a private rental then I don’t think all landlords would charge for accidental damage. I know in my own home that is being rented out at present I have covered accidental damage by tenants. So long as they are honest with me and I value them as tenants then the good will is prepayed 10 times over. Case in point my tenant damaged a shelf in the wardrobe by using it as a step. They shouldn’t have and I could have charged them to fix it, but didn’t. They have repayed that kind by replacing washers in taps and also a couple of lights, which again by rights I as the owner am responsible for.

tooltime said :

JC,

Enough of the blame someone else thing. Even if you have a new home built, there’s still “issues” – nothing is perfect, even in a brand new house that cost the owner $600 000 – you’re blowing up over a few hundred bucks toilet cistern. Get on with your life dude…

The amateur cricketers? What happened to no ball games in the house? A reasonable person would foresee that broken glass from that activity would be a probable/possible event. Of course it is. Point being, if I drop my new Ipadunder warranty and break it – I call it an accident, Apple call it abuse. Tough luck hombre…

Think you have missed the point. My issues with the new build house is two fold.

For one I do not like how ACT housing couldn’t have given a stuff about the defects that mum raised. If it were my house I would be hounding the builder to rectify the issues yet ACT housing just didn’t care. In the long run these issues will cost the ACT government when they could have been rectified by the builder. Now mum lives in a complex of 15 or so, at the same time they built another 100 odd, imagine all the issues in those places too.

With the cistern yeah I could be blaming, but with cause. The whole thing is fucked to put it simply. It is connected to a rain water tank that deposits dirt into the cistern which over time causes the thing to leak. My mum made an effort to clean the bloody thing and ACCIDENTALLY dropped the lid. I mean to say how bloody stupid putting in a heavy porcelain tank in a house SPECIFICALLY built for the elderly and the disabled. Only damage in 37 years of being a tennant, yet gets hounded, but if she had of trashed her house like may do the probably would have come and fixed it all with no recourse. So massive double standard.

End result is mum no longer cleans the tank since the lid broke. Twice now plumbers have been out to ‘fix’ leaks. The family no longer takes care of other minor maintenance issues as we had done in the past. Again at the end of the day it is going to cost the ACT government more, for what?

tooltime said :

The amateur cricketers? What happened to no ball games in the house? A reasonable person would foresee that broken glass from that activity would be a probable/possible event. Of course it is. Point being, if I drop my new Ipadunder warranty and break it – I call it an accident, Apple call it abuse. Tough luck hombre…

Antagonist said :

One of my kids broke the glass in a sliding door playing cricket in the back yard at a cost of over $500.

Key words: In the back yard. Nobody was playing cricket indoors. Playing cricket outdoors is in no way an act of “vandalism, misuse or neglect” and your analogy does not hold up to scrutiny. The label given in reporting is misleading, but was explained by the head of ACT Housing. Mike Jeffreys beat-up of the issue is pathetic and shameful.

JC,

Enough of the blame someone else thing. Even if you have a new home built, there’s still “issues” – nothing is perfect, even in a brand new house that cost the owner $600 000 – you’re blowing up over a few hundred bucks toilet cistern. Get on with your life dude…

The amateur cricketers? What happened to no ball games in the house? A reasonable person would foresee that broken glass from that activity would be a probable/possible event. Of course it is. Point being, if I drop my new Ipadunder warranty and break it – I call it an accident, Apple call it abuse. Tough luck hombre…

JC said :

HenryBG said :

Realm said :

JC said :

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Yeah, *normal* people should pay for the damage they cause, but *he* is special and shouldn’t have to.

Welcome to the wonderful post-modern world of personal exceptionalism. Infects everything.

So typical a snide comment from someone who didn’t even read what was written. For one I am not an act housing tenant I own my own place. Secondly the story was about my mother and to be honest a tenant of 37 years with no previous damage I think it was a bit rich considering it was accidental and considering the cistern in my opinion was not fit for purpose. Heavy in a unit designed for old people connected to a rainwater rank that is filthy. That was the argument I used and housing agreeded. They also agreed with some plain dumb design and build issues with her place that they have fixed.

But if you want to be like that I would say over the past 37 years ACT housing and it’s predecessors has got out a lot of maintenance they were responsible for that me and my family did. All the while neighbouring houses got trashed and upgraded time and again.

Besides the purpose of that story was to show they will go people over relativily minor issues but trash the joint they will give you a new place and you get off Scott free.

If it were her own house, or a privately rented property, she would be expected to repay the costs of repairing the damage, or fix it herself if it were indeed her own property. Why because it is an ACT Housing property, should that mean the government should pay for it? It’s her damage.

How do you know all the damage was wreaked by residents? There are an awful lot of empty ACT Housing properties with windows for breaking.

Antagonist said :

Slumlord said :

Youre in la la land pal the costs were for ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’…’Lyons house removal of 10m2 of rubbish’…’Florey house needed carpet replaced because of strong smell of faeces’…’a forensic clean needed in Ainslie’. Do you think it’s free to pursue costs in ACAT and chase this money – well looky at that additional costs for legal advice, public servants wasted time for the Government, and probably subsidised legal aid for the poor tenant.

A quick look at this years annual report and rental debt (separate to these oustanding costs for vandalism, misuse or neglect’ has been steady at about $1.4m for people living in subsidised housing. you really are in la la land

Wow. It seems that the need for a locksmith, glazier or plumber is reported as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. I refer you again to Mr Matthews who said, and I quote:

“”That’s all damage that’s not fair wear and tear, it doesn’t mean that it’s deliberate damage,” he said.

“It can be everything from people getting locked out of their properties and needing a 24-hour locksmith, to large families where children break windows.”

*All damage that is not fair wear and tear.* That means if I lock myself out of my house and need a locksmith to let me in, it will be reported in the Annual Report as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. Or the $500+ sliding door window that was broken by my kids playing cricket is an act of ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. And no matter how much noise you or Mike Jeffreys make, the money is still recovered from the tenant (or former tenant as the case may be). It is not lost revenue. There are no free rides.

Here is a link to the original ABC article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-03/37-million-in-damage-to-public-housing-last-financial-year-act/5862076?section=act

Ding-a-ling wake u! carpet replaced due to strong smell of urine and faeces that sounds a lot like neglect and vandalism to me, as the other two examples. Am i happy to be subsidising locksmiths for housing tenants? no way! if i lock myself out nobody subsidises a locksmith or lets me pay it later. Are you saying pursuing costs in ACAT is free? Who is paying the $1.2m deficit as well as subsidising public housing that’s right the tax payer. Wakey wakey.

Slumlord said :

Youre in la la land pal the costs were for ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’…’Lyons house removal of 10m2 of rubbish’…’Florey house needed carpet replaced because of strong smell of faeces’…’a forensic clean needed in Ainslie’. Do you think it’s free to pursue costs in ACAT and chase this money – well looky at that additional costs for legal advice, public servants wasted time for the Government, and probably subsidised legal aid for the poor tenant.

A quick look at this years annual report and rental debt (separate to these oustanding costs for vandalism, misuse or neglect’ has been steady at about $1.4m for people living in subsidised housing. you really are in la la land

Wow. It seems that the need for a locksmith, glazier or plumber is reported as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. I refer you again to Mr Matthews who said, and I quote:

“”That’s all damage that’s not fair wear and tear, it doesn’t mean that it’s deliberate damage,” he said.

“It can be everything from people getting locked out of their properties and needing a 24-hour locksmith, to large families where children break windows.”

*All damage that is not fair wear and tear.* That means if I lock myself out of my house and need a locksmith to let me in, it will be reported in the Annual Report as ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. Or the $500+ sliding door window that was broken by my kids playing cricket is an act of ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’. And no matter how much noise you or Mike Jeffreys make, the money is still recovered from the tenant (or former tenant as the case may be). It is not lost revenue. There are no free rides.

Here is a link to the original ABC article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-03/37-million-in-damage-to-public-housing-last-financial-year-act/5862076?section=act

Slightly off-topic but a friend had a town house in a complex of 13 in a large town to the south which cost him about $150,000 10 years ago. A lot of the other town houses there were owned by investors and over time the quality of the tenants rolling over deteriorated to such an extent that eventually my friend’s unit was the only owner occupied one with all the others being occupied by unemployed ferals who are totally dependant on welfare. Almost every day the police were there to sort out problems.
He decided to sell as it was impossible to exist normally there anymore. The best price he could get was $90,000. It turns out the “investor” who bought the place also has been quietly buying up all the other townhouses there and all are now leased direct to Centrelink who then provide them to the intractables.
As Arthur Daly would say, “nice little earner”.

Antagonist said :

Slumlord said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Did you read the article? $3.7m damage, $660k recovered. Who do you think paid the rest? Renders your entire comment redundant.

I did read the article. Clearly you have not. Here are two very important sentences from the original article for you to consider:

“… it doesn’t mean that it’s deliberate damage,” he [Housing and Community Services executive director David Matthews] said. “It can be everything from people getting locked out of their properties and needing a 24-hour locksmith, to large families where children break windows.”

One of my kids broke the glass in a sliding door playing cricket in the back yard at a cost of over $500. Does that mean I should forfeit my property?

“If they’re a current tenant we ask them to enter into a repayment agreement with us and if they’ve left our housing then we have to go to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal and get an order like every other landlord,” he said.”

Well looky at that! People are expected to repay the debt – just like in any privately rented property. It is not the free ride Mike Jeffreys would have you believe.

Youre in la la land pal the costs were for ‘vandalism, misuse or neglect’…’Lyons house removal of 10m2 of rubbish’…’Florey house needed carpet replaced because of strong smell of faeces’…’a forensic clean needed in Ainslie’. Do you think it’s free to pursue costs in ACAT and chase this money – well looky at that additional costs for legal advice, public servants wasted time for the Government, and probably subsidised legal aid for the poor tenant.

A quick look at this years annual report and rental debt (separate to these oustanding costs for vandalism, misuse or neglect’ has been steady at about $1.4m for people living in subsidised housing. you really are in la la land

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Realm said :

JC said :

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Yeah, *normal* people should pay for the damage they cause, but *he* is special and shouldn’t have to.

Welcome to the wonderful post-modern world of personal exceptionalism. Infects everything.

You make a fair point Henry but we are talking about wilful damage being inflicted and no one deserves any concessions in that situation.
My mother was in a Housing unit for many years and she was a bit clumsy. After the contractors that Housing use stuffed a couple of repairs up I used to make good all the problems she had after.
One has to ask why JC didn’t replace the cistern himself – they only cost about $50 ) or less at a recycler).
If his mother has any more problems that need fixing just give dungers a call.

Myself and my brothers used to do little fix it jobs. But mum got screwed by housing when she moved in 2010 from the house she had rented since 1978. As mentioned in another post she moved into housing built specifically for elderly and disabled people. To start with housing promised to buy the improvements she had made to the old property these consisted of blinds curtains and carpets. The. They reneged on that. She still left them but would have been well within her right to remove them as the house had no window coverings or floor fingering a when she moved in.

The property she moved into despite being built for elderly and disabled is very elderly and disabled friendly. Stupid things like having a massive hopper style garbage bin that only two people in the complex of 14 units can open. A kitchen which has no under bench storage to cater for wheel chairs all the storage is above bench height so not good for the oldies and no idea where a wheel chair bound person is meant to put anything. A garden tap that is hidden besides the water tank blocked by the hot water heater. And the water tank buggered if I know how the oldies or wheel chair bound people are meant to clean in inlet filter and put in tank stabilising liquid.

Then there are a list of build quality issues that should have been warranty jobs with the builder but ACT housing couldn’t care less.

So yeah what should have been a positive move for mum got ruined by pure stupidity by housing.

Oh her old place now looks like the stereotypical housing property. Grass 1m high, feral kids running about and parents too lazy to park in the driveway and walk 20m so instead park on what was the grass so they are at the front door. Mum hates visiting her old neighbours I reckon they would account for more than their fair share of maintenance costs.

Slumlord said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Did you read the article? $3.7m damage, $660k recovered. Who do you think paid the rest? Renders your entire comment redundant.

I did read the article. Clearly you have not. Here are two very important sentences from the original article for you to consider:

“… it doesn’t mean that it’s deliberate damage,” he [Housing and Community Services executive director David Matthews] said. “It can be everything from people getting locked out of their properties and needing a 24-hour locksmith, to large families where children break windows.”

One of my kids broke the glass in a sliding door playing cricket in the back yard at a cost of over $500. Does that mean I should forfeit my property?

“If they’re a current tenant we ask them to enter into a repayment agreement with us and if they’ve left our housing then we have to go to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal and get an order like every other landlord,” he said.”

Well looky at that! People are expected to repay the debt – just like in any privately rented property. It is not the free ride Mike Jeffreys would have you believe.

HenryBG said :

Realm said :

JC said :

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Yeah, *normal* people should pay for the damage they cause, but *he* is special and shouldn’t have to.

Welcome to the wonderful post-modern world of personal exceptionalism. Infects everything.

You make a fair point Henry but we are talking about wilful damage being inflicted and no one deserves any concessions in that situation.
My mother was in a Housing unit for many years and she was a bit clumsy. After the contractors that Housing use stuffed a couple of repairs up I used to make good all the problems she had after.
One has to ask why JC didn’t replace the cistern himself – they only cost about $50 ) or less at a recycler).
If his mother has any more problems that need fixing just give dungers a call.

HenryBG said :

Realm said :

JC said :

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Yeah, *normal* people should pay for the damage they cause, but *he* is special and shouldn’t have to.

Welcome to the wonderful post-modern world of personal exceptionalism. Infects everything.

So typical a snide comment from someone who didn’t even read what was written. For one I am not an act housing tenant I own my own place. Secondly the story was about my mother and to be honest a tenant of 37 years with no previous damage I think it was a bit rich considering it was accidental and considering the cistern in my opinion was not fit for purpose. Heavy in a unit designed for old people connected to a rainwater rank that is filthy. That was the argument I used and housing agreeded. They also agreed with some plain dumb design and build issues with her place that they have fixed.

But if you want to be like that I would say over the past 37 years ACT housing and it’s predecessors has got out a lot of maintenance they were responsible for that me and my family did. All the while neighbouring houses got trashed and upgraded time and again.

Besides the purpose of that story was to show they will go people over relativily minor issues but trash the joint they will give you a new place and you get off Scott free.

Realm said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Being liable for the damage they cause and actually paying for it is an alien concept for these type of tenants.

I cannot believe I am going to agree with something you have written.

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Yep because it was bullsh$t. They put in fancy heavy cisterns into a property specifically designed for older and disabled people. They expect said tenants to keep things clean and working. So how would you expect a 71 year old to clean the cistern. Anyway since then she has stopped cleaning it and the plumber has been out twice this year to fix it because the dirt from the rainwater tank gunks it up and it starts to leak. Now common sense would be you put in a good old plastic cistern.

Realm said :

JC said :

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Yeah, *normal* people should pay for the damage they cause, but *he* is special and shouldn’t have to.

Welcome to the wonderful post-modern world of personal exceptionalism. Infects everything.

Slumlord said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Did you read the article? $3.7m damage, $660k recovered. Who do you think paid the rest? Renders your entire comment redundant.

Exactly.
There are also limits on how much can be garnisheed from Centrelink.
Housing are not fast enough in evicting these defaulters so the longer they stay the more damage results.
Housing will also fund feral tenants they no longer want into private housing rental by giving them (not lending) enough money for the bond and first months rental.
God help the private landlord when they cop a hospital pass like that.

Realm said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Being liable for the damage they cause and actually paying for it is an alien concept for these type of tenants.

I cannot believe I am going to agree with something you have written.

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Welcome to the wonderful world of public housing. The problem here is that no-one really owns the properties in questions (yeah, yeah, ‘taxpayers do’), so no-one aggressively pushes issues to closure.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Being liable for the damage they cause and actually paying for it is an alien concept for these type of tenants.

I cannot believe I am going to agree with something you have written.

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

So wait, she broke something that wasn’t hers, she was asked to pay for it, and you complained about that?

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Did you read the article? $3.7m damage, $660k recovered. Who do you think paid the rest? Renders your entire comment redundant.

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Being liable for the damage they cause and actually paying for it is an alien concept for these type of tenants.

I cannot believe I am going to agree with something you have written.

But they do go after some tenants too. Like my 71 year old mother who lives in a new build purpose built seniors housing complex who dropped a porcelain cistern lid whilst cleaning the tank (due to the filthy water that comes from the rainwater tank. The whole cistern had to be replaced as lids cannot be purchased separately so total cost $400. Never mind mum has been a tenant since 1978 with no previous damage reports and glowing reports of who well she has maintained the two properties she has lived in.

She had the option of upfront repayment or $10p/f. She took the latter but it was stopped after a strongly worded letter to the minister from me. Funny they also fixed some other stupid non senior friendly build issues that I raised with the minister but only on her property not the other dozen in the complex.

This is why the government should not be in the housing business at all.

The government should own a tiny amount of properties for those people who are truly unable to look after themselves or have serious health/mental issues and wouldn’t survive in the private rental market.

Everyone else that needs assistance to obtain accommodation should be provided with money/subsidies/rent assistance and forced to apply for private rental properties just like everyone else in the rental market. People who damage property or won’t look after their rental will find out pretty quickly what it’s like to be homeless if they won’t abide by the rules. At the moment there’s almost zero consequences for people who damage tax payer funded accommodation.

dungfungus said :

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Being liable for the damage they cause and actually paying for it is an alien concept for these type of tenants.

It gets deducted from the housing tenants Centrelink benefit as a sundry debt (assuming that is their primary income), similar to garnishing wages.

Antagonist said :

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

Being liable for the damage they cause and actually paying for it is an alien concept for these type of tenants.

If a public housing tenant damages or destroys their house, they have to pay for it. Not the taxpayer. Which renders your entire article redundant.

I like your article. I work with a lot of Housing Tenants – but not in ACT Housing. Some Housing people are great, fab, caring and considerate of their property. Some aren’t and when they hoard or damage property in other ways they are referred to sustainable tenancy workers to help them and many are taken to the tribunal.

The people who are in ACT Housing are people with issues, they wouldn’t be there if they weren’t. It is so incredibly hard, like almost to lotto winning odds hard to get a ACT Housing House. Only the most needy, the most damaged, people who have suffered and continue to suffer get a house. That doesn’t excuse trashing places at all. The houses are not well maintained by Housing ACT. They are often very cold with tiny heaters, broken everything, missing bits like hand rails on stairs or vents in roofs or carpet. This doesn’t excuse trashing places either. Most tenants are genuinely grateful for a place to be safe.

I don’t know if fining people is the way to go, maybe more education on what is right and what is wrong. Maybe at sign up, more inspections to start off with. One every two weeks for two months would be good. It would give an excellent indication of the things tenants may need help with, ACT Housing could get on top of issues quickly and the tenant can bring up issues they think needs attention. Unfortunately it would also cost the tax payers money, but it may stop the cycle.
I now I should just give them hugs and puppies! But anyway I’m a bit of a bleeding heart but that’s my 2 cents.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.