HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC HOUSING

The Hon. P.L. WHITE (Taylor) (16:28): I draw to the attention of the house some judgments that have been delivered by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal pertaining to cases resulting from the Residential Parks Bill, which we debated in this place and which was assented to late last year.

As members would know, for the entire time that I have been the member for Taylor representing the outer northern suburbs of Adelaide, I have for all those years been a passionate advocate for people living in caravan parks as permanent residents. I made two attempts in opposition to introduce bills to this place in order to afford those residents rights that they did not have—to give them access to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal as do all other people in South Australia who rent in a landlord-tenant arrangement. I also contributed to the bill behind the scenes, and it was brought forward by this government to that end.

I want to read into Hansard a letter, a copy of which I was given from an applicant, regarding the very first case under the Residential Parks Act 2007, which addresses a number of issues. The case dealt with the Beachside Village Estate at Victor Harbor, where nine applications were lodged by residents of the Beachside Village Estate complaining of conditions that were put before them. The letter, written by Ms Sandra Copley, is addressed to the president of the South Australian Residential Parks Residents Association, an umbrella association set up to represent residential park residents of all caravan parks and transportable park-type accommodation in the state. The letter, dated 14 July 2008, states:

Dear Laurie,

I write to inform you of the outcome of our trial before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

As you are aware, a group of residents from Beachside Village Estate, Normanville, had ongoing problems with a number of issues, initially the responsibility for the payment of rates of the Park Owner's land. (We have been issued with Rates Notices as well as paying our rates in our rent.)

This resulted in the group taking the Park Owner to the Small Claims Court at the Magistrates Court. A Review of the findings were sought by the Park Owner in the District Court. Both jurisdictions found in favour of our group. The Land Owner is always responsible for the payment of his own rates.

As a result, the Park Owner issued us with eviction notices, as outlined in the Residential Parks Act 2007. We answered those notices by appealing to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The issues of a fair and reasonable site agreement, fair rent, equal tenure with other residents and the relocatability of our homes were also raised with the Tribunal.

Most of these issues pertain to Beachside Village—but the relocatability issue may be of vital importance to other residents in other villages, at some time.

In the case of houses built on site at Beachside Village, the Tribunal found our houses to be 'permanently fixed dwellings' within the meaning of the Act. (See Part 1 (3) Interpretations, page 7)

(The Act poses the question of whether 'under any reasonable arrangement' the dwellings can 'be removed in a state which would allow the structure to be reused as a dwelling at another place.' We were able to show that, particularly financially, it would be 'unreasonable' to move the houses that had been 'purpose-built' to allow residents to retire and live '40 years, plus 40.'

I would be happy to provide as much information as possible regarding these issues, if it would be of use to the organisation, to keep for future information.

As well as this, I am very pleased to say that, as the very first case to come before the Residential Tribunal, we all believe that the Residential Parks Act 2007 worked very well, in our case. We believe:

The process was informal, with ample time to explain our case without pressure.

All findings were completely consistent with the legislation.

The Presiding Officer was very fair to both sides, with evidence being sworn, as in any other jurisdiction.

The Presiding Officer did not award costs. She stated:

'It is intended that the Tribunal will, in general, be a no cost jurisdiction. Parties should not be hesitant in making Tribunal applications because they are wary that they may include costs. Parties should be able to use the Tribunal as a low cost jurisdiction established as an alternative to formal court proceedings.'

We agree with this statement.

In our case, we asked that the Tribunal write us a fair and equitable site agreement. We are very pleased with the result, a simple 4 page document. Our rent was set by the tribunal also, and in accordance with our first agreement. (Meaning it was found that our initial rent was correct, not the exorbitant additional sums now demanded by the park owner.)

We feel positive in recommending that residents can approach the Residential Tenancies staff in the event of difficulties (for information and advice). Also that they should seek legal advice, preferably from a contracts lawyer, if they have any doubts about their rights under the Act.

Further, we believe it is essential that SARPRA members—

The association I spoke of—

be very conversant with the Act under which they live. Perhaps SARPRA, as a result of its present planning for the organisation, could have Residential Tenancies staff break the Act up into digestible sections—and ensure that all residents of Residential Parks understand each section. Both oral and simple written explanations would be helpful.

We thank SARPRA for its support in our fight for a fair and equitable deal for seniors.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Copley

I read that to members to point out the difference that an act of parliament has made to a very vulnerable group of people. I am aware of another case that has been decided in the tribunal. A judgment was made on 14 July 2008 regarding an application from nine residents of the Hahndorf Resort and Convention Centre, whereby a complaint about a rent increase was lodged. The result of that case was that the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, having found the increased rent to be excessive, went on to fix the rate payable for the site agreements.

I think that should illustrate this parliament's success in having a Residential Tenancies Tribunal that will step in when residents are being disadvantaged, change rents and make orders for a better and fairer situation. It is a first step, but it is a good step. I was very pleased to receive confirmation of this by how thrilled some residents were in South Australia who have used this new system.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT