Eviction quashed by Supreme Court

This is an interesting case - didn't even know that the law has this kind of a requirement TBH.

Supreme Court quashes Footscray renter's eviction notice

 

They are just delaying the inevitable. The landlord will probably just issue a new notice to evict.

How much as all this cost I wonder.

 

"$344 in social security payments each week, $275 of which is spent on rent."!!!!

 

In the report it said a new eviction notice has been issued to be heard later this month. Advocates could assist the tenant find alternative housing?
The landlord is in his 80s according to the report, stressful and potentially expensive too.
The figures given regarding the tenants income and rent, surprised she was approved perhaps the relative contributes financially?
What can the landlord to do to gain possession?

 

I was surprised by that as well - I wonder how they cover all their expenses

 

They can just say that they will be moving in instead

 

Except that an 80 something is probably going to own a PPOR as well, so they would have to sell up first potentially. Sell to another investor is probably the only way out and then the 21 year old is probably less likely to secure the rental anyway.

 

What a disgrace!

Let's take a good look at this. Eviction grounds were that the LL's grandson was moving in. They are allowed to evict for a member of the immediate family.

If her income was $344pw, how was she accepted as a tenant in the first place.

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/getting-help/legal-info/visas/tpv-shev-faqs/

So, I want to know how this person managed to get to Australia by boat with her physical & mental disabilities, and if she intends to work, what steps she has taken to find said work.

 

A grandson is not considered immediate family in most legal contexts. A son would be. Then dependence would have to be proven.

 

The dependence of the grandson is the problem here and questionable. In any case, why do people fight things like this? When you rent, you risk being asked to leave. So long as the appropriate amount of notice is served that should be the end of it.

Is it fun having to move? No. Is it worse when you're disabled? I assume so, but if a legal notice has been served that should be the end of it.

I know the legality is being questioned here, and therein lies the loophole.

 

Well isn't living there for say two weeks and then renting it out again considered "moving in"? Or even just saying "a family member" will be moving in. I didn't realise you had to be so specific as to name the actual person, their relationship to you, if/how you support them, mention what other properties you have, etc. Is this articulated anywhere?

 

I'm not a lawyer. However, I doubt that living somewhere for two weeks, while owning another PPOR would work.
As the property is an investment property, then the law relating to that applies. It would be potentially fraudulent otherwise.
I personally think that if the property is currently let, and the tenant pays on time and looks after the property, then to expect them to vacate for a grandson is poor form.

 

I don't have strong views either way personally. I just found the fact that such requirements actually exist interesting.

 

It is.

 

Run!

 

so does it mean in Victoria the tenant has security of tenure indefinitely?
can the landlord increase the rent at all?
could the landlord sell to his grandson and the grandson then seek occupancy?

 

They don't @pully.... but the law is never black and white and subject to interpretation. Nothing more to say, other that it is a pretty sad story all around.

 

Exactly. We all know her leease wont be renewed now when its up.
So what happens then?

 

So how does she live on $75 ! Week??

Is her nephew on the lease also or are they in breach for co renting?
And if the nephew is on the lease her share of the rent would only be halved.

 

Exactly so many things are wrong in this case