Property Law

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The proportion of households experiencing <a href="https://theconversation.com/two-pictures-of-rental-housing-stress-and-vulnerability-zero-in-on-areas-of-need-77714" target="_blank">rental stress</a> is on the rise across Australia’s major cities. High rental prices have been driving an increase in shared housing. The most extreme form of this is “shared room” housing – where residents share a bedroom or partitioned living space (such as lounge room or garage) with a number of unrelated adults.
Official statistics, such as those collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, fail to accurately record room sharing. Public knowledge is limited to anecdotal stories or periodic media coverage of tragic outcomes of living in shared room housing – such as a 2012 apartment <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-16/landlord-questioned-over-bankstown-fire-unit-at-inquest/6549656" target="_blank">fire that led to the death of an international student</a> in Bankstown, Sydney.
However, the growth of online advertising platforms can provide new insights into shared housing across our cities. For <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2018.1556632" target="_blank">our recently published research</a>, we analysed 1,018 room-sharing listings for Sydney on gumtree.com.au between February and April 2017. While focusing on Sydney, the insights we present here are relevant to all Australian cities.
Who lives in shared rooms and where?
Sharing a room is typically short-term accommodation which allows residents to secure low-cost housing in well-located parts of the city, close to services and employment or education (typically universities). It’s an option most likely to appeal to young and mobile populations. Evidence suggests that international students, holidaymakers (those staying longer than typically housed via services such as Airbnb) and young professionals are most likely to live in shared rooms.
Thus, it’s no surprise that suburbs surrounding the Sydney CBD had the most shared room accommodation. The suburbs of Sydney, Pyrmont, Ultimo, Haymarket and Chippendale (Sydney City local government area – 409 rooms advertised), Bondi Beach and Bondi Junction (Waverley LGA – 80 rooms advertised) recorded the highest numbers. Beyond the CBD, Parramatta, Auburn, Strathfield, Chatswood, Lakemba and Rockdale had relatively high numbers of listings. Parramatta LGA recorded the third-highest number (76).
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247856/original/file-20181129-170238-1p15j7y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247856/original/file-20181129-170238-1p15j7y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 (Author provided)
These suburbs are well connected by public transport to employment and education opportunities. A number of these locations are immigrant gateways with diverse cultural and ethnic profiles. This suggests shared rooms are an important form of housing for recently arrived migrants.
How many people share a room?
The suburbs with the highest numbers of advertised shared rooms also had more people per shared room. For example, Sydney, Pyrmont, Ultimo, Haymarket, Chippendale, Surry Hills and Darlinghurst (all in Sydney City LGA) had average occupancy rates of more than 2.5 occupants per room. It was not uncommon for two-bedroom apartments to have between 5 and 14 occupants.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247858/original/file-20181129-170250-620rlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247858/original/file-20181129-170250-620rlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 (Author provided)
In terms of overcrowding (using <a href="https://theconversation.com/overcrowded-housing-looms-as-a-challenge-for-our-cities-96110" target="_blank">the “no more than two persons per room” standard</a>), more than a quarter (27%) of residents living in shared rooms included in this study were in overcrowded dwellings. Inner-city suburbs recorded the highest rate, with 40% of residents in overcrowded dwellings. In middle and outer suburbs, 14% and less than 1% of residents lived in overcrowded dwellings respectively.
It’s more affordable, and profitable too
People’s willingness to live in shared room housing is due mainly to it being cheaper. Our study revealed that shared rooms are rented for much less than the rate paid in the wider private rental market.
For example, in Haymarket, where the average occupancy is three people per room, the weekly rent per resident sharing with two others was $150. This was well below the median weekly rent for a private room in a two-bedroom apartment ($455) or a private one-bedroom apartment/studio ($643).
Adding to the relative affordability of shared room housing, rent typically includes furniture and utility bills. Bond payments are also lower.
Access to this form of housing is easier, too, because formal requirements such as identity and rental history checks are removed. This means residents are typically not covered by formal leasing arrangements and the legal protections that go with them.
The other side of the shared room equation is that it’s an extremely profitable form of housing for landlords – or tenants subletting dwellings. The rent generated per dwelling in shared room housing is well above the rental income if the property was leased to the private market.
For example, in Chatswood the median weekly rent for a two-bedroom apartment with shared bedrooms was $1,020. For a two-bedroom private (non-shared) apartment the median weekly rent was $785. The $235-per-week difference represents a 30% profit margin for landlords/tenants who convert properties into shared room accommodation. This financial premium is observed across most higher-demand shared-room suburbs in Sydney.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247864/original/file-20181129-170235-yad3kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247864/original/file-20181129-170235-yad3kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 (Author provided)
Policy and regulatory reforms are needed
Shared rooms raise a series of policy and regulatory concerns.
<ul>
<li>
Rooms are usually sublet accommodation without written tenancy agreements. This leaves occupants in a precarious form of housing. They are often uncertain of their tenancy rights and reluctant to make claims for fear of being evicted
</li>
<li>
shared room rentals typically occur “off the books”, paid for in cash without written receipts. Thus, rental income for landlords and subletting tenants does not appear as income for taxation purposes
</li>
<li>
the allure of higher rental income per property increases chances of overcrowding as more tenants are squeezed into bedrooms and partitioned living spaces
</li>
<li>
the higher rental returns are also likely to remove housing stock from the market for other household types, as dwellings previously available for long-term tenancies are converted to shared room accommodation
</li>
<li>
unlike <a href="https://www.gov.uk/house-in-multiple-occupation-licence" target="_blank">share houses in the UK</a> and our <a href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/strata-and-community-living/boarding-houses" target="_blank">boarding</a>/<a href="https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/licensing-and-registration/rooming-house-operators">rooming</a> houses, private landlords are unable to obtain permits from city authorities to convert properties into shared accommodation. This limits the transparency of “responsible” landlords
</li>
<li>
overcrowded properties can lead to structural risks when illegal bedrooms are added and to infrastructure pressures such as low water and gas supply
</li>
<li>
noise and safety-related conflicts are increasingly reported in dwellings (mainly apartments) inhabited by both family (non-shared) and shared households
</li>
<li>
monitoring mechanisms are ineffective. Current inspection laws require that the landlord is notified prior to inspection. This favours landlords/head-tenants who are able to alter the number of tenants before an inspection.
</li>
</ul>
With affordable rental housing in short supply in Australia’s major cities, shared room accommodation is likely to increase. This has profound implications for residents of these rooms, local housing markets and government agencies.
Authors: Zahra Nasreen, a PhD Scholar in Planning and Geography, Macquarie University and Kristian Ruming, an Associate Professor in Urban Geography, Macquarie University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/tracking-the-rise-of-room-sharing-and-overcrowding-and-what-it-means-for-housing-in-australia-107265" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Tracking the rise of room sharing and overcrowding, and what it means for housing in Australia

<html><body>
In McGrath v Mestousis [2017] NSWSC 995, the Supreme Court of New South Wales, considered a case where the plaintiffs, under s 88K Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), sought imposition of an easement for storm water drainage over the defendant’s property, contending that the easement was necessary for them to develop a home unit on their land.
By considering similar developments around Sydney, Council approval and the placement of the easement, the Court ultimately used their discretionary power to grant an easement in favour of the plaintiffs over the defendant’s property.
The plaintiffs were the owners of a property at 32 Darwin Street, West Ryde, and they brought an application under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for the imposition of an easement for stormwater drainage over a property at 31 Huxley Street, West Ryde, owned by the defendant.
The plaintiffs contended that the easement was necessary to enable them to carry out a home unit development on their land.
The easement was opposed by the defendant.
The Supreme Court identified that the principal matters of factual controversy between the parties concerned the construction that would be involved in installing the drainage pipe in the proposed easement and the various risks and inconveniences involved with such a construction, such as damage to the defendants existing improvements and the likelihood of lengthy and significant disruption.
The Court referred to s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), which outlines the fundamental concept of whether an easement sought should be granted.
The requirement to grant an easement is whether the easement sought to be imposed is reasonably necessary for the effective use or development of the land that will have the benefit of it.
The Court was satisfied that the proposed easement was indeed ‘reasonably necessary’ for the effective use or development of the plaintiffs’ property.
The plaintiffs had obtained Council consent to the development, the development had been approved in accordance with applicable planning laws, and the plaintiffs had demonstrated that alternative methods of dealing with the storm water would be unlikely to meet the Council requirements.
An expert witness, having explored various alternative routes for an easement to drain storm water from the plaintiffs proposed development, found the route through the defendants property was the most reasonable option.
Furthermore, the Court considered the effect of the grant of the easement on the defendant’s property and found that the use of the easement itself was unlikely to have any significant effect on the defendant’s use of the property.
The defendant contended that the construction of the easement would cause significant damage and disruption to the property.
The Court accepted while there would be a risk of damage being caused during construction, they did not consider that the degree of disruption or inconvenience would likely be so severe as to require the defendant’s family to move out of the property whilst the works proceeded.
The Court held that the easement would not negatively impact the defendant’s use and enjoyment of the property and the Court ordered that the defendant be compensated for any economic effects and any diminution in value of the property.
This case is a reminder of the Court’s discretionary ability to impose easements under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) if they consider the easement ‘reasonably necessary’ for the land’s proposed use or development.
In their consideration of what is considered ‘reasonably necessary’ the Court considered the fact that the plaintiff’s proposed development was of a type commonly seen throughout Sydney and that it had been approved by the local Council.
This case shows that the Court has a favourable view of Council approval in its consideration of what is ‘reasonably necessary’, and further is open to interpret the meaning of ‘reasonably necessary’ by taking into account the current landscape and common developments throughout the city.
Tresscox Partner Gary Newton and Law Clerk Henry Yuan.
To read the original article <a href="https://www.tresscox.com.au/page/our-news/caseflash/what-is-reasonably-necessary-for-the-court-to-make-an-order-imposing-an-easement/" target="_blank">click here.</a>
</body></html>

What is 'reasonably necessary' for the court to make an order imposing an easement?

<html><body>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0">A NSW Supreme Court case finished on Tuesday, only a day into its scheduled five days, when 11 would be off-the-plan unit buyers at a Surry Hills block, were offered a confidential cash sum in addition to the refund of their deposits to walk away from their purchases.</div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0"> </div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0">The case involved a 22-unit block, Short Lane Apartments, at 352 Bourke Street, who put down their deposits in late 2013 after marketing by CBRE Residential.</div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0"> </div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0"><img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/13/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-13%20at%2010.22.34%20AM.png" alt="" width="611" height="360"></div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0"> </div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0">The project still appears under <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.cbresi.com.au/success-stories/short-lane-surry-hills/70" target="_blank">success stories</a> on the CBRE website.</div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0"> </div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0"><a href="https://1pt.com.au/showcase/shortlane/" target="_blank">All 22 apartments</a> were sold within the first half hour of the opening day "with prices escalating rapidly as demand showed no sign of waning."</div>
<div class="domain-article-share-panel is-top" data-sticky-id="0"> </div>
<div class="domain-article-content-body ">
<div class="in-content-ad">It was a landmark court case under new “sunset clawback” laws designed to ensure new apartment developers could not unfairly tear up sales contracts so they can make more money on delayed property sales.</div>
<div class="in-content-ad"> </div>
<div class="in-content-ad"><img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/13/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-13%20at%2010.25.58%20AM.png" alt=""></div>
</div>
The developer was taking some of his apartment buyers to court after they refused to allow him to tear up their sales contracts following construction delays, in the first legal test of the “sunset clawback” laws.
The developer-builder Kanaan Kanaan accused some of his buyers as "being greedy about it." 
The case in NSW Supreme Court was seen as a major test of laws designed to protect consumers buying new apartments.
However final negotiations for a settlement began only after acting Justice Arthur Emmett wondered aloud in the courtroom whether the new laws gave him the power to order a result with a sum of money to be paid by the developer. 
The court heard that, instead of the projected 15 months to complete the project, it had taken more than 52 months. 
The potential owner-occupiers and investors bought into the building in 2013 but the apartment weren’t finished by October 30, 2016, the date by which time the so-called “sunset clause” was triggered, which enables either the developer, or the purchaser, to cancel the sale and rescind the contracts if the building was not finished by its proposed completion date, noted Fairfax Media. 
In late 2015, legislation was introduced in the Parliament to protect buyers against developers intentionally delaying completion then rescinding contracts in order to cash in on rising property prices. Under the new laws, the developer has to justify his actions.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/13/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-13%20at%2010.27.47%20AM.png" alt="">
Developer-builder Kanaan Kanaan, of Komplete Constructions, wrote to the buyers of units in his six-level Short Lane building at 352 Bourke Street five days before the cut-off date to tell them he would be rescinding their contracts and refunding their deposits.
If the developer wishes to rescind a contract, he must first seek permission from the purchaser to go through with the termination, under the laws championed by the then NSW Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Victor Dominello.
If the buyer does not agree, then the developer can apply to the NSW Supreme Court for permission to allow the rescissions to take effect.
Acting Justice Arthur Emmett in the Equity Division of the court was told that Kanaan had been hampered by a number of problems, delays and postponements which made it impossible for him to complete the Woods Bagot-designed apartments in time. 
Instead of the 15 month target, more than 52 months went by since the Development Application was approved.
“There were major delaying events that made it impossible to complete the project despite his best endeavours,” his barrister Ian Roberts told the court. “These events postdate the sales contracts.”
It is understood the eight buyers who have refused the developer permission to rescind – three others agreed and four more agreed with an extra payment – will be arguing that cancellation of their contracts will mean the developer will make a windfall because of the “extraordinary rise in the value of Sydney property” in the interim.
They will be alleging that the delays were only due to poor management, a succession of applications to council, and an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.
The purchasers allege that the changes would increase the value of only the parts of the building, such as the retail lots and the four top floor apartments, that the developer retained.
But Roberts said the delays were beyond Kanaan’s control. Among them was an electrical kiosk substation that wouldn’t have enough room to be accessed when the building went up. After a number of discussions and applications, that was removed.
That meant, however, more space was freed up for retail lots at the base of the building, so consent was then sought for those and a redesign commissioned. There was also an application to add an additional floor to the building that was turned down by the NSW Land and Environmental Court in April 2016.
Consent was granted for a rooftop garden in September 2016 for the exclusive use of the developers’ top-floor apartments. Finally, there were delays in the delivery of windows and in procuring the difficult designed form at the top of the building.
</body></html>

Slow developer settles court case after taking 11 apartment buyers to court under 'sunset clawback' laws

<html><body>
ASIC has noted the decision of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to discontinue the prosecution of mortgage broker, Ms Jenny Mao.
Ms Mao was charged with giving documents to a lender that were materially misleading.
The prosecution had been listed for a summary trial in April 2017.
On 20 March 2017, the CDPP sought to adjourn the summary trial order to allow a key and overseas-based prosecution witness to attend to give evidence.
The Court refused to adjourn the hearing.
On 10 May 2017, the CDPP formally offered no evidence on the charge and the charge was dismissed by the Southport Magistrates' Court.
</body></html>

Former Brisbane mortgage broker goes free

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75691/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
There are many hidden costs and inefficiencies in housing markets. Blockchain is poised to transform that.
An emerging technology, blockchain, could transform the way we buy and sell real estate by doing away with the hidden costs and inefficiencies of our housing markets.
Blockchain is an online ledger that records transactions. It’s capable of recording the movement of any kind of asset from one owner to the next.
It’s public and isn’t owned by any one corporation, there are no charges to record transactions. Its openness ensures the integrity of transactions and ownership, as everyone involved has a stake in keeping it honest.
This means there are fewer intermediaries; less middle-men who increase the costs and time to complete a transaction.
There are risks associated with the system as it’s only as strong as the code that supports it, which has come under attack in the past. Despite this, examples from overseas show it is possible to apply this technology successfully to our housing market.
Problems in how the property market is run
For buyers able to find the right property, secure a mortgage and save a deposit, they must also pay for a range of so-called “hidden costs”. These are additional payments associated with the transaction over the cost of the home itself. Many legal and title-related costs would become near-obsolete in a blockchain system.
The combined costs of title registration, title insurance, and legal fees associated with register the property transfer approach A$1,000 on the average Australian house. Costs continue to rise as the prudent buyer undertakes further due diligence, through building inspection documentation, previous sales records and so forth.
On top of the financial cost, it then typically takes over a month to settle a real estate transaction in Australia. The blockchain system can speed things up, as currently tedious checks undertaken by hand, move to an automated system overseen and approved by the relevant stakeholders.
There is also the risk that land titles offices with a single database simply get things wrong too. In 2016 it was reported that 300 incorrect certificates had been issued in NSW, with 140 of those being recent property buyers affected by government plans for major motorways in Sydney’s west.
There are now concerns that the system’s quality could be compromised in several states, including NSW and South Australia, as land titles offices become privatised.
A blockchain real estate market
If blockchain were applied to the property market in Australia, every property would be encoded with a unique identifier. Property IDs already exist in most land registry systems, so these would need to be migrated to a blockchain.
Next, the blockchain ecosystem then needs to have defined who the people behind the transaction are, those stakeholders that include the owner, lender, and government.
Transactions of property are conducted via “smart contracts” – digital rules in the blockchain that process the agreement and any specified conditions. Buying and selling could still take place via agents, or the smart contract can be advanced to incorporate the sale rules and make this decision automatically. The blockchain for each property grows as transactions are added to the ledger.
A housing market without agents, conveyancers and a land-titles office may seem decades away, but a handful of countries have already piloted blockchain land registration system.
In Australia, our current land titles system is among the world’s best, but it is not infallible. A range of hidden taxes and transaction costs increase market inefficiencies.
And while the electronic system Property Exchange Australia or PEXA, has brought us to the point of a near paperless property market, it’s still an intermediary between the parties and the record of the transfer in the Torrens system - our current land title system.
The added advantage of a blockchain system is in eliminating risks, in particular the risk of records being accessed fraudulently and altered or deleted because it is a permanent and immutable record. This means that a huge amount of computing power would be required, probably along with some collusion, and the alteration is easily detected across the ledger. That’s not to say the blockchain system is perfect.
Blockchain’s advantage in restricting any changes to historical records becomes a disadvantage when incorrect or fraudulent entries are added. Digital currency managers, Ether and Bitfinex, learned this the hard way through cyber attacks.
Last year these attacks siphoned off over US$50 million in ether tokens from The DAO, the largest crowdfunded venture capital fund. This breach led to a controversial split of Ether into two separate active digital currencies.
Only months later, Hong Kong-based crytocurrency trading firm, Bitfinex, had the equivalent of US$68 million stolen by hackers in a security breach reminiscent of the hack that bought down Mt Gox in 2014. It is little comfort to cautious market regulators that the thieves behind these attacks can not spend it without revealing their identity on the blockchain.
These hacks demonstrate that blockchain systems are only as secure as the code which supports them. As a nascent technology, its cracks are detected only when they are exposed.
Where blockchain has worked before
Sweden became the first western country to explore the use of blockchain for real estate in July last year. At the time, the Swedish Land Registry partnered with blockchain startup ChromaWay to test how parties to a real estate transaction – the buyer, seller, lender, government – could track the deal’s progress on a blockchain.
Other countries at the forefront of blockchain for real estate include The Republic of Georgia, Honduras, and Brazil which announced a pilot program earlier this month. While this might seem like a disparate list, it’s in these countries where the long-term potential of a blockchain for real estate are most significant.
Systemic corruption and insecure database management in these countries, and many other emerging economies, is seen as a major constraint on growth and prosperity. Why would you invest in a house, or any other asset, if there is a distinct possibility that the record of your ownership could simply disappear?
With ever increasing demands for improvements to transaction efficiency and local real estate industry giants like CoreLogic appointing research teams dedicated to new technology applications, it might not be long before we see a real estate blockchain system in Australia.
Danika Wright is a Lecturer in Finance, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/danika-wright-121868">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

How the blockchain will transform housing markets: Danika Wright

<html><body>
An estate agency in Melbourne’s outer east has agreed to contribute $60,000 to the Victorian Consumer Law Fund, as part of a signed undertaking where it acknowledged it made false and misleading representations about properties for sale.
We investigated Next Gen Real Estate Pty Ltd (ACN: 158 289 322) – trading as Harcourts Wantirna - and its sole director, Achilles Mantsos, 47, after receiving 17 complaints about the company’s conduct between April and July of 2015.
The company acknowledged contraventions relating to four properties under the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) and 20 properties under the Estate Agents Act 1980 (EAA).
The company routinely set price search parameters when uploading properties for sale on realestate.com.au, which were substantially less than the estimated selling range (ESR) or estimated selling price (ESP) on those properties’ sale authorities.
As a result, potential buyers searching for properties would enter their nominated price range, and find listings from Harcourts Wantirna for homes whose ESR or ESP was much higher.
In one example, a Wantirna property was advertised for $750,000, when the ESR was listed on the sale authority as $900,000 to $990,000.
Another was advertised at “$580,000 plus”, when the ESR was $690,000 to $750,000.
On other occasions, the company provided an ESR where the difference between the upper and lower range limits was more than 10 per cent of the range’s lower limit, in contravention of the EAA.
In one example, the ESR on a Scoresby property was listed in the sale authority as $490,000 to $549,000, which exceeded the 10 per cent limit.
As part of the undertaking, the company agreed to:
<ul>
<li>contribute $60,000 (in six instalments) to the Victorian Consumer Law Fund, within 30 days of commencing the undertaking</li>
<li>implement a compliance program within three months of the start of the undertaking, at its own cost</li>
<li>display a public notice stating its contraventions at existing or new premises from which the company operates. This public notice must be displayed within 14 days of the start of the undertaking and remain displayed for three months. The notice must also be displayed on the company’s website.</li>
</ul>
The properties in question were located in Wantirna, Wantirna South, Boronia, Bayswater, Scoresby, Knoxfield and Forest Hill.
This enforceable undertaking will be in effect for three years.
</body></html>

Harcourts Wantirna contravene underquoting laws

<html><body>
Two companies operating rooming houses and their sole director, Ben Alexander Strachan, 42, of West Melbourne, have been ordered to stop operating rooming houses for five years, unless they implement a strict legal compliance program after admitting to contravening Victorian renting laws and the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria)(ACL Vic).  
In 2014 and 2015, Strachan Research Pty Ltd (ACN: 082 279 650) and House Share Management Pty Ltd (ACN: 164 365 593) contravened the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RTA) by charging more for bond than is allowed.
The maximum bond that can be accepted by a rooming house operator can be no more than 14 days’ rent. 
On one occasion, Strachan Research charged a resident $1035 bond, when the weekly rent was $345. On another, a resident was charged $900 bond when their weekly rent was $300. 
Strachan Research also failed to: 
<ul>
<li>provide two residents with condition reports. An operator must do this if they accept a bond from a resident </li>
<li>lodge three residents’ bonds with the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority </li>
<li>give two residents 24 hours’ notice to inspect their rooms.</li>
</ul>
Both companies also admitted to contravening the ACL Vic by making representations to residents through terms of their residency agreements that were inconsistent with the RTA, specifically relating to: 
<ul>
<li>access to rooms </li>
<li>a resident’s ability to give notice of their intention to vacate </li>
<li>Rent payable if a resident ends their agreement without notice. </li>
</ul>
</body></html>

Victoria rooming houses caught demanding higher bonds than permitted

<html><body>
Following an ASIC investigation, Cymon Fontaine has been sentenced to four years' imprisonment in the Southport District Court for seven charges of fraud. 
Mr Fontaine pleaded guilty to defrauding six clients for a total of $105,910.10 and caused a loss of $4500 to another client.
Between 28 June 2011 and 1 July 2013, Mr Fontaine was an authorised representative and Corporate Upgrades Consultant for Wyndham Vacation Resorts South Pacific Limited (Wyndham), a financial services company selling time share interests in resorts and hotels.
Between April 2013 and October 2013, Mr Fontaine exploited the credibility and contacts gained from his position as a Corporate Upgrades Consultant to contact existing clients.
He then offered to assist them with upgrades and the purchase of secondhand credits at a cheaper rate than that being offered by Wyndham.
Mr Fontaine used these funds for his own purposes, never purchasing the agreed secondhand credits for the clients.
Once discovered, Wyndham terminated Mr Fontaine's employment on 1 July 2013. However, Mr Fontaine continued to defraud some clients after his employment was terminated.
ASIC Deputy Chair Peter Kell said, “This kind of dishonesty is not tolerated by ASIC or the community.”
This matter was prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr Fontaine was charged under sections 408C(1)(d) and 408C(1)(e) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).
Wyndham is a developer and marketer of flexible, points-based holiday ownership products.
Clients buy into different levels of memberships with Wyndham by buying 'points' or 'credits' from Wyndham.
Depending on a client's level of membership (determined by the number of credits the client has) they are allowed different levels of privileges and benefits, including using their credits to stay at Wyndham's resorts and hotels or partner resorts or hotels.
</body></html>

Former Wyndham Vacation Resorts consultant jailed for defrauding clients

<html><body>
The hockingstuart Yarraville-based estate agency will contribute $45,000 to the Victorian Consumer Law Fund, after it acknowledged contravening Victorian laws relating to the sale of residential properties.
The Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria accepted an undertaking from Hocking Stuart Yarraville and its directors after they acknowledged that the company contravened sections 18 and 30 of the Australian Consumer Law (Vic) and underquoting provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1980.
The worst example was a Footscray property (above) that had sold for more than $1.3 million in March 2014 and then advertised with price guidance in online ads or in emails at "$1,000,000 plus" in November and December of 2015.
It then sold for $2.11 million in December of 2015.
Their trading company L&amp;L Dardha acknowledged:
<ul>
<li>making false and misleading representations about the sale of property, knowing the vendors were not likely to sell the property for the advertised price</li>
<li>advertising properties on the realestate.com.au website at prices likely to mislead potential purchasers because they were in a lower price bracket than the agency’s estimated selling price (ESP) or estimated sales range (ESR) on the sale authority</li>
<li>advertising a price range online or in emails, which was less than the ESP or ESR on the sale authority.</li>
</ul>
The contraventions related to six properties in Altona North, Brooklyn, Footscray, West Footscray and Yarraville.
Acting on an initial complaint in December 2015, Consumer Affairs Victoria’s investigation found that, among other things:
<ul>
<li>three of the six properties did not state the agent’s ESP or ESR on the sales authority</li>
<li>two of the properties were advertised at a price range that was less than the ESR on the authority.</li>
</ul>
On a West Footscray property's signed authority, the agent's ESR of $600,000 to $660,000, yet in email correspondence to prospective purchasers, the advertised price range was listed as "$550,000 plus".
As part of the undertaking, the company has also agreed to:
<ul>
<li>display a notice at its place of business acknowledging the contraventions, and</li>
<li>implement a compliance program, which includes appointing a compliance officer, establishing a complaints handling system and providing regular training for staff.</li>
</ul>
</body></html>

Hockingstuart Yarraville acknowledge underquoting on $2.11 million Footscray home

<html><body>
In June 2016 the Supreme Court of Victoria handed down its decision in the case of Swan v Uecker [2016] VSC 313.
The case is heralded as a victory for landlords after the Supreme Court held that, by allowing Airbnb guests short-term use of their rented apartment, the tenants had breached their lease by sub-letting the property.
The Landlord (Swan) leased her apartment to the Tenants (Uecker and Greaves) pursuant to a residential tenancies agreement (lease).
During the course of the lease the Landlord became aware that the Tenants were making the apartment available to guests via the Airbnb website.
The Landlord had not consented to the use of the property in that way.
The Landlord subsequently sought an order for possession from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on the basis that the Tenants breached their lease by sub-letting the property, without the Landlord’s consent, when making it available to Airbnb guests. VCAT dismissed the application.
The VCAT decision held that, despite offering the property to Airbnb guests, the Airbnb Agreement between the Airbnb guests and the Tenants as hosts did not entitle Airbnb guests to exclusive possession of the property and granted a mere licence to occupy. 
On this basis, the Tenants “had not sub-let their tenancy agreement” with the Landlord. The Landlord appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Airbnb Agreement between Uecker and Greaves and the Airbnb guests was characterised as a lease, rather than a mere licence.
Accordingly, the arrangement to allow Airbnb guests to occupy the property constituted a sub-lease and consequently the Tenants were in breach of their lease.
The case garnered a significant amount of public attention as Australian legislation grapples with the rise of the sharing economy such as Airbnb and Uber. The Judge also noted that, despite the public attention:
“This is not a case on the merits of Airbnb arrangements. Neither is it a case on whether or not Airbnb arrangements might be said to be ‘illegal’ – either in some particular or some general, non-legal, sense. Rather it is a case, on appeal, which raises for determination – directly or indirectly – the legal character of this particular Airbnb arrangement and any consequences this characterisation may have in the context of the terms of the lease of the apartment concerned.”
This decision was followed up by the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Owners Corporation PS 501391P v Balcombe [2016] VSC 384 where the court held that Owners Corporations could not make rules to ban landlords from renting their properties using the Airbnb website.
The article first appeared on TressCox Lawyer's <a href="https://www.tresscox.com.au/" target="_blank">website</a>.
</body></html>

Property Law

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Property Law

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News