Barry O'Farrell Government has Terminated an Inner City Community Millers Point and The Rocks.

19th March 2014..... A sad Day after Barry O'Farrell Government  have Terminate an Inner City Community Millers Point and The Rocks.

We are not talking 1 or 2 or 30 houses but a whole suburb.  293 public housing properties at Millers Point and The Rocks, Gone. The whole community moved to WHO KNOWS WHERE.

Does anyone know if a whole Sydney suburb in recent history was been evicted on this scale.

 

WHY

"Rich People Want To Live Here Now, You Need To Leave.”

http://junkee.com/an-entire-suburb-in-sydney-is-being-evicted/31371

Sticking it to the man!

Resourced: http://landlordwatch.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/sticking-it-to-man.html

 

As a student of law, my primary area of interest is employment and industrial relations law. But I will never forget a job interview I had where a lawyer said I had the personality for litigation. I didn’t get the job, but I still chortle over that remark.

As I discussed in my last post, the NSW Liberal Government is planning on selling almost 300 public housing properties at Millers Point, The Rocks, and Gloucester Street. Minister Pru Goward said the main reason for the sale was the high cost of maintaining heritage-listed homes.

That got me thinking. If the NSW Government is not complying with its obligation to maintain properties, it might be leaving itself open to attack. Housing NSW has obligations under statute and contract. Under section 63 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), a landlord must provide and maintain residential premises in a reasonable state of repair. This is a term of every residential tenancy agreement. An action could be based on tort like breach of statutory duty.  

If NSW Housing is breaching its legal obligations, the time might be ripe for some kind of group claim. Grouped proceedings provide a remedy where many persons have suffered small losses and it is not economically feasible to recover via individual proceedings. This might be the case here. Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) allows for grouped proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court.

That is not to say there aren’t any obstacles. Residential tenancy laws usually specify landlord and tenant disputes are to be resolved by tribunals rather than courts. Under regulation 23 of the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2010 (NSW), the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has jurisdiction to determine tenancy disputes. It is limited to $30,000 for rental bond matters and $15,000 for other matters. Can we get around this? You might not know what a claim is worth before an order is actually handed down. And there is no requirement that a claim be for a reasonable amount. And plus, a claim on behalf of a group might just be more than the set amount.

Grouped proceedings could facilitate access to justice for the residents of Millers Point, and other public housing tenants. It is a David and Goliath fight. Grouped proceedings could potentially mediate the power imbalance between tenants and the government. Tenants could consolidate their power base by litigating as a group. This is a simple matter of power in numbers. There are other advantages. One advantage is that time limits can be avoided. Residential tenancy laws usually specifies that claims must be lodged within a certain time frame. Another advantage is that group members need not be named. This means tenants would be protected from retaliation.

I don't know whether these arguments would fly, but a grouped proceeding could form part of a well-stocked arsenal.