The landlord's duty and unsafe premises

Case note on Sheehy v Hobbs [2012]. It is well established that a landlord owes a tenant a duty of care to “take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to their prospective tenants and members of their household”.1 What often arises is the question of how far the scope of that duty extends. In Sheehy v Hobbs [2012] QSC 333 the plaintiff was injured when she fell down a flight of internal stairs of the townhouse she leased from the defendants. The plaintiff claimed damages for a breach of duty owed to her in negligence, and also alleged breaches of the duties owed to her pursuant to s 103 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld) and her tenancy agreement.

Assessing the awareness and importance of housing sustainability in Queensland

Sustainability has been a major factor and determinant of commercial property design, construction, retro-fitting and landlord and tenant requirements over the last decade, supported by the introduction of rating tools such as NABERS and GreenStar and the recently mandated Building Energy Efficiency Certificate (BEEC). However, the movement to sustainable and energy efficient housing has not been established for the same period, and although mandatory building regulations have been in place for new residential housing construction since 2004, the requirement to improve the sustainability and energy efficiency of housing constructed prior to 2004 has not been mandatory. Residential dwelling energy efficiency and rating schemes introduced in Australia over the past decade have included rating schemes such as BASIX, NatHERS, First rate, ACTHERS, and Building Code of Australia and these have applied to new dwelling construction. At both National and State level the use of energy efficiency schemes for existing residential dwellings has been voluntary and despite significant cash incentives have not always been successful or achieved widespread take-up. In 2010, the Queensland Government regulated that all homes offered for sale, whether a new or existing dwellings require the seller to provide a ―sustainability declaration‖ that provides details of the sustainability measures associated with the dwelling being sold. The purpose of this declaration being to inform buyers and increase community awareness of home sustainability features. This paper uses an extensive review of real estate marketing material, together with a comprehensive survey of real estate agents to analyse the current market compliance, awareness and acceptance of existing green housing regulations and the importance that residential property owners and purchasers place on energy efficient and sustainable housing. The findings indicate that there is still little community awareness or concern of sustainable housing features when making home purchase decisions.

The implication of a term of good faith in commercial leases — A brief response

By way of response to Professor Duncan's article,1 this article examines the theoretical basis for the implication of contractual terms, particularly the implication of a term at law. In this regard the recent decision of Barrett J in Overlook v Foxtel [2002] NSWSC 17 is considered, to the extent that it provides guidance concerning the implication of an obligation of good faith in the context of a commercial contract. A number of observations are made which may be considered likely to have application to the relationship of commercial landlord and tenant. The conclusion reached is that although the commercial landlord and tenant contractual relationship is highly regulated, this may not deny a remedy to a tenant who is the victim of a landlord's 'bad faith'. Finally, the article concludes by considering the extent to which it may be possible to contractually exclude the implied obligation of good faith.

A comparison of security of tenure in Queensland and in Western Europe

Queensland residential tenancies are usually granted for up to 12 months with no guarantee of renewal. On expiration of the term, the landlord, without need to provide an explanation, can require the tenant to leave. Europeans find this unusual. As Hammar observes, to ‘never be sure whether ... you will be allowed to stay for another year ... is ok for a student, or for someone working ... but not for households’. This article informs Queensland policy makers and industry about European practices and concludes by proposing legislative amendments to realise the tenant���s security of tenure.

Learnings, case studies and guidelines for establishing shared and collaborative service delivery in the non-government sector: Evaluation of the Multi-Tenant Service Centre (MTSC) Pilots Project

This report presents learnings, case studies, guidelines and resources for non-government organisations that are planning to implement shared or collaborative arrangements with other agencies. It summarises results from an evaluation of the implementation phase of the Multi-Tenant Service Centre (MTSC) Pilots Project, which was completed in June 2008. This evaluation shows that developing and implementing shared and collaborative arrangements is a complex process that presents many risks, challenges and barriers to success, but can have many potential benefits for non government organisations. As this report makes clear, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to this process. The MTSC Pilots Project was conducted by the Department of Communities (DoC), Queensland Government, as part of its Strengthening Non-Government Organisations strategy. The objective of the MTSC Pilots initiative was to co-locate separate service providers in an appropriately located centre, operating with effective and transparent management, which enabled service providers to improve client services. Three MTSC consortiums in Mackay, Caboolture and Toowoomba were selected as the pilots over a four year period from 2006 – 2010.

Risk-assessment practices in the private rental sector : implications for low-income renters (Final Report)

This report focuses on risk-assessment practices in the private rental market, with particular consideration of their impact on low-income renters. It is based on the fieldwork undertaken in the second stage of the research process that followed completion of the Positioning Paper. The key research question this study addressed was: What are the various factors included in ‘risk-assessments’ by real estate agents in allocating ‘affordable’ tenancies? How are these risks quantified and managed? What are the key outcomes of their decision-making? The study builds on previous research demonstrating that a relatively large proportion of low-cost private rental accommodation is occupied by moderate- to high-income households (Wulff and Yates 2001; Seelig 2001; Yates et al. 2004). This is occurring in an environment where the private rental sector is now the de facto main provider of rental housing for lower-income households across Australia (Seelig et al. 2005) and where a number of factors are implicated in patterns of ‘income–rent mismatching’. These include ongoing shifts in public housing assistance; issues concerning eligibility for rent assistance; ‘supply’ factors, such as loss of low-cost rental stock through upgrading and/or transfer to owner-occupied housing; patterns of supply and demand driven largely by middle- to high-income owner-investors and renters; and patterns of housing need among low-income households for whom affordable housing is not appropriate. In formulating a way of approaching the analysis of ‘risk-assessment’ in rental housing management, this study has applied three sociological perspectives on risk: Beck’s (1992) formulation of risk society as entailing processes of ‘individualisation’; a socio-cultural perspective which emphasises the situated nature of perceptions of risk; and a perspective which has drawn attention to different modes of institutional governance of subjects, as ‘carriers of specific indicators of risk’. The private rental market was viewed as a social institution, and the research strategy was informed by ‘institutional ethnography’ as a method of enquiry. The study was based on interviews with property managers, real estate industry representatives, tenant advocates and community housing providers. The primary focus of inquiry was on ‘the moment of allocation’. Six local areas across metropolitan and regional Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia were selected as case study localities. In terms of the main findings, it is evident that access to private rental housing is not just a matter of ‘supply and demand’. It is also about assessment of risk among applicants. Risk – perceived or actual – is thus a critical factor in deciding who gets housed, and how. Risk and its assessment matter in the context of housing provision and in the development of policy responses. The outcomes from this study also highlight a number of salient points: 1.There are two principal forms of risk associated with property management: financial risk and risk of litigation. 2. Certain tenant characteristics and/or circumstances – ability to pay and ability to care for the rented property – are the main factors focused on in assessing risk among applicants for rental housing. Signals of either ‘(in)ability to pay’ and/or ‘(in)ability to care for the property’ are almost always interpreted as markers of high levels of risk. 3. The processing of tenancy applications entails a complex and variable mix of formal and informal strategies of risk-assessment and allocation where sorting (out), ranking, discriminating and handing over characterise the process. 4. In the eyes of property managers, ‘suitable’ tenants can be conceptualised as those who are resourceful, reputable, competent, strategic and presentable. 5. Property managers clearly articulated concern about risks entailed in a number of characteristics or situations. Being on a low income was the principal and overarching factor which agents considered. Others included: - unemployment - ‘big’ families; sole parent families - domestic violence - marital breakdown - shift from home ownership to private rental - Aboriginality and specific ethnicities - physical incapacity - aspects of ‘presentation’. The financial vulnerability of applicants in these groups can be invoked, alongside expressed concerns about compromised capacities to manage income and/or ‘care for’ the property, as legitimate grounds for rejection or a lower ranking. 6. At the level of face-to-face interaction between the property manager and applicants, more intuitive assessments of risk based upon past experience or ‘gut feelings’ come into play. These judgements are interwoven with more systematic procedures of tenant selection. The findings suggest that considerable ‘risk’ is associated with low-income status, either directly or insofar as it is associated with other forms of perceived risk, and that such risks are likely to impede access to the professionally managed private rental market. Detailed analysis suggests that opportunities for access to housing by low-income householders also arise where, for example: - the ‘local experience’ of an agency and/or property manager works in favour of particular applicants - applicants can demonstrate available social support and financial guarantors - an applicant’s preference or need for longer-term rental is seen to provide a level of financial security for the landlord - applicants are prepared to agree to specific, more stringent conditions for inspection of properties and review of contracts - the particular circumstances and motivations of landlords lead them to consider a wider range of applicants - In particular circumstances, property managers are prepared to give special consideration to applicants who appear worthy, albeit ‘risky’. The strategic actions of demonstrating and documenting on the part of vulnerable (low-income) tenant applicants can improve their chances of being perceived as resourceful, capable and ‘savvy’. Such actions are significant because they help to persuade property managers not only that the applicant may have sufficient resources (personal and material) but that they accept that the onus is on themselves to show they are reputable, and that they have valued ‘competencies’ and understand ‘how the system works’. The parameters of the market do shape the processes of risk-assessment and, ultimately, the strategic relation of power between property manager and the tenant applicant. Low vacancy rates and limited supply of lower-cost rental stock, in all areas, mean that there are many more tenant applicants than available properties, creating a highly competitive environment for applicants. The fundamental problem of supply is an aspect of the market that severely limits the chances of access to appropriate and affordable housing for low-income rental housing applicants. There is recognition of the impact of this problem of supply. The study indicates three main directions for future focus in policy and program development: providing appropriate supports to tenants to access and sustain private rental housing, addressing issues of discrimination and privacy arising in the processes of selecting suitable tenants, and addressing problems of supply.

Commercial vulnerability of tenant : a special disadvantage?

The Full Federal Court has once again been called upon to explore the limits of s51AA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in the context of a retail tenancy between commercially experienced parties. The decision is Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 62.

The perceived importance of mall retail categories and its effect on likelihood of purchase during a recession

Recessions impact the retail sector and as such research into consumer decision making during such times is imperative. In response to this, our study takes an innovative approach to examining how the perceived importance of retail store categories in a shopping mall influences the relationship between consumers' shopping attitudes and likelihood of purchasing in those categories during a recession. The overall findings show the importance of a product category to a consumer, which is often overlooked, has a strong explanatory influence on consumer purchase intentions for that specific retail store categories in a shopping mall under recession conditions. Findings also show that for consumers’ who have altered their shopping behaviour the perceived importance of a retail store category fully mediates the relationship for: Majors, Leisure, Food Catered and Mini Majors categories, and partial mediation for Apparel. Importance has no mediating effect for: Food Retail, General Retail, Mobile Phone Services, Home wares, and Retail Services. Our study makes a key contribution to the retail management literature with the findings suggesting that redefining and articulating the importance of the value offering for specific retail store categories can help reduce the impact of changes in consumers' recessionary shopping intentions across the mall tenant mix. Such actions can then help preserve the image of the shopping mall in the minds of the consumers when the economic recovery begins.

Culture in and culture of health promotion: tensions at the interface of Australian Indigenous health promotion

With persisting health inequalities across and between diverse populations, health promotion must consider its engagement with the culture concept in achieving better health for all. By way of a conversation between an Indigenous and non-Indigenous health promotion practitioner, this unique presentation will critically examine the cultural practice of health promotion for Indigenous Australians. Culture becomes the central tenant of this conversation – but not culture in the sense of something to “fix” to improve Indigenous health, or import to make mainstream practices “culturally appropriate”. Rather, the somewhat invisible culture of Australian health promotion practice itself is highlighted. The enthusiasm of mainstream health promotion practice for risk and reductionism supplants biological determinism with a cultural determinism that constructs culture as illness-producing. This is in contrast to Indigenous perspectives of culture in which it is described as integral to individual and community health and well-being. Whilst empowerment features strongly within global health promotion discourses, the preoccupation of health promotion with the inherent deficit/behavioural change approach is an all too convenient distraction from the broader structural factors impacting on the health of Indigenous Australians. That Indigenous Australians have not benefitted from successful public health policy interventions in the same way as the general population is in itself revealing of the culture of health promotion practice in Australia and it is somewhat ironic that the health promotion fraternity seems not to have questioned its own practice. This conversation aims to encourage health promotion practitioners, researchers and policy makers to interrogate the cultural assumptions of their own practice and of the public health system they are part of and consider how to embed and empower the voices and experiences of those who are ‘culturally othered’ within health promotion practice.

Incentivising tenants to stay the term – will clawbacks be enforceable?

Incentives are commonly offered by commercial landlords to tenants in the form of short term rent deductions or contributions to the tenant���s fitout. Usually these incentives are conditional upon the lessee remaining in the premises for the term of the lease with an obligation on the tenant to repay a proportion of the fitout contribution and rent deductions upon early termination or assignment. While the enforceability of clawback provisions has always been unclear, there was commercial benefit to landlords in maintaining high rentals on the face of the lease and attracting good quality tenants through fitout contributions. The use of clawback provisions as part of these incentives was recently analysed by the Queensland Supreme Court through the lens of the penalties doctrine in GWC Property Group Pty Ltd v Higginson & Ors [2014] QSC 264, with a negative outcome for the landlord. Unless the decision is overturned on appeal, the salient message for landlords is that repayment of incentives for any reason, not just a breach of the lease, is unlikely to be enforceable.