i

BOARDING HOUSES ACT 2012

EVALUATION

REPORT 1

2014

Final Report

Dr. Gabrielle Drake, Dr. Hazel Blunden, Kathy Newton, and Esterina Lentini.

29 September, 2014

ii

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank the agencies that assisted in providing data for this report: Marrickville Council, Newcastle City Council, Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (ADHC), Housing NSW, Office of State Revenue NSW, NSW Fair Trading and Services NSW. We also thank the non-government agencies that provided data: the Tenants Union of NSW; Inner West Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service, and Hunter Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service.

We especially thank Simon Grierson from Marrickville Council; Rory O’Neill at ADHC; Sonya Thomson at Services NSW; Louise Blazejowska from FACS, Chris Martin from the Tenants Union and Martin Barker from Inner West Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service for their efficient and extra assistance.

We also extend our thanks to our UWS colleague, Professor Carolyn Sappideen for investigating the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal cases concerning boarding houses.

We would like to thank our new colleagues, Associate Researchers Paul Adabie, Leigh Connell, Sally Chalmers and Jay Simonit of Newtown Neighbourhood Centre (NNC) who undertook much of the fieldwork, along with UWS researchers. Thank you also to the NNC boarding house outreach team, and front office staff.

We would also like to thank the Salvation Army Oasis Centre at Hamilton in Newcastle for the use of their venue and café.

We also wish to thank the 215 boarding house residents, 57 boarding house proprietors and 35 agency staff who participated.

Special thanks to our Advisory Committee experts for their commentary on the report: David Peters and Thomas Petrovski.

iii

Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Background ............................................................................................................................... 4

3. Boarding house legislation in other jurisdictions ........................................................................ 8

3.1 Victoria .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 Queensland ........................................................................................................................ 9

3.3 South Australia ................................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Other States and Territories ............................................................................................... 9

4. Aim and research questions ..................................................................................................... 11

5. Methods .................................................................................................................................. 12

5.1 Approval for research ....................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Fieldwork sites ................................................................................................................. 13

5.3 Boarding house types ....................................................................................................... 14

5.4 Boarding house residents ................................................................................................. 15

5.4.1 Surveys ..................................................................................................................... 15

5.4.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 16

5.5 Boarding house proprietors .............................................................................................. 16

5.5.1 Surveys ..................................................................................................................... 16

5.5.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 16

5.6 Agencies .......................................................................................................................... 17

5.6.1 Data collection ......................................................................................................... 17

5.6.2 Focus groups ............................................................................................................ 19

6. Findings ................................................................................................................................... 20

6.1 Boarding house residents ................................................................................................. 20

6.1.1 Profile of residents ................................................................................................... 20

6.1.2 Boarding house operations ....................................................................................... 21

6.1.3 Wellbeing of residents .............................................................................................. 22

6.1.4 Access to services ..................................................................................................... 24

Q. 7 Answer................................................................................................................................... 24

6.1.5 Affordability ............................................................................................................. 26

6.1.6 Knowledge of the Act ............................................................................................... 28

6.1.7 Standards and compliance ........................................................................................ 29

iv

6.1.8 Sustainability and future of the boarding house sector ............................................. 30

6.1.9 Education about rights ............................................................................................. 31

6.2 Boarding house proprietors .............................................................................................. 32

6.2.1 Profile of proprietors ................................................................................................ 32

6.2.2 Boarding house operations ....................................................................................... 33

6.2.3 Residents mix ........................................................................................................... 35

6.2.4 Wellbeing of residents .............................................................................................. 36

6.2.5 Access to services ..................................................................................................... 37

6.2.6 Affordability ............................................................................................................. 38

6.2.7 Knowledge of Act ..................................................................................................... 38

6.2.8 Standards and compliance ........................................................................................ 40

6.2.9 Land tax exemption and grants ................................................................................. 42

6.2.10 Sustainability and future of the boarding house sector ............................................. 43

6.2.11 Education about rights ............................................................................................. 44

6.3 Agencies .......................................................................................................................... 45

6.3.1 The introduction of the Boarding Houses Act 2012 ................................................... 45

6.3.2 Agency work ............................................................................................................. 46

6.3.3 Boarding house operations ....................................................................................... 46

6.3.4 Knowledge of the Act ............................................................................................... 47

6.3.5 Access to services ..................................................................................................... 47

6.3.6 Standards and compliance ........................................................................................ 48

6.3.7 Emergent issues in relation to the Act ...................................................................... 49

6.3.9 Sustainability of the boarding house sector .............................................................. 50

6.3.9 Education about rights ............................................................................................. 51

6.4 Legal matters ................................................................................................................... 51

6.4.1 Emerging issues arising from disputes ...................................................................... 51

6.4.2 Compliance .............................................................................................................. 53

7. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 55

7.1.1 The boarding house sector – characteristics ............................................................. 55

7.1.2 Protection of residents ............................................................................................. 56

7.1.3 Safety and wellbeing ................................................................................................ 57

7.1.4 Occupancy ................................................................................................................ 57

7.1.5 Impact of the Act on standards ................................................................................. 58

7.1.6 Impact of the Act – registration ................................................................................ 59

v

7.1.7 Dispute resolution .................................................................................................... 59

7.1.8 Residents’ use of services ......................................................................................... 59

7.1.9 Sustainability of the boarding house sector .............................................................. 61

7.1.10 The Act and government and non-government organisations that work with the boarding house sector ............................................................................................................. 61

7.1.11 What’s working and what’s not? What changes should be made to the Act? ............ 62

7.1.12 Has the Act had an effect on homelessness in NSW? ................................................ 62

8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 64

9. Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 66

9.1 Appendix 9.1: Project staging ........................................................................................... 66

9.2 Appendix 9.2: Research questions .................................................................................... 67

9.3 Appendix 9.3: Boarding house proprietors surveys in detail ............................................. 70

9.4 Appendix 9.4: Boarding house residents survey results in detail ....................................... 84

9.5 Appendix 9.5: Residents survey - cross tabulations ......................................................... 102

9.6 Appendix 9.6: Aged, Disability and Home Care, Dept. Family and Community Services data 105

9.7 Appendix 9.7: Fair Trading – call centre inquiries data .................................................... 106

9.8 Appendix 9.8: Housing NSW data ................................................................................... 108

9.9 Appendix 9.9: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal data ............................................. 109

9.10 Appendix 9.10: Office of State Revenue data .................................................................. 110

9.11 Appendix 9.11: TAAP database (NSW) data .................................................................... 112

9.12 Appendix 9.12: Hunter TAAP data .................................................................................. 113

9.13 Appendix 9.13; Inner West TAAP data ............................................................................ 114

9.14 Appendix 9.14: Ashfield Council data ............................................................................. 115

9.15 Appendix 9.15 Marrickville Council data ......................................................................... 116

9.16 Appendix 9.16: Newcastle City Council data ................................................................... 117

9.17 Appendix 9.17: comments from Local Government and Shires Association .................... 118

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Registered boarding houses in the study areas .................................................................. 14 Figure 2: Summary of data sources .................................................................................................. 17 Figure 3: Summary of boarding house residents - profile ................................................................. 20 Figure 4: Summary of wellbeing indicator results – average scores .................................................. 23 Figure 5: Services used in the previous three months by boarding house residents.......................... 24 Figure 6: Unmet needs of residents (numbers expressing unmet needs).......................................... 26 Figure 7: Rent as a percentage of income ........................................................................................ 27 Figure 8: Rent per week ................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 9: Summary of findings - operations ...................................................................................... 29 Figure 10: Summary of findings - proprietor profile ......................................................................... 32 Figure 11: Summary of findings - boarding house operations ........................................................... 34 Figure 12: Knowledge or Act and knowledge of where to go for advice ......................................... 102 Figure 13: Wellbeing question 27 and use of services within the past 3 months............................. 103 Figure 14: Wellbeing question 27 and visit to doctor or hospital in the previous 3 months ............ 104 Figure 15: Fair Trading call centre - enquiries and complaints relating to boarding houses, 2013 ... 107

vii

Glossary

The Act

This means the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW).

Assisted boarding house

"An assisted boarding house" means any of the following:

(a) boarding premises that provide beds, for a fee or reward, for use by 2 or more residents who are persons with additional needs (not counting any persons with additional needs who reside there with their competent relatives),

(b) boarding premises that are declared to be an assisted boarding house by a notice in force under section 39 [of the Act]. [note – section 39 allows the Secretary of Family and Community Services (FACS) to declare a premises an assisted boarding house].

General boarding house:

Boarding premises are a “general boarding house" if the premises provide beds, for a fee or reward, for use by five or more residents (not counting any residents who are proprietors or managers of the premises or relatives of the proprietors or managers).

Boarding house

A boarding house in this report has the same meaning as “boarding premises” in the Act:

"boarding premises" means premises (or a complex of premises) that:

(a) are wholly or partly a boarding house, rooming or common lodgings house, hostel or let in lodgings, and

(b) provide boarders or lodgers with a principal place of residence, and

(c) may have shared facilities (such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry) or services that are provided to boarders or lodgers by or on behalf of the proprietor, or both, and

(d) have rooms (some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities) that accommodate one or more boarders or lodgers.

viii

Boarding house proprietor

The owner of the premises being used as a boarding house.

Boarding house resident

A person who pays rent or other consideration to live in a room in a boarding house.

Caretaker

A person who is paid or is given reduced rent in consideration of looking after a building and/or managing residents. For example a boarding house caretaker may collect rent, clean common areas, and manage residents (including carrying out evictions). This person may or may not be a resident of the boarding house.

House Rules

The rules that a resident must abide by whilst living in a general boarding house. They may or may not be written and typically relate to such matters as refraining from illegal activities, not smoking indoors and paying rent on time. A resident is entitled to know the rules of the registrable boarding house before moving into the boarding house.

Key deposit

A fee charged on issuing of a key to a resident. This is not allowed under the Act.

‘New Generation’ Boarding Houses

This is a term used to refer to new-build general boarding houses that often offer kitchenettes and ensuites attached to a room, as well as some communal spaces. These boarding houses are often more expensive than ‘old style’ boarding houses and may be targeted towards the student or low wage worker markets. ‘New generation’ boarding houses may be developed under the Affordable Rental Housing - State Environment Planning Policy, and must meet the requirements of this policy.

Occupancy Fee

An “occupancy fee means an amount payable by or for a resident of a registrable boarding house for the right to occupy one or more rooms in the boarding house as a resident of the premises during the term of an occupancy agreement” (s. 27 of the Boarding Houses Act 2012). However to reflect the terminology used by nearly all residents, proprietors and agency workers, the term ‘rent’ has been used throughout this report and should be taken to mean occupancy fee.

ix

Security Deposit

This is often referred to as a ‘bond’.

A security deposit can be required as long as the deposit does not exceed two weeks of occupancy fee under the occupancy agreement, and the amount is payable on or after the day on which the resident (or the resident’s authorised representative) enters the agreement.

Occupancy Agreement

“Occupancy agreement", in relation to a registrable boarding house, means a written or unwritten agreement:

(a) that is between a proprietor of the boarding house (or a person acting on behalf of the proprietor) and a resident of the boarding house (or a person acting as an authorised representative of the resident), and

(b) under which the resident is granted the right to occupy, for a fee or reward, one or more rooms in the boarding house as a resident of the house,

but does not include a rental agreement between a proprietor and resident of a registrable boarding house (or any persons acting on their behalf).

‘Older-style’ (or ‘traditional’) boarding house

This is an unofficial term used to refer to established general boarding houses that offer rooms plus communal kitchen and bathroom facilities. These boarding houses are more likely to be in older buildings, and targeted towards low wageworkers and people on Centrelink payments. A minority include meals as part of the service.

1

1. Executive Summary

In October 2012, the Parliament of New South Wales (NSW) passed the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW), as a central part of its bid to strengthen and comprehensively regulate boarding houses in NSW. An evaluation of the Act is a legal requirement specified in section 105, requiring that the Act be reviewed against its objectives after five years.

The Department of Family and Community Services Ageing, Disability and Home Care engaged Newtown Neighbourhood Centre (NNC) to conduct parts of this evaluation, based on NNC’s extensive experience with the boarding house sector. A research partnership was established between NNC, and researchers from the University of Western Sydney, to evaluate the implementation of the Act.

This study aims to assess the effect of the Act on the wellbeing of residents of boarding houses; assess whether the rights of residents are better protected following the introduction of the Act; determine the effect of the Act on the sustainability of the boarding house sector; and determine levels and types of collaboration between departments, agencies and community organisations that work with the boarding house sector.

This is a longitudinal study with four annual data collection phases from 2013-2018. Each phase will include a set number of surveys and interviews. The 2014 data collection occurred from January to April 2014. Data targets were met and included a state-wide proprietor survey based on the general Boarding House Register (620 distributed, 57 returned); 20 interviews with proprietors, 215 surveys and 54 interviews with boarding house residents, and four focus groups with staff of agencies across the Local Government Areas of Marrickville, Ashfield and Newcastle.

More than half (56 per cent) of the residents surveyed had no knowledge of the Act and therefore it is difficult to assess how it impacts upon their wellbeing. However, those residents who were aware of the Act were found to be no more, or less likely, to correctly identify NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) (N = 11) as the place to go for dispute resolution.

Some preliminary observations are that residents’ wellbeing is generally rated as above average by residents themselves, using the modified Personal Wellbeing Index as part of the survey. The same survey found evidence of high usage of medical services (75 per cent) and unmet needs (specifically, for dental services and social housing, amongst others).

The majority of residents surveyed felt that their needs are being met (N = 145) and identified having adequate access to services such as medical and casework services. Of the residents surveyed, 113 had been to a doctor or hospital in the previous three months. Food services were frequently accessed (N = 113) which suggests that those on low incomes may necessarily seek out free food.

2

When asked about unmet need, a significant group (N = 36) required access to dentistry. This was followed by social housing, counselling, help with rent1/bills, medical specialists and optometry. In terms of affordability, although boarding houses are relatively more affordable than for example a one bedroom privately rented unit and the fee paid includes utilities (and sometimes, meals), given the low incomes of many residents the majority are paying a high percentage of their incomes on housing costs. 89 per cent of residents are in housing stress,2 paying more than 30 per cent of their incomes on rent. Furthermore, 58 per cent of residents are in extreme housing stress, paying more than 50 per cent of their income in rent (see Figure 7). Overall, residents did not consider boarding houses to be an affordable housing option.

For general boarding house proprietors, the effects of the Act were viewed as minimal. Indeed some proprietors perceived the Act and registration requirement as a positive development and a way of improving overall standards within the sector, and hopefully reducing ‘rogue’ operations. Proprietors are much more concerned with escalating costs, particularly rising electricity and insurance costs. These are outside the reach of the Act. It is important to note that the sample mostly includes proprietors from the Boarding House Register so it is less likely to be representative of the sector as a whole.

For the assisted boarding house sector, the Act will potentially have a significant impact on the number of operations due to the requirement to house no more than 30 residents and to provide single room occupancy. These standards apply to premises commencing operation after 1 July 2013 but will not apply to premises operating prior to the commencement of these standards until 1 July 2018.

The NGO sector appears to collaborate effectively around the general boarding house sector however outreach work is limited to niche programs in certain geographical areas. ADHC’s operational responsibilities are largely confined to the assisted boarding house sector at present but may need to increase investigations of general boarding houses in a systematic manner given that there are hundreds of general boarding houses in NSW.

Conclusions

Knowledge of the Boarding Houses Act

While awareness of the Act is slowly growing, the boarding house residents surveyed and/or interviewed displayed limited knowledge of their rights and responsibilities or where to access information. Consideration may be given to increasing access to hard copy material. For example, a booklet for boarding house residents similar to the ‘Renters’ Guide’ given to tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act. While information for residents and owners is available on the Office of Fair Trading website, this evaluation found limited levels of internet use amongst residents, and low levels of use amongst some boarding house operators.

1 Technically and in the Act, residents pay an occupancy fee (see s. 27 of the Boarding Houses Act 2012). However to reflect the terminology used by nearly all residents, proprietors and agency workers, the term ‘rent’ has been used throughout this report. 2 ‘Housing stress’ defined as households on the lowest 40 per cent of equivalised household incomes who spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs.

3

Compliance and enforcement of the Boarding Houses Act

While the Act is clear in apportioning responsibility for enforcement, there is still some misunderstanding among the different tiers of government including Councils that local government has the power to enforce the registration requirements of the Act. It is clear from interviewing government agency workers that registration provisions of the Act are not being enforced, in particular, the requirement for owners of general boarding houses to register. While Council officers are inspecting general boarding houses systematically in some LGAs, in other LGAs officers have not undertaken any inspection of boarding houses as they are required to do under the Act. There may be resourcing issues that need to be addressed.

Promotion of the land tax exemption as an advantage of registration

The availability of NSW Government land tax exemptions for boarding houses should be promoted amongst proprietors. This may encourage more proprietors to go through the registration process with NSW Fair Trading in order to take advantage of the tax exemption.

Additional needs

ADHC investigates general boarding houses where there are reports of two or more persons with additional needs. This is an important way of assisting persons who may need extra care and ensuring that boarding houses are classified correctly (i.e. as general or assisted). ADHC is following up on reports it receives and carrying out educational work with boarding house proprietors.

Outreach services

While there are mental health outreach services provided to some general and assisted boarding houses, given the high representation of people with mental illness in the boarding house population, the sector would benefit from an increased focus on prevention and early intervention, as well as greater coordination of outreach services.

Unmet needs

The evaluation found, from the sample of 215 residents, that access to dentistry is a key unmet need, as identified by the residents. This is not unsurprising given that dentistry is not covered by Medicare and hard to access for people on a low income. Other key unmet needs included access to social housing and psychological services.

Fire safety

Notwithstanding the existence of a fire safety certificate, there were concerns raised by residents and agency staff that further systemised inspections may be needed to ensure fire safety systems are in fact operational.

4

2. Background

Historically, boarding houses were used for the purpose of providing temporary accommodation to visiting city workers or people on holiday.3 However, boarding houses now provide both short and long-term accommodation for persons that may not be able to afford or access other forms of housing.

In October 2012, the Parliament of New South Wales (NSW) passed the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW), as a central part of its bid to strengthen and comprehensively regulate boarding houses in NSW. The Act follows a series of reports, including one by the NSW Ombudsman in 2011,4 highlighting the vulnerability of many people living in boarding houses and the need for reform of the boarding house industry. In part, the Act was also a result of the long campaign by housing and disability advocates for greater legal rights and protections for boarding house residents.5

In response to these concerns, the Act seeks to address ongoing issues and to reform boarding house industry standards. It aims to protect and safeguard the rights of vulnerable and marginalised residents, especially those residents who have an intellectual disability or mental illness; whilst at the same time seeking to ‘promote the sustainability of the boarding house industry.’6 The government also engaged in a public consultation process7 to develop regulations8 to the Act which would ‘bring standards for assisted boarding houses into line with community expectations and Australia’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified in 2008’.9

Prior to the Act, general boarding houses were known as unlicensed boarding houses and were only regulated via Council under various Acts relating to fire safety and building codes.10 However, there was no specific legislation in NSW that regulated boarding houses and residents did not have any legal standing (apart from under common law) to assert residency claims. Furthermore, assisted boarding houses, which were known as licensed residential centres, were regulated under the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 (NSW). The licensed sector grew after there was a large-scale

3 The Allen Consulting Group, ‘Shared Accommodation for People with a Disability: A National Competition Policy Review of the Regulation of Boarding Houses’ (Report, Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, September 2003) 4. 4 NSW Ombudsman, More than board and lodging - the need for boarding house reform - Special report to Parliament October 2011. This can be accessed at: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/news-and-publications/publications/reports/community-and-disability-services/previous-community-and-disability-services-reports/more-than-board-and-lodging-the-need-for-boarding-house-reform 5 Martin, C. (2013) ‘Boarding Houses Act’, Alternative Law Journal, 38(1) AltLJ 56. 6 Department of Family and Community Services, Ageing, Disability and Home Care, ‘Boarding House Regulation 2013: Report on Responses to the Draft Regulation and Regulatory Impact Statement’ (Report, Department of Family and Community Services, Ageing, Disability and Home Care, 31 May 2013) 4. 7 See <http://www.adhc.nsw.gov.au/sp/delivering_disability_services/boarding_house_program/boarding_hous e_reform> for access to all public submissions and the reports and recommendations made as a result of the consultation process. 8 Boarding Houses Regulation 2013 (NSW). 9 NSW Government, ‘Regulatory Impact Statement: Draft Boarding Houses Regulation 2013’ (Regulatory Impact Statement, NSW Government, 19 February 2013) 1. 10 For example, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Food Act 2003, the Local Government Act 1993, and the Public Health Act 2010. Buildings (and uses) must comply with relevant building codes and planning instruments.

5

deinstitutionalisation of psychiatric facilities from the 1960s. Many people with an intellectual disability or mental illness were relocated to for-profit accommodation in the form of boarding houses, where they receive various services including meals, washing of clothes, shared living facilities, and assistance with personal care, health and money management (Drake 2013; Drake 2014).11 These services are delivered by boarding house managers, who are often ex-staff members of deinstitutionalised facilities who set up boarding houses to accommodate the residents that they had previously cared for in the institutions.12

The Act commenced in parts, with the provisions relating to the Boarding House Register, shared accommodation standards and initial compliance investigations commencing on 1 January 2013, and the rest of the Act, which largely pertains to ‘assisted boarding houses’, commencing on 1 July 2013. The boarding house regulations also commenced on 1 July 2013.13

With the introduction of the Act boarding houses were divided into two categories: general boarding houses14 and assisted boarding houses.15 General boarding houses are defined as premises that offer beds for a fee or reward providing there are five or more residents. Furthermore, certain types of premises that are prescribed under section 5 (3) of the Act such as hotels, motels, hostels, and various other similar types of accommodation are excluded. General boarding houses are for people who do not require daily care. However in practice, residents are disadvantaged and have a high incidence of mental illness, substance abuse, and other health conditions.16

Assisted boarding houses are boarding premises that provide beds in exchange for a fee or reward for persons with additional needs.17 A person with additional needs is someone who has a condition that is caused by either frailty related to age; or mental illness; or has a disability caused by an intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, or physical impairment.18 There must be two or more (but not exceeding 3019) residents with additional needs for the premises to be considered an assisted boarding house.20 A second type of assisted boarding house is one that has been declared an assisted boarding house by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services.21

The Act creates a legal framework to ensure that boarding house residents receive the appropriate quality and standards of accommodation and services that will protect and promote their

11 Drake, G. (2014a) The ethical and methodological challenges of social work research with participants who fear retribution: To ‘do no harm’. Qualitative Social Work. Vol.13(2), pp.304-319; Drake, G. (2014b) The transinstitutionalisation of people living in licensed boarding houses in Sydney. Australian Social Work. Vol.67(2), p.240-255. 12 Ibid. 13 Boarding Houses Regulation 2013 (NSW) s 2. 14 Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) s. 5 (2) 15 Ibid s. 37(1) (a) 16 Drake, G. (2014a) The ethical and methodological challenges of social work research with participants who fear retribution: To ‘do no harm’. Qualitative Social Work. Vol.13(2), pp.304-319. 17 Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) s. 37 (a) 18 Ibid s.36 (1)(a) 19 The requirement that the maximum number of residents is 30 will not apply to pre-existing assisted boarding houses until 2018. 20 Clause 6, Schedule 1 Public Consultation Draft of Boarding House Regulation 2013 21 Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) s. 37 (b)

6

wellbeing.22 Furthermore, the Act advocates that accommodation and services should be both sustainable and continuously improving.23

The Act aims to achieve these objectives in a number of ways, including establishing a registration system whereby all boarding houses must be registered with NSW Fair Trading.24

The Act requires that occupancy agreements between boarding house proprietors and residents must now be in writing25 and in a standard form.26 As well, occupancy principles have been introduced (contained in Schedule 1) that detail accommodation standards entitling residents to the quiet enjoyment of the premises which are to be clean, secure and in a reasonable state of repair. The occupancy principles also set out rules for such things as payments, penalties, eviction, and termination.

The occupancy principles also entitle proprietors to certain rights, such as receiving security deposits for cleaning and repairs.27 Proprietors are allowed to enter premises at a reasonable time to carry out inspections and repairs28 and charge fees for utilities such as electricity, gas, oil and water provided it is in the occupancy agreement.29 Disputes pertaining to occupancy agreements are to be resolved by the NSW Civil and AdministrativeTribunal (NCAT).30

Assisted boarding houses must be authorised by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services.31 Stringent conditions must be met in order to be authorised including criminal history checks of the licensee, the manager and all staff.32 Furthermore, the Act allows for the appointment of enforcement officers employed by the Department of Family and Community Services33 to investigate the operations of assisted boarding houses and impose penalties.34

An evaluation of the Act is a legal requirement specified in section 105, requiring that the Act must be reviewed against its objectives after five years. The evaluation will run over five years from 2013 - 2018.

Newtown Neighbourhood Centre (NNC) has been funded by the NSW Government to carry out a significant amount of the evaluation of the Act. NNC was selected due to its significant history of working in and expertise on the boarding house sector. NNC runs a number of boarding house specific projects (both in the general and assisted sector).35 In addition, NNC undertakes project

22 Ibid s. 3 23 Ibid s. 3 (d) 24 Ibid s. 3(a) & s. 9. 25 Ibid s. 28. 26 Ibid s. 29 27 Ibid s. 30 (1) Schedule 1:8 28 Ibid s. 30 (1) Schedule 1:5 29 Ibid s. 30 (1) Schedule 1:7 30 Ibid s. 32 31 Ibid s. 46 32 Ibid s. 45 33 Ibid s. 66 34 Ibid s. 66 - 86 35 These include: the Boarding House Outreach Project (casework services to residents of general boarding house who are at risk of homelessness); ALI (Active Linking Initiative) which facilitates social and recreational support to residents of two assisted boarding houses); Boarders and Lodgers (provides social support to frail aged and younger people with a disability living in general boarding houses in Marrickville); community-based activities (for ex assisted boarding house residents in

7

work and runs forums with proprietors, and has undertaken specific Local Government one off projects (City of Sydney, Ashfield and other Local Government Areas).

The University of Western Sydney (UWS) was chosen as research partner by NNC due to its track record of boarding house related research including a review of the boarding house sector in the Parramatta LGA and research on transitioning residents from institutions into smaller community-based facilities.

Lidcombe and Merrylands); the Boarding House Project (social support for boarding house residents in the Inner West (older persons and persons with a disability); and this project, Evaluation of the Boarding Houses Act 2012.

8

3. Boarding house legislation in other jurisdictions

In recent years a number of states, including New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have implemented or sought to implement legislation to protect boarding house residents.

3.1 Victoria

Victoria was one of the first States to introduce boarding house (referred to as ‘rooming house’) legislation. Legislative protection was introduced in 1990 (the Rooming Houses Act 1990 (Vic)). This legislation was repealed and incorporated into the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic). More recently, the Residential Tenancies (Rooming House Standards) Regulation 2012 (Vic) was enacted due to concerns about standards within boarding houses. From 31 March 2013, rooming house operators must comply with minimum standards set out in the Residential Tenancies (Rooming House Standards) Regulations 2012. These standards relate to privacy, security, safety and amenity in rooming houses.36 The Tenants Union of Victoria (TUV) suggests that one problem with the legislation is that it splits responsibility for boarding houses between local councils and Civil and Administrative Victoria (CAV) which is not always effective.37 Similarly to NSW, a registration system is in place in Victoria. Although local councils need to renew rooming house registrations at least every three years, individual councils operate slightly differently based on their own internal risk identification frameworks; consequently, most councils require renewal on an annual basis.38 Another perceived failure of the new regulation is that it did not include a “fit and proper person” test for boarding house proprietors despite being a central recommendation from the Victorian Coroner after an inquiry into a boarding house fire in 2006.39 The TUV advocates that a “fit and proper person” test should be a necessary condition for being granted a boarding house licence as “rooming houses often provide accommodation for vulnerable people but they can also be very profitable for dodgy operators”40.

36 Consumer Affairs Victoria, ‘Minimum standards in rooming houses’, http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing-and-accommodation/renting/standards-repairs-and-entry-rights/minimum-standards-in-rooming-houses. 37 Personal correspondence with James Bennett, Policy & Liaison Worker, Tenants Union of Victoria on 4 June 2014. 38 Ibid 40 Ibid

9

3.2 Queensland

In Queensland the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 provides the legislative framework that governs boarding houses. However, there still remain a number of problems.41 One issue highlighted by the Queensland Tenants Union Advice Services (QTUAS) is that the definition of a boarding house requires there be four or more residents.42 QTUAS consider this threshold is too high because it does not provide protection where there are only three or less residents other than the common law, which is inaccessible to the typical boarding house resident. QTUAS identified Section 370 of the Act as another weakness.43 Section 370 entitles the proprietor to give residents notice to leave immediately when serious breaches occur; however, this does not allow the resident opportunity to dispute the alleged breach or take their complaint before the Tribunal.44

3.3 South Australia

In South Australia the legislation protecting boarding house residents has recently been upgraded. Previously, it was contained in a separate regulation, Residential Tenancies (Rooming Houses) Regulations 1999. However, with the introduction of the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2013, which came into effect from the 1st March 2014, this regulation has now been transferred into the Act. As well, it has been updated to provide greater clarity and provide more protection to residents of boarding houses, for example if a resident is unhappy with a house rule they can apply to the Tribunal for a declaration that the house rule is unreasonable.45 An education period of two months has been allowed so that landlords and proprietors can adjust their practices and procedures to bring them into line with the legislative requirements.46 3.4 Other States and Territories In contrast to the previously mentioned states, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, and Western Australia, do not have any boarding house legislation. Although Tasmania does not have specific boarding house legislation, some protection is provided to residents in ‘Part 4A –Boarding Premises’ of the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (TAS).47 The Northern Territory is similar to Tasmania in that there is no boarding house legislation; however, some protection is

41 Personal correspondence with Penny Carr, Statewide Co-ordinator, Queensland Tenants Union Advice Services on 4 June 2014. 42 Ibid 43 ibid 44 Ibid 45 Consumer and business Services (n.d.), ‘Summary of the residential tenancies reforms’, http://www.cbs.sa.gov.au/assets/files/Summary_of_the_Changes.pdf 46Government of South Australia (n.d.), ‘Reforms to residential tenancy legislation’, http://www.sa.gov.au/topics/housing-property-and-land/housing/renting-and-letting/tenancy-reforms

47 Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Tasmania, (n.d.) ‘Boarding Premise Information Tenant Information Pamphlet’, http://www.consumer.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/111917/Boarding_Premises_-_Tenant_Info.pdf

10

included in a number of Acts.48 The Residential Tenancies Act 2012 (NT) and the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2009 (NT) covers agreements for board and lodging that are longer than one week and where three or more boarders are accommodated. As well, sections of other Acts also apply to boarding houses such as the Public Health (Shops, boarding houses, hostels, and hotels) Regulations 2011 (NT), the Accommodation Providers Act 2002 (NT) and the Fire and Emergency Regulations 2011(NT).49 By contrast to Tasmania and the Northern Territory, in Western Australia there is not only no boarding house legislation but boarding house residents are also not included in the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA50).

The ACT may be moving towards implementing boarding house legislation. In 2011 after a case of a landlord having up to 30 residents living in one house, a submission was made to the government to enact legislation to protect the rights of boarding house residents.51 Despite the November 2011 summary of Cabinet outcomes agreeing to “strengthen regulations governing boarding style accommodation” that “uphold community standards”52 no further action has been taken towards implementing legislation.

48 Goodman,R., Nelson, A. Dalton, T. Cigdem, M. Gabriel, M. & Jacobs,K. 2013 ‘The experience of marginal rental housing in Australia’ Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Final Report No. 210, Melbourne: AHURI. 49 Ibid 50 Ibid 51 Personal correspondence with Ann Yuille, Welfare Rights Legal Centre ACT on 3 June 2014. 52 Riotact (n.d.) ‘ACT government to move on boarding house’s http://the-riotact.com/act-government-to-move-on-boarding-houses/59106

11

4. Aim and research questions

The aim of this research is to evaluate the implementation of the NSW Boarding Houses Act 2012 as required by the Act. Specifically, the brief for this evaluation is to:

1. assess the effect of the Act on the wellbeing of residents of boarding houses; 2. assess whether the rights of residents of boarding houses are better protected following the

introduction of the Act; 3. determine the effect of the Act on the sustainability of the boarding house sector; and 4. determine levels and types of collaboration between departments, agencies and community

organisations that work with the boarding house sector.

The research tools, findings and discussion in this report respond to these questions. The detail of the research questions are in the Appendices.

12

5. Methods

The research project will span five years (2013-2018). Research methods include identifying boarding houses in three geographical study areas, surveying and/or interviewing participants up to four times (once per year); data analysis, and four interval reports which are to be submitted annually (the fourth is the final report).

To gather qualitative data, three groups will be interviewed annually: boarding house residents, boarding house proprietors; and Government and non-Government agency workers who are implementing or monitoring operations associated with the Act or otherwise in contact with the boarding house sector. In practice these agencies includes: council inspectors, Family and Community Services compliance officers and case workers, outreach workers, mental health services, peak bodies such as People With Disability Australia and the NSW Tenants Union, and charities. In addition, agency data is being collected annually.

Extended consent (participants consent to be contacted within a 5 year period) has been sought from participants. Participants have been advised they will be contacted annually and their contact details have been recorded to facilitate future contact. However, participants may withdraw from the research at any time.

To ensure that data is comparable over time, the same participants will be interviewed on an annual basis. Special attention is being given to logging multiple contact details for participants (e.g. mobile phone number, email, Facebook profile, address or PO Box, guardian details, etc) in order to facilitate annual contact and to minimise attrition. Despite keeping contact details on file, attrition will occur, especially amongst the boarding house resident cohort as some will move tenures, move interstate, decide to withdraw from participation in the research or will simply not be contactable. The attrition rate is estimated to be about 50 per cent for boarding house residents. Therefore, replacement with new participants will occur from the same boarding houses where possible. Data on participants who have left the sector will be gathered where possible (for example on change of tenure).

Boarding house proprietors are usually in the boarding house business for several and sometimes many years. This group is expected to be the most stable and contactable from year to year. An attrition rate of 20 per cent is estimated for proprietors. Again, replacement may occur if the participant levels fall.

Agency workers (whether government or non-government) often change position or employer, so significant staff turnover is expected over five years. Where this occurs, replacement will occur and the new person in the position will be interviewed instead of the original person. Every effort will be made to retain the involvement of agency workers who are still working in the field. A 40 per cent staff turnover is estimated

By adopting this approach, the sample size will be maintained, however there will be different people interviewed over the years.

13

5.1 Approval for research

Ethics approval. The research has been approved by the University of Western Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee. The approval number is H10438.

Approval of agencies for agency workers to participate. To gather data from government and non-government workers, approval had to be granted by their mangers or head of department. All agencies approached agreed to assist in providing data and to participate in focus groups.

Consent from research participants: In relation to all the surveys, interviews and focus groups conducted, researchers verbally explained the project, provided written information and sought written consent from each participant prior to commencing an interview or administering a survey. Extended consent (for the entire five year research period) was sought from the participants so that they can be re-contacted annually; however, it was also explained to them that they can withdraw from the research at any time.

Vulnerable persons protocol. As many boarding house residents are also vulnerable persons, researchers will take extra steps to explain the research and its implications to these participants.

5.2 Fieldwork sites

There are over 77653 registered boarding houses (and probably double that number of unregistered boarding houses) in NSW. Consequently it was necessary to focus the research into specific areas.

The research is focussed in three study sites that are Local Government Areas (LGAs):

• Ashfield LGA

• Marrickville LGA

• Newcastle LGA.

Two of the sites are in metropolitan Sydney and the third site is a major regional city.

The rationale for choosing the Ashfield and Marrickville Local Government Areas lies in the fact that these areas have large boarding house sectors and the Councils are at different stages of implementing the Act. Furthermore, NNC has established networks within these areas and were able to facilitate access to boarding house proprietors, and the Councils were engaged in compliance activities.

53 As of 12 August, 2014. Figure supplied by NSW Fair Trading.

14

Newcastle was chosen as it is a major regional city and has a relatively large and diversified boarding house sector (students, ‘traditional’, ‘new generation’ and assisted). The Council had a somewhat less developed inspection regime at the time of writing.

There are registered boarding houses in each LGA, as outlined in Figure 1 below (as of 5 June 2014). It is hard to gauge how many unregistered boarding houses exist, however based on boarding house lists compiled by Councils and NGOs, the real number is likely to be almost double; it was estimated that 47 per cent of boarding houses are registered). 54

Figure 1: Registered boarding houses in the study areas

Source: Boarding House Register as of 5 June 2014.

5.3 Boarding house types

A mixture of different categories of boarding house has been included in each area wherever possible. The typologies (not mutually exclusive) are:

• General (for the general public),

• Assisted (for persons requiring daily care),

• Registered (on the NSW Boarding Houses register as per the Act),

54 For example, 92 boarding houses are registered in Marrickville LGA however a list compiled for this project includes 194 boarding house addresses. Therefore only 47 per cent of known boarding houses are registered.

41

92

40

Ashfield Marrickville Newcastle

15

• Unregistered (not on the NSW Boarding houses register),

• ‘old style/traditional’ (shared facilities such as kitchens and bathrooms, older buildings, usually does not include meals but sometimes these are provided),

• ‘new generation’ – (studio style including bathroom ensuite and kitchenette, with common areas but few shared facilities).

5.4 Boarding house residents

5.4.1 Surveys

Annually, approximately 200 surveys will be collected (56 in Ashfield, 106 in Marrickville and 38 in Newcastle). In 2014, the actual figure was 215.55 In terms of the mix of general and assisted, 205 surveys were of residents in general boarding houses and ten were with residents from assisted boarding houses (5% of the total were assisted boarding house residents). This broadly reflects the sector as a whole56 however recruitment was limited by various factors.

Residents were recruited using a number of approaches: via fliers posted or delivered to known boarding houses that included the researcher’s contact details such as mobile phone numbers, and with the assistance of service providers such as Active Linkage Initiative (ALI) and advocacy organisations that had direct contact with boarding house residents. A $25 payment was offered for each survey, which on average took 15 minutes to complete.

Fieldwork was conducted in teams of at least two researchers. These activities took place at specific locations such as Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, All Saints Church in Petersham, the Exodus Foundation in Ashfield, and at the Oasis Salvation Army centre in Hamilton and Hamilton TAFE. As well, surveys were conducted at boarding houses, usually in common areas.

A mixture of boarding house types and locations were selected in each area. For example, the researchers ensured a reasonable geographic and demographic mix by going to different locations and different types of boarding house communities (for example student, assisted, ‘new generation’ as well as ‘traditional/old style’).

Due to the expected attrition rate, as the project progresses, surveys and interviews with the same persons will diminish as the original 2014 cohort chooses to withdraw, moves interstate or into another tenure form, or is not able to be contacted. Data will be recorded on this.

55 The slight excess in number was due to some residents turning up then being out of area and due to survey sessions with people dropping in unscheduled. 56 These ten represent 2% of the total assisted boarding house resident population in NSW (470 persons). Recruitment only took place in the three study LGAs. Efforts were mad to recruit a greater number of residents but approaches to assisted boarding house operators and support workers were not always successful. In addition, some residents did not wish to participate or did not have the capacity to participate. Efforts will be made to increase the representation of assisted boarding house residents in future evaluations.

16

In order to maintain the sample size each year, efforts will be made to recruit replacement residents – ideally from the same boarding houses.

5.4.2 Interviews

A total of 54 individual interviews were conducted with boarding house residents (16 in Ashfield, 26 in Marrickville and 12 in Newcastle). Interviewees were selected from the ‘pool’ of those who had been surveyed to ensure a reasonable mix (such as males, females, and types of boarding house and geographical locations). Participants were paid $50 for participating in an interview. As with the surveys, interviews took place in a variety of locations (see above). In-depth interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.

5.5 Boarding house proprietors

5.5.1 Surveys

About 620 surveys were distributed to proprietors. The survey was posted out where proprietor’s postal address was available and also circulated via email, with the co-operation of NSW Fair Trading. Surveys were returned via postage paid self-addressed envelope and via scan/email. These were from boarding house operators across NSW rather than restricted to the study areas.57 The surveys sought information from proprietors about their business, their views on the impact of the Act on financial sustainability of the business, and on government assistance that is available. 57 surveys were returned.

5.5.2 Interviews

A total of 20 individual interviews were conducted with boarding house proprietors (6 in Ashfield, 10 in Marrickville and 4 in Newcastle). Proprietors were paid $50 for participating in an interview (some declined the payment). The proprietors interviewed were selected from the pool of proprietors who had undertaken the boarding house survey and indicated they were willing to be interviewed. An effort was made to include a mixture of older and younger, male and female, and assisted58 and general boarding house proprietors.

Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The attrition rate over time will most likely slightly reduce the number of interviews by the end of the research period. It may be necessary to recruit

57 This was a decision made partly on the suggestion of a representative of the Boarding House Committee of the Property Owners Association of NSW, and also to increase survey return rates. 58 One proprietor interviewed ran an assisted boarding house. Approach to another assisted boarding house proprietor was unsuccessful.215 2

17

more boarding house proprietors – for example, if a boarding house changes hands or if a proprietor exits the industry, new participants will be sought.

5.6 Agencies

5.6.1 Data collection

In order to monitor the boarding house sector as a whole, a number of data sources are being utilised to gather information and statistics. This data is being collected annually on the previous calendar year (i.e. the data in this report is for the calendar year 2013; next year’s report will contain data from calendar year 2014).

A formal letter was sent to agencies containing a request for data to be supplied. Once the agency agreed to participate a blank data sheet specific to data held by that agency was supplied.

While some agencies were forthcoming with data, others found it difficult to do so in a timely manner despite numerous requests. A summary of requested agency data is contained in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Summary of data sources

Data source Aim Instrument

Local Government • Ashfield • Marrickville • Newcastle

To ascertain rough numbers of boarding houses in each LGA; and number of new boarding houses

NSW Councils in the three study sites will be asked to provide best estimates of overall boarding house numbers (registered and unregistered boarding houses), and numbers and details of DAs for boarding house use (whether for existing or new buildings).

NSW Civil and AdministrativeTribunal59; NSW Supreme Court

Legal analysis of disputes Interpretations of Act What are the most common disputes about? Legislative implications?

Analysis of NCAT boarding house cases since the introduction of the Boarding Houses Act. The NCAT Registrar will be asked to supply annually (a) overall number of applications involving boarding houses (b) list of head cases involving boarding houses. Cases where a judgement was published will be accessed online. Analysis of NSW Supreme Court cases involving boarding houses. Cases will be accessed online. Supplemental information will be sought form tenants advocates organisations and the Tenants Union of NSW.

59 This includes cases heard by the predecessor Tribunal, the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

18

Housing NSW To ascertain the number of boarding house proprietors applying for grants

Housing NSW boarding house specific grants data

Dept of Family and Community Services

To ascertain the number of assisted boarding houses

Assisted boarding house specific data

NSW Department of Fair Trading (Boarding House Register)

To ascertain the number of registered boarding houses in NSW

Data from the Boarding House Register

NSW Department of Fair Trading (call centre)

To ascertain the number of boarding house inquiries

NSW Fair Trading call centre - boarding house specific data

NSW Office of State Revenue

To ascertain the number of boarding house proprietors applying for land tax exemption

NSW OSR land tax exemption data

Australian Bureau of Statistics

To ascertain if there are any significant changes in homelessness

ABS homelessness data

Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services

• Inner West TAAS • Hunter TAAS • Tenants Union of

NSW

To ascertain the number of boarding house inquiries

Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services database

19

5.6.2 Focus groups

Annual focus groups will involve at least 24 relevant staff of government and non-government agencies in annual focus groups. Fifteen staff will be Sydney-based and nine staff will be Newcastle-based.

The involvement of agencies has been obtained via formal approach to the relevant head office, manager or CEO. The agency then circulated the focus group invitation to relevant staff. Preferred participants were those who work directly on boarding house issues or with boarding house residents or proprietors.

In 2014, 35 staff participated in four focus groups (three were held in Sydney and one in Newcastle). Staff attending came from a variety of NGOs and relevant Government agencies. The types of positions held by staff who took part included inspectors/compliance officers, specialist policy staff, tenancy advisers, outreach and caseworkers, and mental health workers.

In summary, data was drawn from a variety of sources (from stakeholders) and from agencies and was both quantitative and qualitative. Detailed data can be found in the Appendices.

20

6. Findings

Findings are based on surveys and interviews with boarding house residents, proprietors and agency workers.

6.1 Boarding house residents

6.1.1 Profile of residents

Altogether, 215 boarding house residents participated in a face-to-face survey: 55 (25 per cent) from Ashfield LGA, 107 (50 per cent) from Marrickville LGA,42 (20 per cent) from Newcastle and 11 LGA unknown (5 per cent). Of these participants, 54 were selected to participate in face-to-face interview: 16 (30 per cent) from Ashfield LGA, 26 (48 per cent) from Marrickville LGA and 12 (22 per cent) from Newcastle.

Figure 3: Summary of boarding house residents - profile

• 82 per cent of participants were male (N=176) and 18 per cent were female (N=39) which is consistent with other studies and ABS data (see Drake, 2013).

• 205 were general and 10 were assisted boarding house residents • The majority (63 per cent, N=138) of residents surveyed were aged 30-59. • 42 per cent of residents are on Newstart payments; 29 per cent are on Disability Support

Pension; 9 per cent are on ‘other’ forms of income and 7 per cent are on incomes from employment only. The remainder were on Aged Pensions or combined Centrelink payments with part time or casual work.

• 53 per cent of the residents reported living in their boarding house for less than a year and 28 per cent had been living there between 1-3 years. Only 5 per cent of residents had been living in their boarding house for more than 10 years.

• Residents were asked to describe the people they lived with: 41 per cent of the participants described the other residents as ‘single, mostly males on very low incomes’; 47 per cent of the participants described the other residents as ‘a mixture of very low income and working people’; 9 per cent described other residents as ‘students’ and 4 per cent as ‘nearly all working’. None of the participants described other residents as ‘backpackers/tourists’.

• 10 per cent of the participants stated that there were children living with parents in the boarding house.

21

Residents described their fellow residents in the following ways:

Elderly, a lot of single people, single elderly men…Mental health, there’s quite a few of them coming through lately, especially with the nursing homes closing. A lot of addicts too. Yeah alcoholics and drug addicts (BHR35).

I’d say they’re people who have had a hard time…couple of guys, on mental like psychiatric, psychotic ones, and depression, and stuff like that. I think there’s one guy there out on parole, and then there’s probably four or five people there that work (BHR01).

Yeah bit of variety, predominately males, but yeah some couples. No uni students yet, mainly people on disability pensions or pensions of some sort. Ages range from 18-89 (BHR45).

As the above comments indicate, amongst the boarding house general population there are people with high needs who may have mental illness or substance addiction. Most are not in the labour force; the minority are students or working. This is unsurprising given the marginal nature of the tenure form and its (relative) affordability and therefore attractiveness to disadvantaged persons.

6.1.2 Boarding house operations

Boarding house operations were varied. Some boarding houses are managed by a hands-on proprietor that residents know personally, while other residents pay occupancy fees (commonly referred to as rent) to and deal with a real estate agent.

Around two-thirds or 62 per cent signed some sort of agreement, however many proprietors do not use an agreement at all. According to residents, real estate agents managing boarding houses generally use written agreements (and these agreements are more likely to be the standard occupancy agreement).

66 per cent of residents were required to pay a security deposit (bond) when they moved in, but 34 per cent were not. Some only paid a key deposit (usually under $100).

Rent includes utilities in 92 per cent of cases, and this also includes meals for about a fifth of residents (18 per cent). Where meals are included, rents are typically higher than average.

Residents sometimes see boarding houses as more convenient and affordable than private rental:

Oh yeah, heaps easier than yeah having to rent out your own place and have your own bond and lease agreement. (BHR01)

The fact that rent includes utilities is seen as a positive attribute.

22

6.1.3 Wellbeing of residents

The Personal Wellbeing Index - Adult (PWI-A)60 scale was adapted for the Boarding House Resident Survey to include housing-related as well as personal wellbeing questions. Residents were asked four housing quality questions and seven wellbeing questions, and were asked to nominate a value on a Likert scale from 0 (no satisfaction at all), 5 (neutral) and 10 (completely satisfied). Some participants chose not to respond to particular questions.

In regards to how well the residents thought their boarding house was run, 58 per cent of residents gave a score of between five and eight. Four per cent were totally unsatisfied (giving a zero score) and ten per cent were completely satisfied (giving a ten out of ten score).

Residents were asked how satisfied they were with repairs and maintenance. 18 per cent were neutral. 29 per cent gave a score of seven or eight out of ten. Six per cent were not satisfied at all, while nine per cent claimed total satisfaction. Opinions were more divided, with fewer neutral answers given.

In regards to satisfaction with the security of the premises, again there was generally more positive than negative satisfaction. 54 per cent scored security between seven to ten. Six per cent had no satisfaction at all.

When asked how they would rate their boarding house experience overall, again the majority of residents rated this above average with 63 per cent giving it a score of six to ten, and 37 per cent a score of zero to five. Twelve per cent rated their boarding house as a nine out of ten, and eight per cent gave it full marks, ten out of ten.

More personal questions followed. When asked how satisfied they were with their life as a whole, 17 per cent were neutral. 42 per cent gave a score of between six and eight, six per cent a nine, and seven per cent a ten. Only three per cent gave their overall life satisfaction score a zero.

When asked about satisfaction with standard of living (defined as general income/living conditions), similarly to the previous question, 18 per cent were neutral. 32 per cent scored this as a six or seven out of ten. A third, or 31 per cent, scored this as below average. Seven per cent were totally satisfied, giving a score of ten.

In regards to their health, the results were more evenly distributed - 71 per cent of residents gave scores of between four and eight. Nine per cent gave a score of nine out of ten, and nine per cent gave a completely satisfied score of ten. Only one per cent gave zero as a score, and three per cent gave two as a score (indicating very poor health).

In regards to satisfaction about achievements, fifteen per cent were neutral. 32 per cent were more negative, giving below average scores of between zero to four. Just over half, 54 per cent gave positive scores of between six and ten. Over a third – 35 per cent – scored satisfaction with achievements as a six or seven. 60 International Wellbeing Group (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index: 5th Edition. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. This can be accessed at: http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/index.php

23

Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with personal relationships. This elicited a more positive result than some of the other questions – nearly two-thirds, or 61 per cent scored this between six and ten. Whilst eleven per cent were neutral, twelve per cent gave their personal relationship satisfaction a ten out of ten. This question seemed to elicit more favourable scores than those to do with health or standard of living (probably as personal relationships is an area of life where persons have more control).

In regards to feeling part of the community, again the results were more positive than negative. While only twelve per cent were neutral, by contrast over two thirds - 67 per cent – gave scores between six and ten. Of these, nineteen per cent gave this a score of eight, and eleven per cent gave this a score of ten.

Finally, residents were asked about their future plans or prospects. Again most were upbeat, with only a fifth or 21 per cent scoring below average. Twelve per cent were neutral and the remainder, over two thirds or 67 per cent, gave a score of between six and ten. Furthermore, eleven per cent scored their future plans or prospects as a ten out of ten.

A summary of these wellbeing results is contained in Figure 4. Detailed findings appear in the Appendices.

Figure 4: Summary of wellbeing indicator results – average scores

Wellbeing focus Total responses

Mean

Satisfaction with life as a whole

212 6.81

Satisfaction with standard of living

213 6.62

Satisfaction with health 216 6.96 Satisfaction with achievements in life

205 6.57

Satisfaction with personal relationships

210 7.08

Satisfaction with feeling part of your community

208 7.36

Satisfaction with future plans and prospects

205 7.37

24

6.1.4 Access to services

Residents were asked to indicate what services they had accessed in the three months prior to participating in the survey (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Services used in the previous three months by boarding house residents

#

Q. 7 Answer

Response %

1 Doctor or Hospital

153 75%

2 Dentist

45 22%

3 Psychologist or psychiatrist

61 30%

4 Caseworker

64 32%

5 Drug and alcohol counselling/AA/NA

24 12%

6 Home Care

6 3%

7 Aged care facility or retirement village

0 0%

8 Food service

113 56%

9 Other material aid – help paying bills etc

32 16%

10 Methadone

10 5%

11 Housing NSW or community housing – waiting list

68 33%

12 Community or neighbourhood centre

86 42%

Note: participants were able to select multiple options.

25

As outlined in Figure 5, the services most frequently accessed by residents included doctors and hospitals (75 per cent), food services (56 per cent) and community or neighbourhood centres (42 per cent).61

When asked what services they would like to or needed to access, from the twelve options provided, 36 residents identified dental services followed by twelve residents identifying access to community or public housing (see Figure 6). This was out of a total of 215 residents – therefore the majority did not identify areas of unmet need.

61 This figure mostly reflects boarding house residents in the Marrickville LGA who access Newtown Neighbourhood Centre’s ‘Boarders and Lodgers’ projects. Ashfield LGA and Newcastle region’s community centres do not have boarding house specific projects.

26

Figure 6: Unmet needs of residents (numbers expressing unmet needs)

Dentist 36 HNSW 12

Psychologist 6 Help with rent/bills 5

Other medical specialist

3

Caseworker 1

Job services 1

Optometrist 1

In addition to this stating of unmet need, in interviews, many residents identified the need for mental health services, either for themselves or other residents in their boarding house.

I’ve seen a lot of things go on here in four years, people that should not have been here, that certain things have happened but it’s not the owner’s problem as such…they should be re-opening Rozelle [former psychiatric hospital]. Not the way it was, not an institution, but a place where these people can go and have some reasonable care, that means contact with humans, that means if they’re on medication they get their medications (HHR44).

In general there was a low rate of service contact with general boarding houses. Fifty-six percent of residents surveyed stated that no services attended the boarding house. Others did notice services visiting:

Mental health come in to see a couple of people, one of the guys in particular. I’ve seen the Meals on Wheels vehicle in the driveway (BHR07).

6.1.5 Affordability

Affordability is a problem for many boarding house residents. Although boarding houses are relatively more affordable than for example a one bedroom privately rented unit, given the low incomes of many residents, the majority are paying a high percentage of their incomes on housing costs. A worryingly high 58 per cent of the residents were paying more than half of their income in rent (see Figure 7).

27

Figure 7: Rent as a percentage of income

Figure 7 shows that 89 per cent of residents are in housing stress,62 paying more than 30 per cent of their incomes on rent. Furthermore, 58 per cent of residents are in extreme housing stress, paying more than 50 per cent of their income in rent. Overall, residents did not consider boarding houses to be an affordable housing option. Residents receiving a Newstart Allowance found it most difficult, with many people relying on charities for food vouchers and other forms of aid:

So I’m pretty much living off of Vinnies, Salvos. Yeah pretty much, I can go a week, week and a half without money most of the time, and live off the Salvos and Vinnies …and that’s all we can do (BHR37).

I pay $230 a week...it was the last room available so I had no choice…I need to see somebody to get vouchers for food and stuff…I’m on the housing list but nothing has come up there. The only other thing would be to share with a bunch of people but with my mental health and stuff, I need my own space (BHR41).

Those on Austudy are on the lowest income of all and struggle to make ends meet:

its just gone up to $215 a week now which is still reasonable given the location and so on…there’s something like $45/$50 a week in my pocket each week after I pay rent...I mean I’ve lost so much weight (BHR24).

People on the Disability Support Pension fared better due to the payment being higher, however, people with chronic and complex health care needs, including people with mental health illnesses, outlined additional challenges they experienced such as the cost of medications:

62 ‘Housing stress’ defined as households on the lowest 40 per cent of equivalised household incomes who spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs.

Rent as a % of income Number of residents % of residents

0-20% 3 1% 21-30% 18 9% 31 - 40% 24 11% 41-50% 43 20% 51-60% 50 24% 61-70% 35 17% 71-80% 24 11% 81-90% 4 2% 90%+ 9 4% Total 210 100%

28

Yeah well with the medication I’m on, even though I’m on this disability thing, it still adds up. I’ve got 11 different lots of tablets, and that adds up. (BHR45)

Residents receiving the Aged Pension, and those receiving a wage, were more likely to describe boarding houses as affordable but others struggled. A 70 year old resident on the Aged Pension said:

No, its not affordable. Its $220 a week. For a pensioner, that’s a lot. Its $440. Half of my pension just about. They’re going to be moved out because what used to be $170 a week is now going up to $230-$240 just by a couple of strokes of paint and tarting up the bathroom. (BHR31)

Figure 8: Rent per week

Rent per week Number of residents % of residents

$0-$100 2 1% $101-$150 37 18% $151-$200 101 48% $201-$250 42 20% $251+ 27 13% Total 209 100%

Figure 8 indicates that over two thirds or 68 per cent of residents pay rents of between $151-$250 a week. Roughly a fifth or 19 per cent pay rents of under $150 a week, and a minority of 13 per cent pay more than $251 in rent a week. Higher rents were more often paid in boarding houses that include meals.

Even though boarding houses are ‘relatively affordable’ this is only in relation to other unaffordable housing options (such as private rental of a one-bedroom unit, for example). Rents, although lower than for other forms are housing, still eat into low incomes, leaving very little left over:

No. I’m living on $140 a fortnight. $10 a day I live on. Below the poverty line. (BHR23)

I’m paying $180 per week. I wouldn’t say it’s affordable but it’s bearable because it’s either that or basically the streets. (BHR13)

6.1.6 Knowledge of the Act

When asked about their knowledge of their rights, three quarters or 75 per cent of the residents had limited (19per cent) or no knowledge (56 per cent) of their rights under the Boarding Houses Act.

No, I’ve never heard of it (BHR36.)

29

Only through this research, this is the most I've heard of it. Some of them were outlined in the- their document which they provide to residents and which they expect residents to read before applying and also on arrival (BHR03).

Some residents were able to identify some basics, such as notice of eviction and timeframes for bonds being returned after vacating a room, although these were not always accurate.

Others commented that the Act had no benefit as it was not implemented or enforced:

I've heard of it. I've heard that it exists but in terms of having an impact on me directly it's not very significant...as I mentioned before...in relation to the bond that we pay well basically it's not being returned if people move out (BHR40).

6.1.7 Standards and compliance

Operations varied. Residents’ survey results indicate that some proprietors run more formal operations than others.

Figure 9: Summary of findings - operations

Figure 9 shows that locks were generally working (88 per cent) and receipts are generally made available (78 per cent). However there were variable practices when it came to using a written agreement, or charging the correct amount of security deposit (bond). 66 per cent of the residents reported paying two weeks equivalent of rent for ‘bond’; 19 per cent had paid a bond equivalent to four weeks (contrary to the Act) and 15 per cent to one week’s rent.

Standards also varied. Residents definitely valued well run and clean boarding houses but there were many complaints of squalid ones:

Drug ridden, insect infested; in fact I thought this is not Australia, I’m in Thailand or Vietnam, this is not Australia. I tell you, bad, bad. Anyway, so I ended up here and… part of it was desperation (BHR32).

• 62 per cent of residents had received a written Occupancy Agreement • 78 per cent were provided with a record of payment either a written receipt or

recorded on their bank statement via an electronic funds transfer. • 66 per cent paid a bond • 66 per cent of security deposits were equivalent to two weeks rent • 19 per cent of security deposits were equivalent to four weeks’ rent • 88 per cent could lock their room adequately.

30

Better management means better standards overall:

Most boarding houses that are run through the real estate, issues generally do get resolved eventually after three or four complaints such as cleanliness. Something is usually eventually done. However, with a private person such as [proprietor], nothing is done whatsoever. You’re actually threatened to be kicked out…[the Council’s] only interested in fire alarms…They should be looking at building codes and requirements (BHR02).

Fire safety is an issue that came up several times:

Well since I’ve been there in August last year, I’ve noticed that there’s been a checking fire alarms and government people have been there checking the place out (BHR31).

However other residents reported systems did not seem to be activated or residents were disabling or covering smoke alarms because they wanted to smoke in their room.

6.1.8 Sustainability and future of the boarding house sector

When asked about the future of boarding houses, residents tended to focus on the for-profit nature of boarding houses and believed that the model was economically viable for proprietors:

Well he's got two places that I know of that are always full. So he can't be struggling (BHR45).

I would say it would be the biggest tax free rip off. And I’ve been told that, you know, a guy, he’s running one now in Summer Hill and said, “Man, you know I wanted some cash in my hand” and he said, “my lawyer said just get a backpackers thing, and you’re set”. It’s a cash crop from what I can see (BHR32).

The majority of residents interviewed considered that in the absence of alternative affordable and public housing options, there was a need for a boarding house market and a strong demand:

Well we’re going to need them. I mean unless we want a society living on the street (BHR12).

And the thing is that I don’t think he really cares because there’s definitely people out there looking for accommodation. We’re a dime a dozen. Whether I’ve been there two years or whatever, it’s like see you later, someone else is going to move in tomorrow (BHR13).

However, several residents believed that boarding houses would increasingly be used for student accommodation, pointing out that this was already happening in areas close to the University of Sydney, the University of Technology Sydney and the University of Newcastle. It was noted that several boarding house proprietors were planning or conducting renovations to sell or convert their property for students or single workers.

He’s trying to sell it…for some ridiculous amount- $10 million or something…I don’t think anyone would want to buy it for a boarding house the way it is…it needs too many

31

upgrades…People have to be housed somewhere…they probably can’t find accommodation elsewhere so I think they’ll be stuck in that sort of accommodation or on the street (BHR07).

Residents were asked whether or not they planned to stay in the boarding house. Almost half (46 per cent) of the residents surveyed stated that they would remain in their current boarding house for the foreseeable future. 32 per cent said they would stay for the short term, and 22 per cent were actively seeking alternative accommodation. This result also matches the length of stay results where 53 per cent have been in their current boarding house for less than one year.

6.1.9 Education about rights

When asked about how residents could better be informed about their rights under the Act, many of the residents identified a need for education about the Boarding Houses Act, specifically the occupancy principles and information about complaints services. Some of the residents in the Marrickville LGA commented on the NNC Boarding Houses Act publication for proprietors and suggested that a similar publication be made available to residents as well as agencies that refer residents to boarding houses, such as Centrelink, Housing NSW and community housing, hospitals, GPs and neighbourhood centres. Due to the transient population of boarding houses, ongoing education campaigns are required. While written information is available on the Tenants Union63 website and from Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, a hard copy booklet aimed at residents is required.

Residents made a number of useful suggestions:

Even just a basic sort of easily - something that’s easily understood and a list of contacts, phone numbers, whatever, if things go wrong (BHR24).

They should be providing it on the government website, much like they have done with their Department of Human Services for Medicare and Centrelink (BHR02).

Put it in the letterbox…because I don’t think any landlord’s going to offer up too much in that way (BHR 45).

They could probably make it a lot more well known about…our rights when it comes to being kicked out or evicted from a boarding house. Real estate, community services centres, like here. The drop-in centres, Department of Housing offices, anywhere you can get that information, Centrelink. They have those big stands with…information and all of that (BHR35).

Given the low level of awareness amongst residents, it is clear a concerted effort needs to be put into increasing education and awareness.

63 In addition, The Tenants Union is running a boarding house project. Project outcomes will include:

- Boarding houses act training and education program for stakeholders (4 workshops per year) - Web-based video materials (2 YouTube interviews) - A new housing rights guide for international students - Promotional materials (5,000 items).

32

6.2 Boarding house proprietors

6.2.1 Profile of proprietors

About 62064 surveys were distributed, via mail, email65 and by hand at proprietors’ forums. Fifty-seven surveys were received which is a return rate of 9 per cent.66

Most surveys, except those that were hand distributed to boarding house proprietor forums, necessarily went to the proprietors of registered boarding houses. Therefore, the survey sample under-represents proprietors with unregistered boarding houses (as the names and addresses of these unregistered proprietors are not as accessible as those on the registry).

The bulk of returned surveys were from proprietors of boarding houses in the inner west (52 per cent) or inner Sydney (18 per cent). The rest were spread geographically including the eastern suburbs (13 per cent), central western Sydney (seven per cent) the Hunter (nine per cent) and Illawarra (four per cent). The remainder were from Sydney’s northern suburbs and a variety of regional areas.

Twenty proprietors participated in a semi-structured, face-to-face interview. Six owned a boarding house in Ashfield LGA, ten in Marrickville LGA, and four in Newcastle LGA.

Figure 10 provides a snapshot of the characteristics of boarding house proprietors.

Figure 10: Summary of findings - proprietor profile

64 The number of boarding houses registered at the time the survey was distributed was approximately 620, However this number rose to 776 registered boarding houses as of August 2014. 65 NSW Fair Trading sent emails to boarding house proprietors, and supplied UWS with a mailing address list. 66 There were problems with the accuracy of mailing addresses for proprietors – the address list supplied by NSW Fair Trading yielded a ‘return to sender’ occurrence of 27 per cent suggesting this list is not up to date. NSW Fair Trading also assisted in emailing surveys out to proprietors, where the proprietor had supplied an email address. It is not known how many email addresses bounced.

Nine per cent of the proprietors were under 39 years.

53 per cent of boarding house proprietors are between 50 – 69 years of age.

Nineteen per cent are over 70 years of age. 40 per cent said their income was derived from the boarding house income only, while 34 per cent combined this with another business, and 26 per cent combined it with waged work. No proprietor reported combined boarding house income with any form of Government payment.

19 per cent had been in the business between four and six years and 19 per cent for between seven and ten years.

56 per cent had been in the business for ten years or more

Eight per cent had been in the business for less than three years.

33

This snapshot (Figure 10) indicates that boarding house proprietors are an ageing population -significantly, nearly a fifth (19 per cent) are over 70 years of age and over half have been in the business long-term (over ten years).

Some of the younger proprietors had inherited the business from their parents. Another got into boarding houses in his 20s because:

it [was] the only thing I could get a loan for…it was positively geared. (BHOP1).

Other new entrants reported servicing mortgages and combined the boarding house businesses with other businesses and waged work.

Of those surveyed, 56 boarding house operations were general, and one was assisted.

The average number of residents per boarding house was 18. Some proprietors had multiple boarding houses.

6.2.2 Boarding house operations

Operations varied with different rules and levels of formality and informality, as self-reported by proprietors. A summary is provided in Figure 11.

34

Figure 11: Summary of findings - boarding house operations

As Figure 11 indicates, proprietors bring differing levels of formality to their operations, with 68 per cent providing a written agreement and 32 per cent not, and different practices around charging security deposits (bonds).

Some providing written agreements use an agent to manage the letting process, while others do not provide a written agreement. Most think house rules are important:

I mean we’re pretty flexible, but we have those rules in place because if we have to evict someone, we can (BHOP01).

Some proprietors charge a security deposit (sometimes up to four weeks, which is over the limit prescribed by the Act), while others did not require a bond at all:

I don’t take bonds (BHOP16).

As another proprietor said:

Honestly for myself, I don’t want to be fill up a form [sic] and get a …$200 bond. They don’t have that (BHOP13).

It was not unusual to waive a security deposit simply because charging one would exclude potential residents.

68 per cent provided some form of written agreement to residents, while 32 per cent did not.

75 per cent provided rent increase notices in writing while thirteen per cent inform residents only verbally.

68 per cent charge a security deposit (bond). Of these, 56 per cent charge a security deposit (bond) equivalent to two weeks rent. 24 per cent charge equivalent to one week and eleven per cent charge the equivalent of four weeks rent (contrary to the Act).

32 per cent do not charge a security deposit at all.

93 per cent included all utilities in the rent. Seven per cent charged for bills separately (some proprietors reported having separate electricity metering).

Just under 10 per cent offered meals, however 91 per cent did not offer meals.

100 per cent gave access to bathroom facilities, 96 per cent to kitchen facilities and 93 per cent had laundry facilities. Some offered Wi-Fi, communal dining room, linen service and cleaning. Usually, basic levels of furnishings were provided (bed, fridge, TV and cupboard).

In terms of notice of termination for a resident to leave, nine per cent do this only verbally (contrary to the Act), and 31 per cent in writing. 59 per cent said they do both (give notice verbally and in writing).

35

6.2.3 Residents mix

Over half or 54 per cent of proprietors let to a variety of low income and working people while sixteen per cent agree most of the residents are single people on Centrelink payments. 21 per cent let to people who are mostly working. Only five per cent let mainly to students, two per cent to backpackers and two per cent to new arrivals to Australia, indicating that these are ‘niche’ operations.

54 per cent do not have a preference as to who they let to ‘as long as the rules are followed’.

Proprietors were asked if there were groups they preferred not to let to. 54 per cent prefer not to let to those with severe drug or alcohol problems. 47 per cent prefer not to let to those with severe disabilities or severe mental illness. 42 per cent prefer not to let to people with children. 11 per cent prefer not to let to women.

Boarding house proprietors generally let to people who need affordable accommodation and characterised their residents thus:

low income earners… parolees (BHOP02).

generally poor people (BHOP08).

they are mainly pensioners and low income groups, or Job Start [sic] (BHOP19).

A minority of residents are people who are in the labour force.

Another described the clientele as:

the broad spectrum of humanity… we have a mixture of…tradies who geographically live further afield, are in Sydney working…to pensioners who see this as an alternative to being locked up in a unit, because a bit of community [sic]…to divorced daddies… (BHOP15)

Some reserved judgement or took a ‘wait and see’ approach:

I never discriminate on the person because I’ve had people that look rough as guts and they’re the nicest people, I’ve had people that are very well dressed and look really nice and the biggest scumbags (BHOP01).

No. I don’t discriminate. I sit them down, go through every rule and regulation under the sun…I mean drugs is the biggest issue, and if I find it or smell it, you’re out (BHOP12).

Some chose to avoid ex-prisoners:

I don’t tend to want to take people that are getting out of gaol (BHOP14).

Some preferred men to women:

Men I think is more easy than the lady [sic] (BHOP13).

36

Some proprietors prefer ‘healthy people’ (BHOP5) and many do not want to let to people with drug addictions:

I prefer them to have no compulsive addictions (BHOP6).

drug users are a big problem (BHOP8).

Some are more forgiving of alcoholics (as long as they did not cause too much trouble).

Two of those interviewed allow children in their boarding house but not for long periods:

there are two times I let children there, but I tell them, it’s temporary because I don’t think the environment is good for children (BHOP17).

The assisted boarding house proprietor interviewed focuses on people with intellectual disabilities but excluded persons with drug or alcohol issues:

I’ve dealt with enough of that and I’m not interested (BHOP04).

Two proprietors specialised in student accommodation mainly to students coming from interstate or country areas, and one of these is faith-based.

6.2.4 Wellbeing of residents

When proprietors were asked to rate the residents’ wellbeing from zero to ten, most proprietors estimate this to be above average. About a fifth or 18 per cent claim a wellbeing score for their residents as nine out of ten, and 11 per cent claim a score of ten. This contrasts with residents’ answers. When residents were asked how satisfied they were with their life as a whole and asked to score from zero to ten, only six per cent self-assessed as nine out of ten and only seven per cent self-assessed as ten out of ten (completely satisfied). This indicates proprietors may overestimate the wellbeing of their residents.

Residents wellbeing is influenced by a complex of factors and may not be overly determined by where they live, but by other factors such as poverty and mental illness.

Two proprietors from Newcastle state that some of their residents had ‘no-one’ and compare the boarding house to a family. Some see themselves as providing a community or almost quasi-governmental service in low cost accommodation:

[We are] taking 14 to 16 people off the streets [i.e. they would otherwise be homeless] (BHOP20).

If I’m not here, boarding house not there, government have to look after full time, you know how much money they have to spend? They should think about this [sic] (BHOP13).

37

Indeed some proprietors receive direct referrals of applicants from Housing NSW to their boarding house. Some use Housing NSW as an agent - where they have a vacancy, they call Housing NSW who sends them persons in need of accommodation.

Proprietors are aware of the drug and alcohol addictions of residents and also mental health issues:

I built up a fairly proactive relationship with Croydon mental health…they would see whether that person was on the database and had possibly run away from people in white jackets from another geographical area to suddenly pop up here (BHOP 15).

One proprietor spent ‘days’ trying to get a crisis team to see a resident with mental illness (they attended). Another proprietor was upset by a resident’s suicide and reflected on the social isolation of the resident:

he [the resident] want to talk to me more. You know some people, that’s what they need. People, some people they need smile face, because they never see smile face [sic] (BHOP13).

In short, a minority of the proprietors see themselves as taking on a role as more than that of landlord. Others prefer to use an intermediary to manage the day to day operations (such as an agent or caretaker).

6.2.5 Access to services

In terms of residents requiring extra care, 33 per cent of proprietors stated that residents could access community and government services, while 67 per cent felt they could not. This indicates proprietors may think services are inadequate.

A proprietor67 commented:

there is a lack of communication from Boarding House Service providers such as Newtown Neighbourhood Centre and others, or the proprietor not making enough effort to find services, or associated organisations to Boarding House Business.

Proprietors who were interviewed did not mention many specific services, apart from Newtown Neighbourhood Centre or mental health teams.

A Newcastle-based proprietor is critical of services:

I find the majority of NGOs get too busy, either don’t care, or once they’re in a residence they just dump them and we’re left to pick up the pieces (BHOP12).

The same proprietor was asked to care for a mentally ill resident as the local mental health unit did not have a bed for him:

67 The Advisory Committee to this research included a boarding house proprietor who made the comment.

38

[the doctors said] can you keep an eye on him, he’s on the edge…I’m his landlord at the end of the day. But what can you do? The poor kid’s got nobody…I’m not just a landlord. We’re a social worker to blokes that just have nothing, have no one (BHOP12).

Some proprietors claimed to take personal care of residents:

he make himself dirty, I have to clean up for him. I wash his poo, I empty his wee (BHOP13).

One proprietor had to clean up after a dead resident’s body was discovered, after some days.

6.2.6 Affordability

Rent on average was $189.75 per single room and $244.10 for a shared room.

Forty-one per cent of proprietors rate their boarding house accommodation as ‘very affordable for most residents’. 59 per cent rated it as’ reasonably affordable for most residents’. Nine of the proprietors said it was ‘not affordable for most residents’. As a proprietor stated,

if the accommodation/service was out of reach we’d be simply out of business.68

This was at variance with resident opinion – 14 per cent rate the boarding house as very affordable, 53 per cent as reasonably affordable and 33 per cent as not affordable. This indicates proprietors may have a different perception of the affordability of the accommodation to residents, however it is the case that boarding house accommodation is relatively more affordable than other accommodation, and may be cheaper than other accommodation with similar facilities (for example backpackers hostels, motels etc).

Proprietors mention strong demand as an indicator of the value of boarding houses as a source of affordable accommodation:

There’s got to be something…if they’re run well and they do the right thing, yes, like us, they’ll always have a good clientele (BHOP15).

In general vacancy rates were observed and reported to be very low.

6.2.7 Knowledge of Act

70 per cent of proprietors claimed to be aware of the Boarding Houses Act 2012, and 29 per cent said they had some understanding. Two per cent said they were unaware of it or had not heard about it.

68 ibid.

39

When asked how many weeks rent increase notice is required to be given, 25 per cent answered two weeks while 54 per cent answered four weeks (as required by the Act). 21 per cent did not know. Nobody answered that no notice was required.

In terms of return of bond, 61 per cent claimed to return the bond straight away, 33 per cent within two weeks (the Act requires within two weeks) and seven per cent said did not know. Nobody answered within four weeks.

In regards to disputes, 67 per cent correctly identified the NCAT as the appropriate place for boarding house disputes, however 28 per cent did not know. Four per cent nominated the local court and two per cent nominated the Land and Environment Court.

Most proprietors use written house rules of some sort however not many use the standard form of Occupancy Agreement based on the Act’s Occupancy Principles (available on the Fair Trading website). Many referred to ‘house rules’ rather than an ‘agreement’ – some use a document based on the Innkeepers Act, and some use their own inventions:

basically I designed this paper by myself and they just sign that they are familiar and ready to follow the rules (BHOP10).

My leasing is a very tight lease, but that comes from nine years of operating (BHOP12).

A minority were not using or had not used any form of written agreement until recently.

Student-specific boarding houses use ‘one year agreements’ and reset the rent before the commencement of the next year’s agreement.

Certain proprietors use the agreement as a way of reinforcing the rules and need for good behaviour at the beginning of a residency:

we read it through with every resident before they sign it (BHOP07).

Of rent increases, there was mixed knowledge of the Act’s suggested 28 day notice period:

we normally give a month’s notice anyway, we always have (BHOP11).

about a month, but I don’t increase very often (BHOP01).

Others gave longer:

I always give them two months anyway, but I think it’s a month, 30 days or something like that (BHOP14).

However there was also lack of awareness about the recommended 28 day notice period:

I think it was two weeks – two weeks’ notice (BHOP02).

40

6.2.8 Standards and compliance

82 per cent claim all of their boarding houses are registered. 12 per cent answered that some are registered and five per cent admit that none are registered.

71 per cent say the Council had inspected their boarding house(s) within the last 12 months while nearly a third – 29 per cent- have not undergone an inspection.

96 per cent have a current Fire Safety certificate with only four per cent without.

Most proprietors are registered (the sample mostly includes proprietors from the registry so it is less likely to be representative of the sector as a whole). One proprietor claimed to be ‘one of the first to register in NSW’. Some proprietors have not registered, or misinterpret what ‘registration’ means, such as believing ‘registration’ means business registration:

I always register with the business name...it’s not the Fair Trading looking after the registration it was ASIC...I always renew it every three years (BHOP19).

Most think a registration system is a good idea and report little impact on their operation:

I don’t think it makes a difference to me. I was known to council that I’m a boarding house whether it’s registered or not (BHOP01).

Others see the Act as a way of better regulating the industry and removing substandard proprietors:

I think it will improve ...living conditions for people, because there are a lot of unscrupulous proprietors out there (BHOP06).

we’re happy to be accountable and we’re happy to have our name on the Boarding House Register if people want to look it up (BHOP07).

One thinks the registration requirement is a waste of time:

It makes no difference. It waste your time, you’re wasting money, for what, honestly? Yeah I’m registered, but for what? [sic] (BHOP13).

There was some scepticism about whether the Act actually increases standards as compliance with building, health and fire safety standards is already being enforced by councils (at least in the areas that these particular proprietors are operating in). Another who has not registered sees the new Act as onerous ‘red tape’.

One proprietor suggests that more can be done to find out unregistered boarding houses:

if you had 10 tenants registered at the same address on the Centrelink website, then you should go, well hang on, ok, we’ve got all these tenants at the same address, is that registered? (BHOP12).

He went on to say that the legislation will not catch the dodgy proprietors and that it is ‘feel-good’ legislation.

41

In regards to Council inspection, almost all proprietors report annual or more frequent, inspections by Council. While no proprietor reported being threatened with being shut down or fined, they indicated that regular work orders are issued, especially those operating in Ashfield or Marrickville LGA:

Yes every year he [the inspector] comes, we talk and he always asks to do something (BHOP10).

he [the inspector] comes out every year and tries to find something he can report on (BHOP15).

Some find Council’s directives unnecessary:

...so they want parking for three cars, they want parking for three motorbikes, push bike riding. The guys don’t own cars; they don’t own motorbikes (BHOP11).

Again, council directions are felt to be too prescriptive at times:

I’ve had residents who decided to build a little patio thing where they could have a barbeque...Council go ‘oh no, you’ve got to remove that’....they’re very heavy handed (BHOP01).

A proprietor in Ashfield complained:

they charged me $450 for a one hour inspection. They provide nothing in writing...they charge you so much money and they don’t even provide you with a written report... I don’t think Ashfield Council is very understanding about the issues of ...low cost accommodation (BHOP14).

Other general boarding house proprietors in Newcastle also report no inspections. This is in accordance with Newcastle Council’s data which reports zero inspections of boarding houses in 2013 (see Appendices). There may however be resource issues and it is unknown what the NSW-wide situation is. Councils may not have inspection regimes in place due to lack of awareness of the Act’s requirements, lack of resources and/or concerns about possible impact of making orders on homelessness.

Assisted boarding houses are inspected by ADHC. For one proprietor of an assisted boarding house in Newcastle, ADHC is seen as too heavy-handed:

[they] got a building inspector to do a report on our house, videotaped my house, read me my rights, you know, like in the movies? ...it’s certainly totally restrictive (BHOP04).

This person says they are preparing to leave the industry.

There are complaints about planning restrictions on change of use as some proprietors wish to convert their residences into ‘normal residential’ or sell as a non-boarding house:

because you’re registered you cannot change that use later on. Now that is unjust as far as I’m concerned (BHOP06).

42

This is incorrect – this is a matter for council and subject to application – however there is a perception that a change of use approval is hard to secure. Proprietors may want a change of use so they can bequeath premises to children, use premises for themselves in retirement, or sell for capital gain.

6.2.9 Land tax exemption and grants

68 per cent claim the land tax exemption. However 32 per cent do not (suggesting that proprietors are either unaware of this or are not registered, as unregistered proprietors cannot claim this).

One proprietor is not claiming land tax exemption and does not want to register:

they just say they won’t give it to you unless you register…I’m paying hundreds of dollars a year in land tax, all I do is give everything I make to the government and they steal it from you basically in land tax (BHOP08).

Another could not negotiate the bureaucracy:

I asked a couple of times, I called the tax office, they tell me you have to pay, I just keep going to pay, pay, pay (BHOP13).

However the majority of proprietors seem to be obtaining the land tax exemption without too many problems.

The land tax exemption is important for businesses’ bottom line. As one proprietor said:

[we] probably would look at it differently if that exemption wasn’t in place (BHOP7).

Only six per cent have applied for the Fire Safety Upgrade grant, while 94 per cent have not. Some are ‘looking into’ the fire safety grants or need to submit paperwork.

For those involved in new build boarding houses (four proprietors only), only one has sought the Boarding House Financial Assistance Program (new supply) grant whilst the other three have not.

One proprietor states that:

There are reports that the state government has run out of funding for giving grants for fire safety upgrades and also building additional rooms.

It has been confirmed that funding for the Boarding House Financial Assistance Program Fire Safety is available from FACS Housing NSW. Availability of funding for the new supply component of the Boarding House Financial Assistance Program is available from time to time and funding approvals are made periodically.

43

6.2.10 Sustainability and future of the boarding house sector

44 per cent confirmed they expect to still be in the business in five years’ time. 25 per cent answered that they do not expect to be in the business in 5 years’ time. 32 per cent are not sure if they will or will not be.

Opinions about the future of the industry are generally positive. Demand is reported as strong, and most boarding houses are at full capacity and can fill vacancies within 24 hours.

Some proprietors are negative about rising costs:

Yes, electricity is the biggest issue because the electricity has gone haywire (BHOP19).

Proprietors seek more support from government:

if the government would give us…financial assistance to go green, or to implement some sustainable water tanks or solar …that would be the way to go, because that way we can keep our rates down… (BHOP14).

Many also mention insurance as another ‘big ticket’ item: “the cost of insurance is staggering” (BHOP12) and is a “big, big portion” (BHOP19) of costs.

One proprietor itemises costs as follows:

First, the insurance is very high, it’s $15,000 a year….the electricity…another $15,000 and the water rates is around $5000 or $6000. Then another cost is Council rates nearly $6000…plus all the maintenance, and even the cleaning is nearly now $12,000 (BHOP17).

Thus, annual running costs are estimated by this proprietor to be in the order of $53,000 per annum.

Other costs mentioned are the cost of borrowing (loans for boarding house operations are on a commercial, not residential, basis).

While capital gains were mentioned, few feel they are doing very well out of the business and combine running a boarding house with running another business, a skilled profession or waged work. Those without mortgages on properties are less likely to claim to be ‘doing it tough’.

A key risk for proprietors is rent arrears:

...their rent [has] got to be paid first, and paid on time (BHOP19).

However, where someone is evicted, the vacancy can usually be filled quickly.

Another factor mentioned is the personal time proprietors spent on running the boarding houses (although some proprietors are outsourcing this to agents or caretakers):

There is no quantification of the time spent on it; we’re not really doing it for the money (BHOP20).

44

The same proprietor expects a ‘1 million’ possible capital gain (should they sell).

False fire alarms (caused by resident) are mentioned as an annoying cost:

The fee from the fire brigade is $1500 for a false alarm, which owner pays. Consequence of this is it gives owners greater incentive to have a non-compliant system as they can get charged $1500 for a false alarm call out.69

The proprietor doubted they could reclaim this money from the resident (assuming they could identify who caused the false alarm in the first place).

Apart from on-costs, supply is another factor. A property developer turned ‘New Generation’ boarding house developer explains the supply factors that influence her:

Too many [‘new generation’] boarding houses. Everyone seems to be doing them in Newcastle… I’ve got to go and try and find something else to do (BHOP09).

Proprietors sometimes feel the:

government need help the owner who really want to the community to share the government burden, help the elder people or lower income [sic]. They have to do something (BHOP17).

While proprietors complain about costs, and a quarter intend to leave the business within five years, residents have the view that most proprietors are doing reasonably well, or quite well, from running the business (see above).

6.2.11 Education about rights

70 per cent of proprietors claimed to be aware of the Act; 29 per cent have ‘some understanding’ and only two per cent have not heard of it. Despite this, significant numbers of proprietors are contravening some of its key provisions. For example, 11 per cent of proprietors charge bonds of four weeks rent, a quarter are not giving at least a months’ notice for rent increases (25 per cent answered that two weeks’ notice is adequate) , and roughly a quarter to a half70 charge key deposits (however 32 per cent do not charge security deposits at all).

Despite information being available to proprietors on the Act both in hard copy form and on the Internet, a proprietor states:

Well I don’t know how I can get a copy of it, so I probably don’t understand it (BHOP16).

Given the level of knowledge of proprietors is low to just reasonable, more information needs to be distributed to proprietors.

69 Ibid. 70 There was no question specifically about key deposits, this is an estimate based on verbal information provided by residents and proprietors.

45

Proprietors who are not aware of the Act’s provisions tend to exaggerate the likely impact of the Act:

I’m not sure of all the regulations… I’m not in support of the whole general concept…Everything that is happening with business is too onerous (BHOP8).

This proprietor has not registered his boarding houses and is not claiming land tax exemption.

Another proprietor represents the majority view:

The change to the Act has had no impact on us at all. All it’s done is really just I suppose make us….just have a look at ourselves….really at the end of the day there was no worry at all (BHOP15).

6.3 Agencies

6.3.1 The introduction of the Boarding Houses Act 2012

Agency staff participating in the evaluation came from a variety of non government organisations, as well as State and Local Governments .

Agency workers reflected on the situation prior to the introduction of the Boarding Houses Act where the Youth and Community Services Act (1973) covered what were previously called ‘licensed residential centres’:

It was a very old Act, very obscure, lots of problems with it. The language was antiquated. Its purpose was unclear. Some of the conditions were legally questionable. To some extent that was fixed with the Boarding House Youth & Community Services Regulation 2010, which at least gave legal clarity (AW3).

The Boarding Houses Act 2012 is something some of the agencies have been lobbying for and advising on for some time:

Marrickville Legal Centre have been arguing for boarding house reform since it was formed in 1979, so it’s been for quite a long time… We had significant concerns about the draft bill but there were quite a lot of changes made to what became the final Act (AW06.)

In the early days of implementation, one worker highlights the lack of information about the sector:

The issue we've got, and we've had since day one, is the lack of baseline data. So - and I think that's been the problem...The fact that we've only got, you know, 600 or so registered. Now, I know there's hundreds that aren't registered. So I think that's an issue (AW02).

46

6.3.2 Agency work

Agencies – especially ADHC – are doing educational work with proprietors:

So we’re looking at that probably in the next half of the year towards probably starting August, around then, to get that going. So we’ve already started with the information kit and the information we’ve got in it now has come from visiting the general boarding houses and finding out what their needs are and what information they require and also in line with the Act as well (AW31).

ADHC has developed a tool for proprietors to assess potential residents’ independent living skills and needs. One proprietor who participated in the research is using this.

In respect to assisting general boarding house residents, agency workers identify local networks and contacts:

Yeah, we do referrals to whatever the need is at the time, yes. There’s so many. And every day I find out two or three new services, it’s unbelievable the amount that’s out there. It’s a matter of bringing it all together (AW24).

However most agencies do not do outreach into boarding houses due to health and safety concerns (sole staff members) and prefer clients to attend at the workplace.

6.3.3 Boarding house operations

The Act is impacting less on general and more on assisted boarding houses. An inspector states that:

In terms of improvements, no one’s telling me, ‘I have to do this because of the Department of Fair Trading or the Boarding Houses Act, but they’re just going along as normal. I have noticed with the assisted boarding houses – we’ve got three in [LGA name], we had five – the owners are – they understand the changes and how they have to make changes to the building (AW35).

The Act is identified as impacting on the assisted boarding house sector in positive ways:

You know the changes that have happened, the improvements that have happened over the last ten years to the quality of a life and the whole setup of assisted boarding houses is just incredible. I’ve seen a massive difference now two years off, been brand new to the sector; I find it completely and utterly confronting (AW34).

Spot checks are identified as leading to better quality accommodation.

47

However while improvements are evident in assisted boarding houses, it is predicted that some assisted boarding houses will close as a result of the requirements to house a maximum of 30 residents in single occupancy rooms. One agency worker said that the ‘gameplan’ of proprietors is to wait until the five years’ adjustment period is about to expire, then seek exemptions:

What we’re getting from the actual proprietors through conversation is that it’s not financially feasible, they’re going to get out, or they think that it’s just so far in the distance, by the time that that comes around they’re going to have been given the exception and they won’t have to comply with certain ones of like the one person rule. (AW21)

General boarding houses are not really impacted specifically, apart from the requirement to register. Those under a council inspection regime are already aware of requirements in regards to building codes, fire safety and report making improvements as a result of Council inspections. Council workers see little change and are ‘doing what they’ve always done’.

6.3.4 Knowledge of the Act

Agency workers do not think boarding house residents are as aware of the new legislation and their rights under the Act as they could be:

I mean, that's obviously an issue whether residents are aware of their new rights (AW06).

Facilitator 1: “What about those of you dealing with people who are living in boarding houses? Have they heard of it?” Male agency worker: “No.” Female agency worker: “No”

There are limitations in the Act itself which curtail residents’ ability to utilise it:

I think probably occupants don't have the confidence to use the Act. If they don't have the knowledge they don't have the confidence because they can still be evicted. That's a problem really for actually using NCAT (AW33).

6.3.5 Access to services Services for residents in assisted boarding houses are adequate to good:

They get primary and secondary health, they get community mental health, some of the residents get mental health recovery, individual services from HASI, they get social recreational services. One of the places has a registered nurse that goes in weekly, as well as GP visits. (AW34)

There are some minor integration issues requiring ‘tweaking’ (AW09) and getting the service delivery as integrated as possible.

48

The National Disability Insurance Scheme rollout in Newcastle has its own set of issues: So with a registered boarding houses in Newcastle right now, there are support services from ADHC and from Health. However, if a person has a support plan with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, they no longer access those Health services (AW23).

In the general boarding house sector, fewer services are available. Apart from specific outreach projects such as that run by Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, services to residents living in general boarding houses are more limited. Home Care is not available at all:

Working in general boarding houses I've actually had a lot of trouble getting basic domestic assistance services like Home Care to go in. They've told me that they don't go into boarding houses (AW14). if a person requires home care, they’ll be screened out entering a registered boarding house (AW23).

Agency workers prefer clients to come to them rather than enter a boarding house due to occupational health and safety concerns because staff resources only allow for sole workers. Outreach workers identify problems getting access to residents in some general boarding houses:

We’ve got boarding houses we’ve just gone to now where there’s guys there that are so sick, like really sick. We’ve walked in and gone, ‘Wow!’ and the caretakers just go, ‘Get out.’ Won’t let us in, won’t let anyone in there, won’t allow us to talk to anyone in there (AW17).

6.3.6 Standards and compliance

Agency workers generally believe the Act to be a positive thing, especially in the Assisted sector. However in relation to the need to register, concerns have been raised that the enforcement of registration is not happening. If boarding houses do not register then government finds it harder to identify these and work with proprietors:

The ones that we can't work with and don't know how to get to them are the ones who haven't registered. And we know that there are a number of them, we just don't know what the number is. I don't know who's actually doing it (AW03).

Several agency workers expressed concern that no-one has taken ‘ownership’ of enforcing the registration provisions of the Act:

I don't know if there is a real appetite to do it (AW03).

49

If you register, good. If you don't no one's going to bite you to enforce that (AW 33).

...but what I’ve heard is that the local councils don’t feel they should be policing that, the OFT don’t feel like they should be policing it and ADHC doesn’t feel it’s their role (AW30).

There is evidence that Councils either do not wish to take on enforcement or (incorrectly) believe that this is Fair Trading’s responsibility:

Well I haven’t looked at fining anyone for being unregistered, we’re waiting for the Department of Fair Trade to do that (AW35).

It is, in fact, Council’s responsibility under the Act to issue fines. He later identified resourcing issues:

If we have to do everything else and look at beyond the physical boarding house, then we probably need another officer (AW35).

While inspection regimes are in place in Ashfield and Marrickville LGAs, there was little evidence of inspections taking place in Newcastle:

There are certainly scores at least, the places with five or more beds and very few of them are registered. Suburbs like Lambton, Jesmond and so on are just full of them. And some of them are very poorly run (AW22).

Newcastle Council is not seen as responsive:

I know that when I rang up last week regarding an accommodation service that got bed bugs... that I had to speak to three different people from the council and nobody knew anything about anything and they just kept passing the buck. (AW29).

The evidence from agency workers is that Councils do mainly exercise their powers under the Local Government Act, do carry out inspections, but do not enforce the requirement to be registered or any other provision of the Boarding Houses Act 2012.

Assisted boarding houses are more tightly regulated however this is a continuation of the regime that existed under the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 (NSW).

6.3.7 Emergent issues in relation to the Act A tenancy service worker identified concerns about the enforceability of the occupancy principles as there is no protection from retaliatory eviction in the occupancy principles:

So really that makes most of the occupancy principles a moot point because an attempt to enforce it leads to eviction (AW6).

There is guidance provided as to what ‘reasonable notice’ for eviction is rather than set periods (and this was intentional). In contrast the comparable Victorian legislation specifies notice periods for a variety of circumstances.

50

There seems to be no requirement (or knowledge of) the standard Occupancy Principles (Schedule 1 of the Act) amongst proprietors as observed by agency workers:

We've seen very little uptake of the Office of Fair Trading Standard Form of Agreement. Most proprietors seem to still be using the same agreements that they used before (AW6).

This affirms the information given by proprietors themselves (only one proprietor participating in the research was using this). The very definition of a boarding house (five or more unrelated persons in a dwelling) is open to challenge:

You know, shop type premises, they’ve got five rooms, I said, ‘Mate you can’t have that, it’s a boarding house.’ And he said, ‘I don’t need to be registered’ (AW35).

In terms of matters that have gone to the Tribunal a tenants’ advocate commented:

So good fair results so far, they should be backed up with penalties. (AW16)

Notwithstanding the above comments about certain aspects of the Act, the biggest identified problem is not within the Act but rather who enforces the Act:

We also believe there are a lot of boarding houses that are not registered and so whatever regulation there is isn’t working (AW22).

In short, authorised officers are not using their powers to make orders or to fine those proprietors who do not register.

6.3.8 Sustainability of the boarding house sector The assisted sector, it was felt, will shrink, primarily for two reasons: one, facilities will be limited to 30 beds, and secondly, due to the single occupant per room requirement:

there’s people dealing with the fact that some are going to close down because they can’t offer single beds basically (AW34).

Another pressure (or driver) of loss of boarding house stock is the gentrification of inner city areas:

everyone knows what the house prices are worth here, catch ya later! Especially near the city, sitting on gold mines! (AW17).

A government agency worker predicts growth based on the sector fulfilling a need:

51

But we’ve talked about this among our team, the need for boarding houses, is it sustainable. We sort of feel that it’s actually going to grow. I know some of us actually feel that this industry will actually only grow (AW30).

The sector provides supposedly short-term accommodation but an NGO worker thought it preferable to have better quality, affordable housing available for long-term housing needs:

As well as delivering this special sort of housing, [it is preferable to be] also delivering the mainstream affordable housing (AW16).

6.3.9 Education about rights

Agency workers generally thought residents were not aware of their rights under the Act in the general sector. There was a view that more information needs to be made available, in plain English:

it has to be simple, it has to be able to read it, have to understand it, you know, there’ve got a lot of challenges around that (AW17).

If residents knew more, one worker thought this would improve the sector as whole:

Through education hopefully the residents of unregistered boarding houses or general boarding houses, will get to know their rights and they will push for those owners to register and operate a proper boarding house, that’s on my wish list (AW13).

6.4 Legal matters

6.4.1 Emerging issues arising from disputes

As of December 31st, 2013, there have been no recorded decisions pertaining to the Boarding Houses Act from the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of NSW (NCAT71) or its predecessor Tribunal. However, there have been fifteen applications made to the Tribunal under the new Act.

In relation to the fifteen applications, only three applications resulted in orders; presumably, these were straightforward and without the need to weigh conflicting evidence. See Appendix 9.9 for more detail.

Chris Martin, Senior Policy Officer, Tenants Union of NSW, has reported on two cases from NCAT finding them to be "just good, fair results”72 (but without penalties). One case related to Occupancy Principle 3, which states a resident cannot be penalised for a breach of the occupancy agreement. The resident, with the help of an advocate, was able to come to a mutually acceptable settlement

71 Formerly known as the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW. 72 Chris Martin Boarding House Residents in the Tribunal n.d. http://tunswblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/boarding-house-residents-in-tribunal.html

52

regarding the return of her security deposit73. In the other case, dealing with Occupancy Principle 8, a proprietor was ordered to refund a key deposit because security deposits must not exceed two weeks of an occupancy fee.74 Although there have only been a few cases reaching the NCAT so far, the Tenants Union predicts that this will be the trend; the benefit of the Act will be in giving guidance to proprietors and residents to negotiate their own disputes and reach mutually agreeable mediated resolutions.75

In addition to NCAT statistics, the Fair Trading call centre that advises both boarding house proprietors and residents provided the following statistics.

• There were 87 inquiries relating to boarding houses in 2013. • 38 of these were inquiries about Fair Trading Administration information (presumably, about

the registration process). • Three enquiries related to rent, and a further 30 related to rights and responsibilities (a

variety of categories). • There were five calls registered as ‘complaints’.

The volume of calls indicates that Fair Trading received an increasing number of calls throughout 2013, peaking in September. See the Appendices for more detail.

In terms of emerging legal issues, it is rather early to identify any trends. Martin Barker, Tenant Advocate for the Inner West Tenants Advice and Advocacy Legal Service at Marrickville Legal Centre, has identified a number of concerns regarding the Act.76 “Section 5 of the Act allows for a broad definition of boarding houses that is governed by the use of the premises as a boarding house, rather than whether any of the occupants have a residential tenancy agreement. The reason for this is to ensure that the Act provides protection to occupants in the situation where an owner has a residential tenancy agreement with a head tenant, who then rents out the rooms to occupants who don’t have the benefit of a residential tenancy agreement77. However, in these circumstances the head tenant and residents may not realise that they are subject to the Act. Section 5 of the Act allows for a broad definition of boarding houses that draws into it share house accommodation whereby there is a main tenant who then sublets to other residents. However, in these circumstances the head tenant and residents may not realise that they are subject to the Act.

Another identified problem with the Act is that residents are not protected against retaliatory evictions whereas, by comparison, tenants are protected from such evictions under the Residential Tenancies Act.78 An example of a retaliatory eviction is when a residence is not in a reasonable state of repair, as required by Occupancy Principle 1, and a resident who makes a complaint is subsequently evicted instead of the repair being completed.79 A further problem identified relates to Occupancy Principle 10 which requires that a resident must not be evicted without reasonable

73 Ibid 74 Ibid 75 Personal Correspondence with Chris Martin on 29 May 2014 76 Personal correspondence with Martin Barker 2 June 2014 77 Personal correspondence with Martin Barker 2 June 2014; personal correspondence with Louise Blazejowska, 29 August 2014. 78 ibid 79 ibid

53

written notice.80 In determining what is reasonable notice one of the factors that a proprietor can take into account is the safety of other residents, the proprietor and the manager of the registrable boarding house. The omission of a set minimum period of notice in the Act may create uncertainty and makes it difficult to advocate on behalf of the resident.81

6.4.2 Compliance

Whereas the Act provides the legislative tool for improving the boarding house sector the responsibility for making it work relies on the participation of everyone involved; proprietors must be willing to comply with the legislation while the appropriate agencies must be willing to enforce it. Key areas of enforcement include the registration of boarding houses and compliance with all appropriate legislation in relation to health and safety. Furthermore, there are added areas of enforcement for assisted boarding houses dealing with their authorisation.

Failing to register with NSW Fair Trading is an area of non-compliance that has been identified as a problem. A possible explanation as to why some proprietors fail to register is that they have not been declaring their earnings with the tax office and therefore do not wish to draw attention to themselves (AW14). Another problem is a misunderstanding amongst councils as to who is responsible for enforcing registration; uncertainty exists as to whether NSW Fair Trading would issue fines or whether it was the council’s responsibility (AW35).

The Act only requires an initial compliance inspection to be conducted by councils. However, many of the requirements under the initial compliance inspection fall under the jurisdiction of other Acts, and law, for example Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Food Act 2003, Local Government Act 1993 and Public Health Act 2010.82 It is expected that these Acts should provide ongoing protection.

Another issue with councils is how seriously officers have accepted their responsibilities under the Act; an ADHC officer reported:

some councils want to work with us [ADHC], certain other councils do not want to work with us (AW12).

However, the other side to this problem is that too much compliance may mean the difference between:

losing accommodation and keeping accommodation (AW10).

Consequently, there can be an unwillingness to impose fines for non-compliance for fear of fining people out of the sector and instead a preference for educating proprietors (AW12). Another explanation for the lack of enthusiasm by some councils may be due to insufficient resources (AW35). As councils are already equipped with staff required to inspect building standards for fire,

80 ibid 81 ibid 82 Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) s.6 & s 26

54

health and safety under other legislation, they are able to combine these responsibilities with their obligations under the Boarding Houses Act. Concern was raised that if occupancy agreements are not inspected and enforced meaningful change is not likely to happen due to the vulnerability of residents.

Reasons why proprietors may not wish to comply with the Act have also been identified. Resistance to change was considered a likely cause of non-compliance as there are some ‘hard head’ proprietors (AW11) who have developed a sceptical attitude towards the act perceiving it as

a conspiracy [and that] the government is trying to force everybody out (AW21).

These proprietors fear that the NGOs will take over and either house the residents or upskill them to live independently (AW21).

Early indications reveal that some assisted boarding house proprietors felt that it was not financially viable for them to comply with the Act and make changes that would cost money. They were hoping that when the time came for them to be potentially penalised or have their authority suspended or revoked for non-compliance the government would grant them exceptions (AW21). They have adopted the attitude of

worry about it later, not do anything now… things are going to change in five years (AW21).

One approach being adopted by some assisted boarding house proprietors is to increase the rent to pay for renovations arguing that because they were not being funded it would be the residents who would have to bear the burden of the extra costs for complying with the Act (AW21).

For some proprietors of assisted boarding houses the one person per room rule is an insurmountable problem as their buildings are not capable of being modified; consequently, they will be forced to close down (AW35). Furthermore, some large assisted boarding houses will lose too much in profits if they reduce to accommodate only 30 beds.

Another area of confusion for proprietors of general boarding houses was the concern that because a resident was on a disability support pension they might be considered a person with additional needs (AW14). Proprietors were concerned that they might not be complying with the Act and be penalised; however, this problem can be solved by ensuring that proprietors receive adequate education.

At this stage the relationship between proprietors and enforcing agencies appears to be to

walk[ing] that tight rope between compliance and education and support (AW10).

55

7. Discussion

This section will reflect on the specific research questions outlined in the Scope of Works for this report.

7.1.1 The boarding house sector – characteristics

Without accurate statistics this is impossible to know for sure the number and mix of registered and unregistered boarding houses in NSW, and the ‘types’ of boarding houses, but some estimates are provided below.

776 boarding houses were registered in NSW at the time of writing. However based on actual boarding house lists compiled by Councils and NGOs that attempt to record all known boarding houses in a specific area, the real number is likely to be around double (if we use Marrickville LGA as an example roughly 47 per cent of boarding houses that are known to exist are actually registered).83 This may be even higher in other areas where there may be less council inspections and therefore less pressure to register.

Therefore, if we extrapolate from small area data, it is estimated that there are 1552 or more boarding houses (both registered and unregistered) in NSW, housing 27,936 persons. This estimate is based on the survey results (from proprietors), where it was found that the average number of residents per boarding house is 18, and reported boarding houses compared to registered boarding houses (drawn from data from the study areas). Therefore, the estimated total number of boarding houses is as follows:

776 * 2 = 1552

1552 * 18 = 27,936

We further estimate that of NSW boarding houses:

• ‘New generation’ comprise ten per cent • ‘Not for profit’ comprise under five per cent – some welfare and/or church organisations

provide these

These are estimates based on the sample size from this study (specifically, from fieldwork observations and survey data).

Trends:

83 For example, 92 boarding houses are registered in Marrickville however a list compiled for this project includes 194 boarding house addresses. Therefore only 47 per cent of known boarding houses are registered.

56

• there has been a trend towards ‘new generation’ new builds with 30+ rooms; and • little evidence of closures.

These estimates are based on the sample of boarding houses from surveys and as observed in fieldwork. Without systematic primary observational data for the whole of NSW however these will remain a best estimate.

7.1.2 Protection of residents

The majority of residents are as yet unaware of the Act (56 per cent). Therefore, it is difficult to assess how it impacts upon their wellbeing.

There have been some cases going to NCAT which have been resolved via mediation. The outcomes were generally “fair” according to tenancy advocates (see above comments from AW16). Given that residents had no specific legislation and few legal avenues to go to previously, the very fact of having an Act, along with advice available from Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services and Fair Trading,, may be seen as an advance and the fact that there have been cases before NCAT indicate this.

Knowledge of the Act does not necessarily imply better knowledge of rights. A cross tabulation indicates that those residents who are aware of the Act are no more or less likely to correctly identify NCAT (both N = 11) as the place to go for dispute resolution (see Figure 12 in Appendices). A fifth or 22 per cent answered ‘don’t know’.

Few residents had accessed any written information about their rights. This suggests that a major education campaign is necessary and that one requirement may be that all residents receive a ‘boarding house residents guide’ similar to the ‘renters’ guide’ given to tenants at the point of starting a residency.

The TU's Boarding House Education Project (BHEP) will develop and implement an education program to ensure that sector stakeholders, particularly boarding house residents, are aware of the Boarding Houses Act 2012 and its application and have the skills to identify and take action under the relevant provisions of the legislation. The BHEP will run to 2016. To date the BHEP has convened a consulting group of sector stakeholders; facilitated training for advocates, other community workers and council officers; conducted information sessions with sector stakeholders; conducted a workshop with current and former residents to inform educational resource development; and published an ongoing email bulletin. So far the focus of the BHEP has been on traditional general boarding houses; it will later also focus on informal general boarding houses, including roomshare accommodation targeted to international students.

57

7.1.3 Safety and wellbeing

As this is the first year of a four year data gathering exercise, wellbeing data is considered as baseline, and will be compared against responses other years later. Some preliminary observations are that residents’ wellbeing is generally rated as above average by residents themselves, using the modified Personal Wellbeing Index as part of the survey. The same survey found evidence of high consumption of medical services (75 per cent) and unmet needs (specifically, for dental services and social housing, amongst others).

Although residents tended to rate themselves as above average on wellbeing scales on the survey, interviews allowed for more probing discussions and residents were more likely to discuss their problems in greater depth, revealing a range of issues including poor health, experiencing mental illness, and histories of being in gaol. A cross tabulation of a question about overall life satisfaction and use of services does not reveal any specific pattern (see Figure 13 in Appendices). If we isolate visits to a doctor or hospital those rating their overall life satisfaction of five or more seem slightly more likely to have visited the doctor or hospital in the last three months. This may indicate those with poorer outlooks do not look after themselves as well.

Obviously in later years of this evaluation, the baseline findings can be compared to see if improvements to wellbeing have occurred.

In terms of basic safety, 88 per cent of residents reported they were able to lock their room and rated the overall security as good. Security doors are provided (at least at the front of the premises) however gaining access during the day was easy for the researchers. Although the doors are supposed to be locked at night some residents complained that others did not do this. However none reported actual burglaries. Residents mainly complained that it was the other residents not locking the doors rather than inadequacy of security arrangements that was the problem.

7.1.4 Occupancy

Most residents had not been in situ for very long – 53 per cent had been in the same boarding house for less than a year.

Other important factors affect residents’ ability to sustain their tenancies more such as income, ability to pay rent and this can be affected by substance abuse and other factors.

Some residents mentioned arbitrary evictions, for example, a caretaker not liking them. The Act gives residents some rights in regards to eviction (more than they had before) however, residents still report feeling powerless in relation to eviction and most would not contest this, preferring to leave. So although legal avenues exist, the question then becomes whether residents know about them and will access them. Proprietors often complained about rent arrears and reported having to evict people for non-payment of rent.

58

It is not known to what extent the provision of services to residents assist them to maintain their occupancy but certainly those residents who were aware of a community centre, or had a caseworker, expressed that if a problem arose they would talk with someone.

7.1.5 Impact of the Act on standards

For general boarding houses, the effects have been minimal. The Act is not seen as onerous. Indeed some proprietors see the Act and registration requirement as a positive thing and a way of improving overall standards within the sector, and hopefully reducing the ‘cowboy’ operations. Proprietors are much more concerned with escalating costs, particularly rising electricity and insurance costs. These are outside the reach of the Act.

For the assisted boarding house sector, the Act will potentially reduce the number of operations due to the requirement to house no more than 30 residents and to ensure single room occupancy.

Another major factor affecting all boarding houses is the generally older age profile of proprietors. This may lead to closures as proprietors retire. Some proprietors expressed their desire to convert the operation back to ordinary residential.

On the other hand, ‘new generation boarding houses are being built – however the rents are typically much higher (more than $300 a week) than the ‘old style’ boarding houses and residents are more likely to be students or working people.

There is some evidence that proprietors are undertaking upgrading works, perhaps aware that they may be inspected. However inspection regimes were in place prior to the Act. It is difficult to know what unregistered proprietors are doing, however many are subject to Council inspection as a matter of course.

Residents have noticed some changes such as upgrades to facilities. There is evidence from residents that councils are inspecting regularly (in Marrickville and Ashfield LGAs). Those that had registered did not report that this was onerous or had particularly changed their practices – however it is possible proprietors may be downplaying upgrading works.

Examples of practices contrary to the Act that persist, as reported by some residents, include charging for key deposits and giving less than four weeks’ notice of a rent increase.

Proprietors indicated that they were becoming more conscious of rules about rent increases and returning security deposits. There was little consciousness about charging key deposits.

It may be that proprietors who have registered are aware of the inspection regime and may therefore bring forward works, however an inspection regime was in place previously (at least in Ashfield and Marrickville LGAs).

There was evidence from agency workers and assisted boarding house residents that assisted boarding houses have particularly been improved (including the food provided), however there was

59

also evidence that some proprietors would be leaving the industry because they will not be able to comply with the maximum resident limit and single room occupancy requirements.

In summary, for the registered boarding houses, there is little evidence of any major changes. Given the limited knowledge we have of unregistered boarding houses, the picture is somewhat incomplete.

7.1.6 Impact of the Act – registration

Several of the proprietors interviewed considered registration to be a waste of time, as creating a greater burden, and as onerous. However proprietors with unregistered boarding houses that were interviewed were not aware of the specific requirements of the Act and therefore may overestimate its impacts. Surprisingly some proprietors would prefer to pay land tax and be unregistered suggesting there may be other financial benefits for them to be unregistered. We can reasonably assume some proprietors are still ‘flying under the radar’ in order to escape inspection and perhaps to continue running cash in hand businesses. Another motivation may be to secure a possible change of use of the premises (if it is not known, or does not have development consent to operate as a boarding house, it can later be converted to ordinary residential and perhaps sold for gain). A third motivation is to avoid Council scrutiny if premises are substandard.

Unfortunately due to the difficulty of finding boarding house proprietors with unregistered boarding houses willing to participate in the research (only one was interviewed), we can only speculate based on general comments from proprietors about what they saw as the negative impact of the legislation.

7.1.7 Dispute resolution

Few cases have gone to the NCAT from boarding house proprietors (the total is seven).

From surveys and in interviews with proprietors, no proprietor reported using NCAT as an avenue for dispute resolution - while the majority (67 per cent) correctly nominated NCAT as the place to hear disputes, 28 per cent did not know.

Residents likewise did not often correctly identify NCAT as an avenue for dispute resolution.

7.1.8 Residents’ use of services

The majority of residents felt that their needs are being met (N = 145) and identified having adequate access to services such as medical and casework services. One of the highest services used

60

in the previous 3 months was doctors or hospitals (N = 153). Following this was food services (N = 113) which suggests that those on the low incomes may necessarily seek out free food.

When asked about unmet need, a significant group (N = 36) required access to dentistry. This was followed by social housing, /counselling/psychology, help with rent/bills, medical specialists and optometry, in that order (see Figure 5).

Vulnerable residents with access to caseworkers and other services may be able to get assistance before falling into rent arrears or with mental health and substance abuse issues. Certainly residents with such contacts indicated that they would seek help and advice if they needed it.

Home Care services are available but do not go into general boarding houses however there was anecdotal evidence of the need for domestic and personal services (some residents living in squalor - not cleaning their rooms, hoarding, not eating properly, etc.). It is unclear how such services could be delivered if boarding houses are automatically ‘screened out’ of Home Care programs. Likewise, while the Boarding House Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative (BHHASI) resources are mainly allocated to assisted needs residents due to the limited number of packages rather than any guideline preventing the application of HASI to general boarding house residents (HASI in the Home can apply to any person in any tenure type). Although some residents reported seeing psychiatrists, there was also unmet need identified by residents for mental health services, for themselves and other residents. It was reported however that mental health teams did visit individuals in boarding houses.

Substance abuse was reported as prevalent by residents. 24 residents reported accessing drug or alcohol counselling, and then a methadone program, within the last three months.

For general boarding houses, apart from boarding house specific outreach projects (NNC) there was little evidence of any co-ordinated approach. There are too few services available for the number of boarding houses.

Proprietors were aware of services yet did not appear to regularly contact services or refer residents to services. There were instances of proprietors contacting the mental health crisis teams to attend a particular resident. In addition, two other proprietors had taken on ‘caring’ activities for specific residents in need at times. Other activities included providing free barbeques.

Residents were also asked to identify if there were two or more residents who required daily care or could not look after themselves. There is evidence of two or more persons requiring extra assistance from time to time in a minority of general boarding houses. However generally residents did not report a large number of persons requiring extra assistance – usually this was limited to a single, and sometimes two, residents. However there is no systematic way of ascertaining the situation. Where information from the Register indicates that there are people with additional needs living on the premises and/or a report is received, ADHC will investigate a general boarding house to see if these should be reclassified as assisted.84

84 Notifications of specific addresses that may require investigation will be given to ADHC annually arising from the information gathered in the course of the research.

61

In relation to assisted boarding houses, a good range of services are available. This is reported by agency workers, and the residents surveyed indicated that they did not have unmet needs.

As mentioned above, there was evidence from agency workers and assisted boarding house residents that assisted boarding houses have particularly been improved (including the food provided). In regards to general boarding houses, residents reported upgrades. Some of these were as a result of council issuing notices to carry out works, and some was to add on extra rooms or facilities, perhaps to increase rental yield or higher paying residents.

7.1.9 Sustainability of the boarding house sector

As demand is high, most proprietors had no problem in finding replacement residents after an eviction. Therefore some proprietors were not concerned about sustaining residencies if the resident was not paying rent or causing a nuisance – there are plenty of others to take their place. Other proprietors gave residents chances to remedy before evicting.

Those proprietors who are registered reported little impact on their business and did not see the Act’s requirements as particularly onerous. Some saw it as positive and that it would improve overall conditions in the sector and hoped that the ‘cowboys’ would be removed from the industry.

There was a view that Councils’ sometimes make unreasonable demands of proprietors however many see fire safety as vital.

Some assisted boarding houses may close due to the cost structures and requirements on numbers and having single rooms; others are making the requisite changes to the premises and will most likely continue to operate. This area does have to be monitored.

7.1.10 The Act and government and non-government organisations that work with the boarding house sector

The NGO sector appears to collaborate effectively around the general boarding house sector but outreach work is limited to niche programs in certain geographical areas. ADHC’s mandate is the administration of Part 4 of the Act. Where it receives requests or complaints about general boarding houses with two or more residents with a disability, ADHC investigates those matters to ensure compliance with the legislation. In terms of enforcing compliance with the registration requirements of the Act, Councils were unaware of their powers, thought this was Fair Trading’s responsibility, or are unwilling to issue orders or fines to proprietors of unregistered boarding houses. Some Councils have an inspection regime in place with regards to building, health and fire safety standards; others do not appear to. It is unknown what the situation is across NSW.

62

While Fair Trading hosts the register, it has no function in relation to enforcing the Act. No resources in the form of staff time in central Government have been dedicated to assisting Councils to implement the Act (in contract with Victoria, where resources have been made available to Consumer Affairs in respect of the recent regulatory changes). However FACS has committed staff time to training, drafting factsheets and template inspection forms for Councils. It is unclear how the requirement to register will be enforced in NSW, without adequate resources being dedicated to this, both at the central government and local government levels.

7.1.11 What’s working and what’s not? What changes should be made to the Act?

There are definitional issues that have been raised in regard to how a boarding house is defined.

Few residents are aware of their rights, but are becoming more aware. Despite the Act, there is a reluctance to assert their rights – perhaps unsurprising given the lack of recourse to evictions that are retaliatory and the requirement for ‘reasonable’ notice rather than set notice periods.

The Act requires an inspection be made after a boarding house is registered. In practice some Councils are not doing this.

There is little evidence councils are issuing orders or fining proprietors for failure to register. However this is not due to any flaw in the Act, which gives authorised officers this power; it is an implementation issue. Where there are 100 or more boarding houses in an LGA, it has been argued by a local government officer (AW35) that an inspector may be required to comprehensively enforce the Act’s requirements. However there is also ample evidence that Council officers who do inspect do not attempt to issue an order to register, or impose a fine for failure to register. A requirement to register could form part of existing inspection regimes, or even take the form of a simple letter to the proprietors of known and suspected boarding houses in the LGA, asking them to register. There is a belief (whether erroneous or evasive) that enforcement is Fair Trading’s responsibility.

See the conclusions section (below) for specific suggestions around implementation.

7.1.12 Has the Act had an effect on homelessness in NSW?

The causes of homelessness are multi-factorial. Homelessness is related to factors such as unemployment levels, the level of Centrelink payments, housing costs, competition for affordable housing, vacancy rates, and personal factors (to a limited extent).

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that:

• the homelessness rate rose by 20% or more in New South Wales between 2001 – 2011;

63

• nationally, there were 17,721 homeless people in boarding houses on Census night in 2011, up from 15,460 in 2006 (but down from 21,300 in 200185).

• 6507 of the 17,721 homeless persons in boarding houses in 2011 were in NSW • these persons made up 23 per cent of the total estimated homeless population in NSW. 86

The ABS further found that homeless boarding house population is overwhelmingly male (75%), and much older than the rest of the homeless population - 46% of the boarding house homeless population is aged 45 years and over, compared to 22% of the other homeless groups being of that age.

The next Census will occur in 2016 and may yield more data prior to the five year expiry of the evaluation of the Act.

Other data sources such as the Homeless Persons Information Centre87 received calls 66,610 calls in 2009 - a record in 25 years of operation and over 13,000 more calls than in the previous year.88

More recent data from City of Sydney’s biannual rough sleeper count showed a 26 per cent rise in the number of people sleeping rough over the past year, the highest count since winter 2011.89 In Parramatta, rough sleeper counts showed a downward trend in recent years.90 There is anecdotal evidence that rough sleeping is increasing in Marrickville LGA but this is based on observations by Council officers91 rather than any systematic ‘count’ of rough sleepers.

In summary, without a systematic count of boarding houses and residents since the commencement of the Act it will be difficult to know if the Act is contributing towards, or having no effect on, homelessness. This evaluation indicated (based on a fairly limited sample size) that proprietors do not appear to be planning to exit the industry in great numbers (although in the assisted sector, some proprietors may exit the industry once the required changes have to be made) and given new entrants into the sector, the Act does not seem to have noticeably caused boarding house closures or exacerbated homelessness, at least in this early stage of its operation. The situation will continue to be monitored via these annual reports.

85 The ABS states that changes in methodology may explain the difference between the 2001 and 2006 figures as the classification of dwellings was refined from 2006 (see Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011), Census of Population and Housing: Estimating Homelessness, 2049.0, ABS: Canberra, p.84). 86 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011), Census of Population and Housing: Estimating Homelessness, 2049.0, ABS: Canberra. 87 HPIC has been replaced with a statewide service called Link to Home. 88 Clover’s eNEWS, Friday 28 August 2009,No. 462. 89 City of Sydney (2014) ‘Urgent need for more housing and support’, http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/urgent-need-for-more-housing-and-support/ 90 See Darcy, M., Drake, G., Blunden, H. and Steinwede, J. (forthcoming) Rough sleepers: from Street to Home, Final Report, Parramatta Mission: Parramatta. 91 This was discussed at the Marrickville Affordable Housing Committee meeting, June 2014.

64

8. Conclusions

Knowledge of the Boarding Houses Act

While awareness of the Act is slowly growing, the boarding house residents surveyed and/or interviewed displayed limited knowledge of their rights and responsibilities or where to access information. Consideration may be given to increasing access to hard copy material. For example, a booklet for boarding house residents similar to the ‘Renters’ Guide’ given to tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act. While information for residents and owners is available on the Office of Fair Trading website, this evaluation found limited levels of internet use amongst residents, and low levels of use amongst some boarding house operators.

Compliance and enforcement of the Boarding Houses Act

While the Act is clear in apportioning responsibility for enforcement, there is still some misunderstanding among the different tiers of government including Councils that local government has the power to enforce the registration requirements of the Act. It is clear from interviewing government agency workers that registration provisions of the Act are not being enforced, in particular, the requirement for owners of general boarding houses to register. While Council officers are inspecting general boarding houses systematically in some LGAs, in other LGAs officers have not undertaken any inspection of boarding houses as they are required to do under the Act. There may be resourcing issues that need to be addressed.

Promotion of the land tax exemption as an advantage of registration

The availability of NSW Government land tax exemptions for boarding houses should be promoted amongst proprietors. This may encourage more proprietors to go through the registration process with NSW Fair Trading in order to take advantage of the tax exemption.

Additional needs

ADHC investigates general boarding houses where there are reports of two or more persons with additional needs. This is an important way of assisting persons who may need extra care and ensuring that boarding houses are classified correctly (i.e. as general or assisted). ADHC is following up on reports it receives and carrying out educational work with boarding house proprietors.

Outreach services

While there are mental health outreach services provided to some general and assisted boarding houses, given the high representation of people with mental illness in the boarding house population, the sector would benefit from an increased focus on prevention and early intervention, as well as greater coordination of outreach services.

65

Unmet needs

The evaluation found, from the sample of 215 residents, that access to dentistry is a key unmet need, as identified by the residents. This is not unsurprising given that dentistry is not covered by Medicare and hard to access for people on a low income. Other key unmet needs included access to social housing and psychological services.

Fire safety

Notwithstanding the existence of a fire safety certificate, there were concerns raised by residents and agency staff that further systemised inspections may be needed to ensure fire safety systems are in fact operational.

66

9. Appendices

9.1 Appendix 9.1: Project staging

The project will is being staged as follows:

2013-early 2014

Task 1: Finalise evaluation design • Methodology and project plan • Ethics approval

Task 2: Data sources and Instruments • Finalise data sources. Develop evaluation tools (such as survey instrument, interview

questionnaires). Pilot and refine instruments.

2013-2018

Task 3: Data collection and analysis (annual) • Early implementation snapshot study (interval 1) • Data collection and analysis (interval 2) • Data collection and analysis (interval 3) • Data collection and analysis (interval 4)

Task 4: Reporting • Interval 1 Report • Interval 2 Report • Interval 3 Report • Draft final report • Final report

67

9.2 Appendix 9.2: Research questions

The Act and boarding house residents

Key task: Assess whether the rights of residents of boarding houses are better protected following the introduction of the Act.

i. Has the Act contributed to the residents of registered boarding houses feeling of safety and well-being?

ii. What is the general profile of needs for services of people in general boarding houses?

iii. To what extent do residents of registered boarding houses live in premises that are secure?

iv. To what extent has the Act affected residents of boarding houses capacity to sustain their occupancy?

v. To what extent do registered boarding houses meet the set standards?

vi. To what extent are managers of registered boarding houses using reasonable dispute resolution mechanisms to manage occupancy disputes?

vii. Have there been changes in the way boarding houses proprietors provide services as a result of the Act?

viii. What, if any, effect do or could government provided support services have on the sustainability of the boarding house sector/benefits to proprietors and residents?

Data sources and instruments

• Wellbeing surveys and interviews with boarding house residents in a mixture of boarding house types (registered, unregistered, general, assisted, ‘old style’ and ‘new generation’).

The Act and boarding house proprietors

Key task: Determine the effects of the Act on the sustainability of the boarding house sector.

i. To what extent do registered boarding houses meet the set standards?

ii. To what extent are managers of registered boarding houses using reasonable dispute resolution mechanisms to manage occupancy disputes?

iii. Have there been changes in the way boarding houses proprietors provide services as a result of the Act?

iv. What factors contribute to proprietors not registering boarding houses?

68

v. What, if any, effect do or could government provided support services have on the sustainability of the boarding house sector/benefits to proprietors and residents?

Data sources and instruments

• Interviews with proprietors of a mixture of boarding house types (registered, unregistered, general, assisted, ‘old style’ and ‘new generation’).

The Act and government and non government organisations that work with the boarding house sector

Key task: Determine levels and types of collaboration between departments, agencies and community organisations that work with the boarding house sector. • Is the Act being implemented successfully? • What is the level and type of co-ordination and collaboration between departments,

agencies and community organisations? • What effect is the Act having on the boarding house sector? Residents? Proprietors

businesses? • What’s working and what’s not working? What changes should be made to the Act, if

any?

Data sources and instruments

• Focus groups with agency workers (government and non-government organisations)

The boarding house sector – characteristics

Key task: Determine the changing characteristics of the boarding house sector.

i. What is the rate of registered, unregistered, new generation private and not for profit boarding houses as a percentage of the total boarding house sector, and what trends can be identified?

ii. How many residents of boarding houses are there in NSW and what is the rate of change from 30 June 2013?

iii. To what extent, if any, has the introduction of the Act had an effect on homelessness in NSW?

Data sources and instruments

• Local Government boarding houses compliance data and Development Applications

69

• NSW Civil and Adminstrative Tribunal – applications and heard cases

• Tenancy Advice and Advocacy Service database

• Housing NSW Boarding House Financial Assistance Program grants

• NSW Department of Fair Trading Boarding House Register

• NSW Office of State Revenue boarding house land tax exemptions

• Australian Bureau of Statistics

• Participant interview data.

70

9.3 Appendix 9.3: Boarding house proprietors surveys in detail

There were 57 responses from boarding house proprietors.

. Your age # Answer

Response % 1 15-19

0 0% 2 20-29

2 4% 3 30-39

3 5% 4 40-49

12 21% 5 50-59

17 30% 6 60-69

13 23% 7 70+

10 18% Total 57 100%

2. Is the boarding house general or assisted? # Answer

Response %

1 General - for the general public

56 98%

2

Assisted - operates under Aged, Disability or Home Care license, specifically for people with a disability who need daily care

1 2%

Total 57 100%

71

3. What is your main source of income? # Answer

Response %

6 Income from boarding house business only

21 40%

7

Income from boarding house business and other business

18 34%

8

Combination income from boarding house business and wages from a job

14 26%

9

Combination income from boarding house business and Centrelink payment (e.g. Aged pension, etc)

0 0%

Total 53 100%

72

4. Where are the boarding houses you own or operate located? You can tick more than one box if you own more than one boarding house.

# Answer

Response %

6 Canterbury-Bankstown

0 0%

7 Central Northern Sydney,

1 2%

8 Central Western Sydney

4 7%

9 Eastern Suburbs,

7 13%

10 Fairfield-Liverpool,

0 0%

11 Gosford-Wyong,

0 0% 12 Inner Sydney,

10 18%

13 Inner Western Sydney,

29 52%

14 Lower Northern Sydney,

1 2%

15 North Western Sydney,

0 0%

16 Northern Beaches,

0 0%

17 Outer South Western Sydney,

1 2%

18 St George-Sutherland

0 0%

19 Central West NSW,

0 0%

20 Far West-North Western NSW,

0 0%

21 Hunter,

5 9% 22 Illawarra,

2 4%

23 Mid-North Coast,

0 0%

24 Murray-Murrumbidgee,

1 2%

25 Northern NSW,

1 2%

26 Richmond-Tweed,

1 2%

27 South Eastern NSW

1 2%

73

5. How many people live in your boarding house(s)? Fill in for each boarding house that you own. BH 1

6. BH 2 7. BH 3 8. BH 4

Statistic Value Total Responses 56

8. Does the occupancy fee (rent) include utilities (gas, water, electricity?)

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes - it's included

53 93%

2

No - residents are charged for bills separately

4 7%

Total 57 100%

0

5

10

15

20

25

under 5 5 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31-50 50+

74

9. Does the occupancy fee (rent) include meals? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes - 3 a day

1 2% 2 Yes - 2 a day

2 4% 3 Yes - 1 a day

2 4% 4 No meals

52 91% Total 57 100%

10. Do you have any preferences on the types of residents you let rooms to? # Answer

Response %

3 Anyone can be a resident – as long as they pay every week and follow the rules

31 54%

4 I prefer not to let to people with severe drug or alcohol abuse issues

31 54%

5 I prefer not to let to people with severe disabilities or severe mental illness

27 47%

6 I prefer not to let to people with kids

24 42% 7 I prefer not to let to women

6 11%

8 Other _______________________________

7 12%

11. How long have you been in the boarding house business? # Answer

Response % 1 Under 1 year

1 2% 2 1-3 years

3 6% 3 4-6 years

10 19% 4 7-10 years

10 19% 5 10 years +

30 56% Total 54 100%

75

12. Are you aware of the Boarding Houses Act 2012? # Answer

Response % 5 Yes

39 70%

6 Some understanding

16 29%

7 Not aware of this/haven’t heard about it

1 2%

Total 56 100%

13. Does the boarding house have a current fire safety certificate? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

53 96% 2 No

2 4% Total 55 100%

14. How do you tell residents about an occupancy fee (rent) increase – verbally or in writing?

# Answer

Response % 1 Verbally

13 25% 2 In writing

40 75% Total 53 100%

15. Do you provide a written Occupancy Agreement for your residents? (i.e. a document outlining the basic rights and obligations of both you and your residents as per the Act – Standard Agreement)?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

38 68% 2 No

18 32% Total 56 100%

76

16. Do you know how much notice has to be given for an occupancy fee (rent) increase?

# Answer

Response % 3 None

0 0% 4 Two weeks

14 25% 5 Four weeks

30 54% 6 Don’t know

12 21% Total 56 100%

17. How many weeks occupancy fee (rent) is this bond equivalent to?

# Answer

Response % 1 1 week

11 24% 2 2 weeks

25 56% 3 4 weeks

5 11% 4 Not applicable

4 9% Total 45 100%

18. Do you provide written occupancy fee (rent) receipts to your residents if they require these?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

53 95% 2 No

3 5% Total 56 100%

19. Do you charge a security deposit (bond)? Note – this is DIFFERENT to a key deposit.

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

39 68% 2 No

18 32% Total 57 100%

77

20. If you want a resident to move out, do you give verbal or written notice?

# Answer

Response % 1 Verbally

5 9% 2 In writing

17 31% 3 Both

32 59% Total 54 100%

21. After a resident moves out, and they don’t owe you any money for anything, if you charged them a security deposit (bond), within what timeframe do you have to return the security deposit?

# Answer

Response % 8 Straight away

28 61%

9 Within 2 weeks

15 33%

10 Within 4 weeks

0 0%

11 Don’t know

3 7% Total 46 100%

78

22. How would you rate the overall wellbeing of your residents on a scale of 1 to 10? Circle a number.

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all - 0

0 0%

2 1

0 0% 3 2

0 0% 4 3

1 2% 5 4

4 7% 6 5

6 11% 7 6

9 16% 8 7

10 18% 9 8

10 18% 10 9

10 18%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

6 11%

Total 56 100%

23. Income - Other Text Response Other Business and other income Business - newsagency just wages from job professional services

79

25. Are most of your residents: # Answer

Response %

1 Single people on Centrelink

9 16%

2

A mixture of very low income and working people

31 54%

3 Nearly all working people

12 21%

4 Students

3 5% 5 Backpackers

1 2%

6

New arrivals/people seeking Australian residency

1 2%

Total 57 100%

26. Has the Council inspected your boarding house(s) in the last 12 months?

# Answer

Response % 8 Yes

40 71% 9 No

16 29% Total 56 100%

27. Have you registered the boarding houses you own with Fair Trading?

# Answer

Response %

12 All are registered

47 82%

13 Some are registered

7 12%

14 None are registered

3 5%

Total 57 100%

80

28. How much do you charge residents a week (i.e. weekly occupancy fee/rent) for a typical single or shared room? Single: 29. Shared:

30. How affordable do you think your accommodation is? # Answer

Response %

4 Very affordable for most residents

23 41%

5 Reasonably affordable for most residents

33 59%

6 Not affordable for most residents

0 0%

Total 56 100%

02468

101214161820

Shared room

Single room

81

31. What do residents receive for their occupancy fee payment? [Tick more than one box if necessary]

# Answer

Response %

7 Access to bathroom facilities

54 100%

8 Access to kitchen facilities

52 96%

9 Access to laundry facilities

50 93%

10 Meals are provided

4 7%

32. Other Text Response self-contained bedroom with kitchen Free off street parking, laundry of linen if requires, crockery, cooking appliances, micro waves, all flats carpeted, own kitchens Fridge, bed, tv & cupboard in room Self-contained Room Service once a week - to keep rooms clean and free of mice/cockroaches WiFi, Furniture in the room Internet car parking linen service Big dining room Community Room washing powder, toilet rolls, dish washing liquid, sheets once a week All utilities and toiletries TV rooms, ironing rooms WiFi WiFi

82

33. Do you claim the Office of State Revenue land tax exemption? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

38 68% 2 No

18 32% Total 56 100%

34. Have you applied for the fire safety upgrade grant? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

3 6% 2 No

51 94% Total 54 100%

35. For new buildings only: Have you applied for the Boarding House Financial Assistance Program (new supply?)

# Answer

Response %

1 Not applicable – not a new building

25 86%

2 Yes

1 3% 3 No

3 10% Total 29 100%

36. If there are people requiring daily care (for example, psychiatric care or physical care related to disability or being frail/aged) in your boarding house(s), do you feel they can access home and community care services?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

16 33% 2 No

33 67% Total 49 100%

83

37. Are you aware, under the new legislation, which place handles dispute between boarding house proprietors and residents?

# Answer

Response % 4 Local court

2 4%

5

NCAT (NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal - formerly called the CTTT)

38 67%

6 Land and Environment Court

1 2%

7 Don’t know

16 28% Total 57 100%

38. Do you think you will still be in this business in 5 years’ time? # Answer

Response % 4 Probably yes

25 44% 5 No

14 25%

6 I don’t know – it depends

18 32%

Total 57 100%

84

9.4 Appendix 9.4: Boarding house residents survey results in detail

Last Modified: 04/13/2014 1. Gender (researcher to note)

# Answer

Response % 1 Male

176 82% 2 Female

39 18% Total 215 100%

2. Age - do you mind telling me your age? # Answer

Response % 1 15-19

9 4% 2 20-29

27 13% 3 30-39

33 15% 4 40-49

61 28% 5 50-59

44 20% 6 60-69

30 14% 7 70+

11 5% Total 215 100%

3. Where is the boarding house you live in? [work out LGA from address later if necessary]LGA

# Answer

Response % 1 Ashfield LGA

55 27%

2 Marrickville LGA

107 52%

3 Newcastle LGA

42 21%

Total 204 100%

85

4. What percentage is the rent you pay of your total income? [Prompt – is it a third, a half, three quarters?]

# Answer

Response % 1 0-20%

3 1% 2 21-30%

18 9% 3 31 - 40%

24 11% 4 41-50%

43 20% 5 51-60%

50 24% 6 61-70%

35 17% 7 71-80%

24 11% 8 81-90%

4 2% 9 90%+

9 4% Total 210 100%

5. What is your main source of income? # Answer

Response %

1 Disability Support Pension only

63 29%

2 Newstart only

91 42%

3 Aged pension only

13 6% 4 Single Parenting Payment only

1 0%

5 Disability Support Pension combined with employment

1 0%

6 Newstart combined with employment

9 4% 7 Aged pension combined with employment

2 1%

8 Single Parenting Payment combined employment

0 0%

9 Income from employment only

16 7% 10

Other________________________________________________

20 9%

Total 216 100%

6. How many weeks’ rent was this bond? [occupancy fee/security deposit]?

# Answer

Response % 1 1 week

20 15% 2 2 weeks

87 66% 3 4 weeks

25 19% Total 132 100%

86

7. How much do you pay in rent weekly? [occupancy fee?] # Answer

Response % 1 $0-$100

2 1% 2 $101-$150

37 18% 3 $151-$200

101 48% 4 $201-$250

42 20% 5 $251+

27 13% Total 209 100%

8. How long have you been living in your current boarding house?

# Answer

Response %

1 Under 1 year

113 53%

2 1-3 years

61 28% 3 4-6 years

22 10% 4 7-10 years

9 4% 5 10 years +

10 5% Total 215 100%

9. Are most of the other residents who live there: # Answer

Response %

1 Single, mostly males on very low incomes

87 41%

2 A mixture of very low income and working people

100 47%

3 Nearly all working

9 4% 4 Students

20 9% 5 Backpackers/tourist

0 0%

6 New arrivals/looking for residency

1 0%

87

10. Do you or any of the other residents have children living there?

# Answer

Response % 1 No

194 90% 2 Yes

21 10% Total 215 100%

11. Are you aware of the Boarding Houses Act? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

54 25%

2 Some understanding

42 19%

3 No/unaware

120 56% Total 216 100%

12. Can you lock your room? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

190 88% 2 No

25 12% Total 215 100%

13. Have you been provided with any information about fire safety either verbally or in writing?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

111 53% 2 No

100 47% Total 211 100%

14. Have you received a written Occupancy Agreement? [i.e. the basic rights and obligations of both parties as per the Act – Standard Agreement]

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

131 62% 2 No

82 38% Total 213 100%

88

15. Did you pay any kind of bond? [security deposit]? [Note - different to a key deposit]

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

138 66% 2 No

72 34% Total 210 100%

16. Do you get given receipts? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

161 78% 2 No

46 22% Total 207 100%

17. Does this include utilities [electricity, gas, water?] # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

198 92% 2 No

18 8% Total 216 100%

18. Does this include any meals? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

39 18% 2 No

175 82% Total 214 100%

19. How affordable do you think the accommodation is? # Answer

Response %

1 Very affordable

30 14%

2 Reasonably affordable

114 53%

3 Not affordable

72 33% Total 216 100%

89

20. Do you know how much written notice has to be given for an Occupancy Fee [rent] Increase?

# Answer

Response % 1 None

25 12% 2 Two weeks

36 18% 3 Four weeks

29 14% 4 Don’t know

115 56% Total 205 100%

21. If you moved out and you did not owe any money for anything, do you know how long they have to return your security deposit?

# Answer

Response % 1 Don’t Know

108 63%

2 Straight away

27 16%

3 Within 2 weeks

32 19%

4 Within 4 weeks

4 2%

Total 171 100%

22. If you got into a dispute with the owner about your rights, where would you go for advice?

# Answer

Response %

1 Community or Neighbourhood Centre

48 22%

2 Tenants Advice Service/Tenants Union

31 14%

3 Legal Aid

9 4% 4 Caseworker

13 6%

5 Tenancy Tribunal/NCAT

26 12%

6 Other

41 19%

7 Don't know/Not Sure

47 22%

Total 215 100%

90

23. Boarding House satisfaction scale Now I am going to ask you a few questions. You have to give me a number from 1 to 10. On this scale, Zero means you feel no satisfaction at all. 10 means you feel completely satisfied. How satisfied are you with the how the boarding house is run?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all - 0

9 4%

2 1

10 5% 3 2

6 3% 4 3

7 3% 5 4

21 10% 6 5

24 11% 7 6

19 9% 8 7

40 19% 9 8

40 19% 10 9

18 8%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

21 10%

Total 215 100%

24. How satisfied are you with the repairs and maintenance of the boarding house you live in?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all – 0

14 6%

2 1

7 3% 3 2

14 6% 4 3

20 9% 5 4

10 5% 6 Neutral – 5

38 18% 7 6

15 7% 8 7

27 13% 9 8

35 16% 10 9

22 10%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

14 6%

Total 216 100%

91

25. How satisfied are you overall with the security of the boarding house you live in?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all – 0

12 6%

2 1

8 4% 3 2

18 8% 4 3

17 8% 5 4

12 6% 6 Neutral – 5

18 8% 7 6

16 7% 8 7

28 13% 9 8

42 20% 10 9

25 12% 11 10

19 9% Total 215 100%

26. How satisfied are you overall experience of the boarding house you live in?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all – 0

6 3%

2 1

4 2% 3 2

7 3% 4 3

15 7% 5 4

17 8% 6 Neutral - 5

29 14% 7 6

16 7% 8 7

36 17% 9 8

40 19% 10 9

26 12%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

18 8%

Total 214 100%

27. Personal Wellbeing Index scale I am now going to ask how satisfied you feel personally, on a scale from zero to 10. You don’t have to answer these questions if you don’t feel comfortable. Just say ‘skip’ if you don’t want to

92

answer. On this scale, Zero means you feel no satisfaction at all. 10 means you feel completely satisfied. Thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all – 0

6 3%

2 1

7 3% 3 2

11 5% 4 3

15 7% 5 4

18 8% 6 Neutral – 5

37 17% 7 6

23 11% 8 7

41 19% 9 8

26 12% 10 9

13 6%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

15 7%

Total 212 100%

28. How satisfied are you with your standard of living? # Answer

Response %

1

No satisfaction at all – 1No satisfaction at all – 0

5 2%

2 1

7 3% 3 2

16 8% 4 3

18 8% 5 4

21 10% 6 Neutral – 5

39 18% 7 6

14 7% 8 7

42 20% 9 8

26 12% 10 9

11 5%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

14 7%

Total 213 100%

93

29. How satisfied are you with your health? # Answer

Response %

1

No satisfaction at all – 1No satisfaction at all – 0

2 1%

2 1

6 3% 3 2

16 7% 4 3

21 10% 5 4

21 10% 6 Neutral – 5

28 13% 7 6

22 10% 8 7

29 13% 9 8

32 15% 10 9

19 9%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

20 9%

Total 216 100%

30. How satisfied are you with what you are achieving in life?

# Answer

Response %

1

No satisfaction at all – 1No satisfaction at all – 0

9 4%

2 1

8 4% 3 2

14 7% 4 3

20 10% 5 4

14 7% 6 Neutral – 5

31 15% 7 6

17 8% 8 7

38 19% 9 8

32 16% 10 9

10 5%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

12 6%

Total 205 100%

94

31. How satisfied are you with your personal relationships?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all – 0

11 5%

2 1

9 4% 3 2

15 7% 4 3

11 5% 5 4

11 5% 6 Neutral – 5

24 11% 7 6

17 8% 8 7

34 16% 9 8

27 13% 10 9

25 12%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

26 12%

Total 210 100%

32. How satisfied are you with feeling part of your community?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all – 0

7 3%

2 1

7 3% 3 2

7 3% 4 3

7 3% 5 4

17 8% 6 Neutral – 5

25 12% 7 6

20 10% 8 7

38 18% 9 8

40 19% 10 9

18 9%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

22 11%

Total 208 100%

95

33. How satisfied are you with your future plans or prospects?

# Answer

Response %

1 No satisfaction at all – 0

3 1%

2 1

8 4% 3 2

8 4% 4 3

10 5% 5 4

14 7% 6 Neutral – 5

25 12% 7 6

26 13% 8 7

35 17% 9 8

38 19% 10 9

15 7%

11 Completely satisfied - 10

23 11%

Total 205 100%

96

34. Have you used any of these services within the last 3 months? [read out one by one]

# Answer

Response % 1 Doctor or Hospital

153 75% 2 Dentist

45 22%

3 Psychologist or psychiatrist

61 30%

4 Caseworker

64 32%

5 Drug and alcohol counseling/AA/NA

24 12%

6 Home Care

6 3%

7 Aged care facility or retirement village

0 0%

8 Food service

113 56%

9 Other material aid – help paying bills etc

32 16%

10 Methadone

10 5%

11

Housing NSW or community housing – waiting list

68 33%

12 Community or neighbourhood centre

86 42%

Min Value 1 Max Value 12 Total Responses 203

97

35. Which of these services would you LIKE access to, but are NOT getting access to? Text Response Job service Housing NSW and Community Housing Case Worker Can't afford dentist A.A. Dentist Psychology NSW Housing application - previous one had lapsed Dentist More Access to Community Centre Housing NSW NSW Housing or Community Housing Dentist Dentists & Rights Training Dentist Dentist Dentist Dentist Housing NSW & other material aid Yes, general counselling Doctor- Specialist Dentist & psychologist Dental Following up housing and health issues Help Paying Rent Dental - used to be a scheme but now nothing. Dentist & specialist - referral Training Dentist, Housing Dentist Treatment for back Dentist Dentist Public Housing Doctor, Dentist Community Housing Help with bills Chiropractor Lawyer Housing NSW More Community Access Housing Dentist Internet

98

Dentist Housing No Housing NSW waiting list Waiting for Centrelink (living on savings). Dentist. Psychologist. psychologist Wants to know about the boarding house law Psychologist Dentist, optometrist (needs spectacles) Dentist Dentist Dentist Dentist Not sure what services are out there Dentist None except medicare eligibility (student visa) Dentist. Help paying bills. dentist Dentist No NSW Housing Dentist Dental Dentist Dentist Plus trouble with walking - need transport Dentist Help with bills Dentist

36. Are there two or more people with disabilities or who are very aged or frail who need daily care such as help with showering, moving around and taking medication, living in your boarding house?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

76 38% 2 No

126 62% Total 202 100%

99

37. Do any services staff visit to assist anyone in the boarding house?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

89 44% 2 No

114 56% Total 203 100%

38. Have you seen anyone from the Council inspect the boarding house in the last 12 months?

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

78 38% 2 No

129 62% Total 207 100%

39. Are you planning to stay in the boarding house? # Answer

Response %

1 Yes – for the foreseeable future

99 46%

2 Yes - for the short term

68 32%

3 No - I am looking for other accommodation

48 22%

Total 215 100%

40. Are you willing to be contacted again in 12 months? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

204 95% 2 No

11 5% Total 215 100%

100

41. We are also going to be doing some more in depth interviews in the near future Are you interested in that? If you are chosen for an in depth interview you will get compensated for your time again.

# Answer

Response % 1 Yes

166 81% 2 No

39 19% Total 205 100%

42. Participant's contact details - include email, phone, Facebook, friends, professionals. Statistic Value Total Responses 173

43. Type of boarding house # Answer

Response %

1 General – registered

85 83%

2 General - unregistered

6 6%

3 Assisted – registered

10 10%

4

Should be investigated as possibly Assisted

2 2%

Total 103 100%

101

44. Typology of boarding house # Answer

Response %

1

'Older style’ –older dwelling, shared common areas; predominantly males on benefits

104 90%

2

‘New generation’ – newer build or renovated; with kitchenette/ensuite; predominantly younger low income people/students

11 10%

Total 115 100%

102

9.5 Appendix 9.5: Residents survey - cross tabulations

Figure 12: Knowledge or Act and knowledge of where to go for advice

Are you aware of the Boarding Houses

Act? Yes Some

understanding No/unaware Total

Community or Neighbourhood

Centre

15 14 19 48

If you got into a dispute with the owner about

your rights, where would you go for advice?

Tenants Advice Service/Tenants

Union

12 6 13 31

Legal Aid 2 1 6 9 Caseworker 3 3 7 13 Tenancy

Tribunal/NCAT 11 4 11 26

Other 9 9 23 41 Don't know/Not

Sure 2 5 40 47

Total 54 42 119 215

103

Figure 13: Wellbeing question 27 and use of services within the past 3 months

Thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with

your life as a whole?

No satisfaction at

all 0

1 2 3 4 Neutral 5

6 7 8 9 Completely

satisfied - 10

Total

Doctor or Hospital

4 5 10 10 17 25 16 27 19 5 11 149

Have you used any of these services

within the last 3

months? [read out

one by one]

Dentist 1 1 2 4 3 9 4 6 8 3 4 45

Psychologist or psychiatrist

2 0 5 8 6 8 7 9 7 2 6 60

Caseworker 2 3 4 5 9 10 8 11 3 2 4 61 Drug and

alcohol counselling/AA/

NA

0 1 1 2 2 5 2 5 3 1 1 23

Home Care 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 6 Aged care

facility or retirement

village

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Food service 5 5 4 9 11 23 12 24 9 5 4 111 Other material

aid -help paying bills etc

0 1 0 4 5 10 3 4 3 0 0 30

Methadone 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 2 1 10 Housing NSW or

community housing – waiting list

2 0 4 6 9 15 6 12 5 2 3 64

Community or neighbourhood

centre

2 5 3 8 7 17 11 20 7 2 2 84

Total 6 6 11 15 18 37 20 37 25 9 15 199

104

Figure 14: Wellbeing question 27 and visit to doctor or hospital in the previous 3 months

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Visi

ts to

doc

tor o

r hos

pita

l

Wellbeing index quetion 27 - how satisfied ware you with your life as a whole?

105

9.6 Appendix 9.6: Aged, Disability and Home Care, Dept. Family and Community Services data

Data items

Questions Type of data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Item 1 Number of Assisted Boarding Houses in NSW

NUMBER 22

Item 2 How many inspections have occurred this year?

NUMBER *See note

Item 3 How many notices have been issued this year?

NUMBER ** See note

Item 4 Capacity NUMBER 522 Item 5 Actual occupancy NUMBER 470

*Inspections of every ABH occur every 6 to 8 weeks, and a Full Service Review occurs at least once every 3 years

** A monitoring inspection report is left at each visit

106

9.7 Appendix 9.7: Fair Trading – call centre inquiries data

Complaints & Enquiries related to Product "Property - Boarding Houses\Hostels"

Report Period: 01/01/2013 to 31/12/2013

Product Name Enquiries Complaints Property - Boarding Houses\Hostels 87 5 TOTAL: 87 5

Practice Name Enquiries Complaints Conduct - Conduct Not Listed 1 Misrepresentation - Quality (Misrepresentation) 1 1 Pricing\Charges\Rent\Fees - Reservation fees\Security Deposits 1 1 Quality - Unsatisfactory Accommodation 1 1 Rights\Responsibility - Refunds 5 1 Conduct - Harassment\Coercion 1 Conduct - Unlicensed\Unregistered 1 Dispute Resolution - Terms of Contract Dispute 1 Documentation\Agreement - Agreement/Contract 2 FT Administration - Information 38 FT Administration - Publications 1 Pricing\Charges\Rent\Fees - Arrears 1 Pricing\Charges\Rent\Fees - Rent\Occupancy Fees 3 Rights\Responsibility - Access\Inspections 3 Rights\Responsibility - Cancellations\Cooling Off 2 Rights\Responsibility - Compliance Program 1 Rights\Responsibility - Failure To Supply Information\Documents 2 Rights\Responsibility - Lockout 1 Rights\Responsibility - Repairs\Maintenance 1 Rights\Responsibility - Rights\Responsibility Not Listed 20 Scams - Scams - Other 1 TOTAL: 87 5

107

Figure 15: Fair Trading call centre - enquiries and complaints relating to boarding houses, 2013

108

9.8 Appendix 9.8: Housing NSW data

Data items Questions Type of data

Approved in 2013

Completed in 2013 (approved in previous years)

2014 2015 2016

Item 1 How many Fire Safety Upgrade Grants have been approved this year?

NUMBER 5

Item 2 What was the value of these Fire Safety grants (in $?)

$ $59,.580.50*

Item 3 How many Boarding House Financial Assistance Program (BHFAP – New supply) rooms have been completed this year?

NUMBER 72 rooms

Item 4 What was the value of these BHFAP - New Supply grants (in $?)

$ $140,400**

109

9.9 Appendix 9.9: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal data

The Tribunal received 15 applications under the Boarding Houses Act 2012 during the period 1 July 2013 to 31 January 2014:

3 applications lodged in August 2013 3 applications lodged in October 2013 9 applications lodged in January 2014

The applications related to boarding houses in:

Newcastle - 5 applications Sydney - 3 applications Penrith - 2 applications Coonamble - 1 application Gunnedah - 1 application Hurstville - 1 application Mudgee - 1 application Taree - 1 application

The applications were lodged by:

Residents - 5 applications Former residents - 3 applications Proprietors - 7 applications

The applications related to:

The occupancy agreement - 1 application Payment of money - 3 applications Compensation - 2 applications Access to Goods - 2 applications Termination of agreement - 5 applications Rehearing application - 1 application Other unspecified issue - 1 application.

The Tribunal does not collect data on the outcomes of specific matters, however in the 5 finalised applications, primary orders were made as follows:

1 application was withdrawn 1 application was dismissed 2 applications resulted in general orders 1 application resulted in a money order.

110

9.10 Appendix 9.10: Office of State Revenue data

Data items

Questions Type of data 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Item 1 How many tax exemptions for boarding houses were granted in the calendar year?

NUMBER 720

Item 2 What was the total value of these exemptions?

$ $7 million

Item 3 LGA breakdown NUMBER See below

LGA No. of Boarding Houses

ALBURY 7

ASHFIELD 26

AUBURN 2

BALLINA 2

BLACKTOWN 5

BLUE MOUNTAINS 1

BOTANY BAY 9

BURWOOD 31

BYRON 10

CAMPBELLTOWN 2

CANADA BAY 11

CANTERBURY 13

CLARENCE VALLEY 2

COFFS HARBOUR 1

GOSFORD 2

GREATER TAREE 2

GRIFFITH 2

HOLROYD 1

HORNSBY 4

HUNTERS HILL 1

KOGARAH 2

KU-RING-GAI 2

LEICHHARDT 24

MANLY 14

MARRICKVILLE 81

MOSMAN 3

NEWCASTLE 47

111

NORTH SYDNEY 19

PARRAMATTA 8

QUEANBEYAN 1

RANDWICK 57

ROCKDALE 21

RYDE 3

SHOALHAVEN 2

STRATHFIELD 9

SUTHERLAND 7

SYDNEY 224

TWEED 1

WAVERLEY 26

WILLOUGHBY 7

WINGECARRIBEE 2

WOLLONGONG 11

WOOLLAHRA 13

WYONG 2

Grand Total 720

112

9.11 Appendix 9.11: TAAP database (NSW) data

Data items Questions Type of data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Item 1 What is the total number of clients identified in the database as 'Status of Enquirer - Boarder/Lodger' in the calendar year?

NUMBER 346

Item 2 In regards to Enquiry type how many were ‘Other legislation – boarder/lodger’?

NUMBER 306

113

9.12 Appendix 9.12: Hunter TAAP data

Data items Questions Type of data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Item 1 What is the total number of clients identified in the database as 'Status of Enquirer - Boarder/Lodger' in the calendar year?

NUMBER 12

Item 2 In regards to Advice Outcomes for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to the RTT/CTTT/NCAT?

NUMBER 5

Item 3 In regards to Advice Outcomes for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were assisted with representation at the RTT/CTTT/NCAT?

NUMBER 5

Item 4 In regards to Boarders and Lodgers, how many case files were opened?

NUMBER 0

Item 5 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to community support/other?

NUMBER 6

Item 6 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to DOH/Housing NSW?

NUMBER 3

Item 7 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to a general legal service?

NUMBER 2

Item 8 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to health services?

NUMBER 0

114

9.13 Appendix 9.13; Inner West TAAP data

Data items Questions Type of data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Item 1 What is the total number of clients identified in the database as 'Status of Enquirer - Boarder/Lodger' in the calendar year?

NUMBER 111

Item 2 In regards to Advice Outcomes for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to the RTT/CTTT/NCAT?

NUMBER 41

Item 3 In regards to Advice Outcomes for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were assisted with representation at the RTT/CTTT/NCAT?

NUMBER 24

Item 4 In regards to Boarders and Lodgers, how many case files were opened?

NUMBER 24

Item 5 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to community support/other?

NUMBER 9

Item 6 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to DOH/Housing NSW?

NUMBER 11

Item 7 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to a general legal service?

NUMBER 2

Item 8 In terms of referrals for Boarders/Lodgers, how many were referred to health services?

NUMBER 11

115

9.14 Appendix 9.14: Ashfield Council data Data items

Questions Type of data 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Item 1 What is the total number of known boarding houses in the LGA? (i.e. all known to council/on Council's list - include registered and unregistered)

NUMBER 39

Item 2 What is the total estimated number of rooms in known boarding houses in Marrickville LGA?

NUMBER Unknown

Item 3 How many DAs for new boarding houses were received in this year?

NUMBER 0

Item 4 How many new rooms (total) are contained in these DAs?

NUMBER 0

Item 5 How many Change of Use DAs did council receive for boarding house dwellings? (i.e. boarding house changing to a non boarding house use)

NUMBER 0

Item 6 How many rooms is it estimated were lost due to Change of Use DAs?

NUMBER 0

Item 7 How many inspections of boarding houses by Council staff were carried out?

NUMBER 39

Item 8 What were the ratios of Pass/Fail?

NUMBER:NUMBER 85% pass

Item 9 How many orders were issued to boarding house proprietors instructing to remedy something?

NUMBER 0

Item 10 How many fines were issued to boarding house proprietors?

NUMBER 0

116

9.15 Appendix 9.15 Marrickville Council data Data items

Questions Type of data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Item 1 What is the total number of known boarding houses in the LGA? (i.e. all known to council/on Council's list - include registered and unregistered)

NUMBER 182

Item 2 What is the total estimated number of rooms in known boarding houses in Marrickville LGA?

NUMBER 1891

Item 3 How many DAs for new boarding houses were received in this year?

NUMBER 11

Item 4 How many new rooms (total) are contained in these DAs?

NUMBER 146

Item 5 How many Change of Use DAs did council receive for boarding house dwellings? (i.e. boarding house changing to a non boarding house use)

NUMBER 1

Item 6 How many rooms is it estimated were lost due to Change of Use DAs?

NUMBER 10

Item 7 How many inspections of boarding houses by Council staff were carried out?

NUMBER 84

Item 8 What were the ratios of Pass/Fail?

NUMBER:NUMBER

11 pass, 70 fail, 30 n/a

Item 9 How many orders were issued to boarding house proprietors instructing to remedy something?

NUMBER 0

Item 10 How many fines were issued to boarding house proprietors?

NUMBER 0

117

9.16 Appendix 9.16: Newcastle City Council data

Data items Questions Type of data 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Item 1 What is the total number of known

boarding houses in the LGA? (i.e. all known to council/on Council's list - include registered and unregistered)

NUMBER 50

Item 2 What is the total estimated number of rooms in known boarding houses in Marrickville LGA?

NUMBER 600+

Item 3 How many DAs for new boarding houses were received in this year?

NUMBER 8

Item 4 How many new rooms (total) are contained in these DAs?

NUMBER 87

Item 5 How many Change of Use DAs did council receive for boarding house dwellings? (i.e. boarding house changing to a non boarding house use)

NUMBER 0

Item 6 How many rooms is it estimated were lost due to Change of Use DAs?

NUMBER 0

Item 7 How many inspections of boarding houses by Council staff were carried out?

NUMBER 0

Item 8 What were the ratios of Pass/Fail? NUMBER:NUMBER 0 Item 9 How many orders were issued to

boarding house proprietors instructing to remedy something?

NUMBER 0

Item 10 How many fines were issued to boarding house proprietors?

NUMBER 0

118

9.17 Appendix 9.17: comments from Local Government and Shires Association

Note - these comments were received after the due date for final comments. These comments reflect the view of the Local Government and Shires Association (LGSA) only and are not endorsed by the report’s authors. LGSA email text below.

23 September 2014

LGNSW Response to:

BOARDING HOUSES ACT 2012, EVALUATION REPORT 1, 2014, Final Report, Dr. Gabrielle Drake, Dr. Hazel Blunden, Kathy Newton, and Esterina Lentini. 3 September, 2014

P3

Compliance and enforcement of the Boarding Houses Act

While the Act is clear in apportioning responsibility for enforcement, there is still some misunderstanding in different layers of government including Councils that local government has the powers to enforce the Act. It is clear from interviewing government agency workers that the enforcement sections of the Act are not being operationalised, in particular, the requirement for owners of general boarding houses to register. While Council officers are inspecting general boarding houses systematically in some LGAs, in other LGAs officers have not undertaken any inspection of boarding houses as they are required to do under the Act. There may be resourcing issues that need to be addressed.

LGNSW suggests that the Boarding House Act is not clear in apportioning responsibility for enforcement. The Act creates this responsibility for councils by giving councils the power to serve a penalty notice (s98), and commence proceedings for an offence (s99). However, councils were never informed of this responsibility, nor given any support to do this role.

The Guide for councils developed in June 2013 nor the associated Fact Sheet, do not make it clear that councils are responsible for enforcing registration. The Roadshow process undertaken in 2013 did not cover this aspect of the legislation, instead focusing on council’s responsibility to undertake initial inspections.

P62

In terms of the compliance to register functions of the Act, Councils were unaware of their powers, thought this was Fair Trading’s responsibility, or are unwilling to issue orders or fines to proprietors with unregistered boarding houses. Some Councils have an inspection regime in place with regards to building, health and fire safety standards; others do not appear to. It is unknown what the situation is across NSW.

While Fair Trading hosts the register, it has no function in relation to enforcing the Act. No resources in the form of staff time in central Government have been dedicated to assisting

119

Councils implement the Act (in contract with Victoria, where resources have been made available to Consumer Affairs in respect of the recent regulatory changes). It is unclear how the requirement to register will be enforced in NSW, without adequate resources being dedicated to this, both at the central government, and local government levels.

LGNSW supports the position that enforcement of registration places a resource burden on councils.

Difficulties with the registration process, including generating reports and informing councils when new Boarding Houses are added to the register, have also hindered the ability of councils to enforce registration.

P63

There is little evidence councils are issuing orders or fining proprietors for failure to register. However this is not due to any flaw in the Act, which gives authorised officers this power; it is an implementation issue. Where there are 100 or more boarding houses in an LGA, it has been argued by a local government officer (AW35) that an inspector may be required to comprehensively enforce the Act’s requirements. However there is also ample evidence that Council officers who do inspect do not attempt to issue an order to register, or impose a fine for failure to register. A requirement to register could form part of existing inspection regimes, or even take the form of a simple letter to the proprietors of known and suspected boarding houses in the LGA, asking them to register. There is a belief (whether erroneous or evasive) that enforcement is Fair Trading’s responsibility.

Councils are already using various methods to notify BH operators of their responsibility to register, such as through letters, public notices etc. The reference to “ample evidence” that councils who do inspect do not enforce registration is disputed.

It is not always easy to identify a Boarding House, and councils do not have the right to enter a residential premises on the suspicion that it may be a Boarding House.