Sample Case Demonstrating Systemic Corruption within the CTTT NSW
Example Case
This case commenced in January 2011 and remains ongoing. The tenant’s name, and the case numbers involved, can be provided if an official investigation into the corruption within the CTTT is to occur.
Advice and Instructions from CTTT and Fair Trading
· Contact with CTTT/Fair Trading Department Prior to January 2011:
1. Tenant informed the department of her difficulties getting in contact with the landlord as she had been sternly told by the landlord not to use email. Most communication had to be conducted by text message as the Fair Trading official had advised the tenant to ensure all communication occurred in writing. Frequently the landlord was unavailable for months at a time. The official informed the tenant that the landlord must provide a reliable way to be contacted, but the official did not go on to inform the tenant that the compliance section within the Fair Trading Department could have assisted to resolve this problem through education or the issuing of a penalty to the landlord.
2. Tenant was told by an official that she must not remove the landlord’s belongings from the bedroom access storage area even though butane was stored in the cavity, causing a serious fire hazard. The tenant asked if she should get the fire department to remove the combustible liquid but she was told that this could lead to potential liability if the goods were damaged. At no time did the spokesperson inform the tenant that the matter could have been addressed through the Compliance section of Fair Trading, even though she was seeking a remedy to the problem which was a direct breach of the tenancy Act and it could have resulted in a poisonous gas explosion. The tenant was naturally very concerned about her two children who were forced to live with this severe safety risk in their home. The landlord only removed the butane torch months after being informed by the tenant. To add to this threat, the landlord had cut the wires to the electric smoke detectors, as well as the back-up wires. The tenant was told the smoke detectors were in working order and did not discover they were non-operational for over five months. The landlord was not fined for this criminal behaviour.
3. Tenant was told she could make emergency repairs after long periods of non-response from the landlord about the problems.
4. Tenant was told that issues related to toilets, smoke detectors, exposed wires and fire hazards were definitely emergency repairs and not improvements. Therefore she had the right to order repairs without fear of penalty. She was told the money would have to be repaid by the landlord. To date the landlord still owes the tenant almost $1,000 for these emergency repairs.
5. Tenant was told that the landlord had a legal responsibility to lodge the bond. The rental bond board informed the tenant that the bond had not been lodged even six months after the tenancy began, when the tenant rang. There was also no record of a contract being submitted as required. These are both breaches of the Act for which a penalty is specified, but the official did not inform the tenant that this breach could have been dealt with by the compliance section within the Fair Trading Department if she filled in a complaint form.
6. After the tenancy ended the landlord falsely claimed that she had rung the bond board and had obtained approval to delay repaying the bond. The Bond Board stated that they did not provide this information and that she could not withheld any of the bond. The Bond Board official stated clearly that the landlord could not retain the bond without evidence being presented to the tribunal. The tenant was told that the burden of proof rests with the landlord in such situations. To date no relevant proof has been provided by the landlord but she had been awarded almost half the bond.
7. Prior agreement about when the tenant would vacate the house was broken by the landlord without warning. She threatened to move back into the house a day early despite rent already paid covering this period. The Fair Trading department advised the tenant to call the police if this occurred. The matter was then resolved without assistance from Fair Trading.
· Ongoing advice and publications supplied by the CTTT between April – June 2011
1. The tenant was informed by the CTTT that the member will make his decision based on the evidence provided. This to date has never occurred. The tenant brought all evidence specified in the CTTT fact sheets, by tribunal officials as well as additional evidence to all hearings and this evidence is still awaiting attention.
2. The published Factsheets and other materials do not reflect the actual procedures that occur within the CTTT. Large proportions of this information are incorrect, misleading or purely fictional. Evidence resulting from this case is proof of this deception by the CTTT. There is a deliberate impression given by the CTTT and the tribunal that penalties will be imposed on landlords for breaches of the Act during hearings held in the tribunal. In fact the correct procedure for taking this course of action is hidden and almost impossible to discover.
3. Consistently the tenant’s letters to the CTTT went unacknowledged for weeks, even months. Some were never responded to, while others resulted in replies that did not answer the actual question asked. Replies to queries about various procedural matters created more confusion than they solved. There is a deliberate attempt by the CTTT to make the process incomprehensible.
4. Letters sent notifying the tenant of dates of hearings and other important matters were pre-dated long before they were posted, which has resulted in the tenant being provided with very short notice or notice after the fact. Evidence of dates and postage can be provided by the tenant to confirm this.
5. Almost all persons contacted at the CTTT do not identify themselves or their position titles. Only those at the head of the organisation or who sit in the hearing itself are ever identified. Even conciliators do not reveal their names.
6. Letters sent from the CTTT in response to a complaint and an application for a rehearing were confusing, contradictory and contained large sections of unrelated material. Responses continuously avoided answering the actual questions asked or made no attempt to discuss the matter in question in any comprehensive way. This is deliberate avoidance of the truth and involves the cover-up of inappropriate and corrupt behaviour within the CTTT. It can be demonstrated that this corruption occurs from the top down.
7. There is no evidence that any of the conciliators, hearing members, investigators, and even the Chairperson of the CTTT herself, have ever fully read the applications, letters and complaints provided by the tenant. This is supported by their observable behaviours, their recorded comments and their incomplete written responses on serious matters.
8. Statements made in these very important letters are frequently incorrect and consistently include claims about comments, events and outcomes that are blatantly false. Where the investigator or member managed to locate this false evidence is never divulged.
9. Statements made during the hearings and in letters also demonstrate a poor understanding of the Tenancy Act within the CTTT which frequently results in unjust decisions. Appeals against this ignorance are rejected.
Process of the Application made by Landlord for Bond – First Matter
· Landlord’s application to keep a part of the bond: February 2011
1. Tenant was advised by the Bond Board to apply for the bond immediately, which she did in February 2011. The landlord then made an application contesting the release of the bond to the tenant. The tenant was not informed of this application made by the landlord. This is blatant negligence.
2. Tenant rang the CTTT in April and was only then told about the landlord’s application on the bond. The tenant was informed of the date of the hearing over the phone and was surprised that it would not occur until 2nd of May 2011. This date was later confirmed in writing but no explanation for the delay was provided. In later hearings the tenant would be held responsible for this delay even though it was the landlord who requested and was granted the delay so she could attend trial during school holidays. The landlord is currently a teacher.
3. The application made by the landlord, Joanne Glanville, did not specify any breaches or orders that she was seeking. She simply wanted a share of the bond as a way to pay for the overpayment of rent she knew she would have to repay to the tenant.
4. Facts provided in the landlord’s application were unclear and were contradicted by the letter she attached as evidence. Her case should have been dismissed on this fact alone. This evidence is still available within the case notes and can be provided independently by the tenant. The landlord had no entitlement to the bond and disproved her own case.
5. Her application involved claims that fell outside the scope of the Act and the Regulations. Most were new claims that were made weeks after the final condition report had been completed and signed. Water bills were provided several months after the timeframe specified in the Act and were therefore not relevant according to the Act. Claims that the tenant’s behaviour prevented the bills being issued was not supported with any objective evidence. The onus of proof is on the landlord, not the tenant, when the landlord is seeking to be awarded the bond.
6. No other relevant evidence has ever been made available by the landlord. She had no case that could justify her claim to a share of the bond and this should have been obvious to the conciliator and the first tribunal member.
· First Conciliation Session: April 2011
1. CTTT publications and the website clearly state that conciliation is optional. This is blatant deception. Not only is it mandatory, it can occur several times at the discretion of the member.
2. There is an obligation under the Act for the Tribunal to provide the opportunity for the parties to reach an agreement through conciliation, however there is no obligation stated within the Act that the parties must attend such a conciliation session. They most certainly should not be penalised for not attending. The tribunal overtly tells participants that if they do not attend, then the matter will be decided without them. This is not an occasional matter of ignorance; it is a deliberate falsification of the facts at an organisational wide level.
3. There are no statements in the Act, regulations, fact sheets, website or other methods stating that conciliation is compulsory and will result in a miscarriage of justice if the participant does not participate.
4. The tenant after attending a highly biased and aggressive conciliatory session felt compelled to sign the agreement form due to threats made by the conciliator that she would lose even more money if she proceeded to a hearing. She was also provided with false and inaccurate information by the Conciliator on which she based her decision.
5. The member in the hearing room then altered the agreement without the tenant’s consent, benefiting the landlord even further. Protests were ignored and the tape of this hearing is being withheld by the CTTT. The reason for the lack of available tapes changed over time. Apparently there never were any tapes, as the equipment was broken for the whole of the2nd May 2011. This was later confirmed in writing. How did the investigator determine that the tenant had not objected to final orders if there had never been any recording?
6. Within hours of the hearing, which was an emotionally devastating experience, the tenant recognised that she had been bullied into an agreement that was unjust and non-consensual. After consulting the Act for confirmation the tenant became aware that she had been seriously misled.
7. No evidence was referred to at any time during the conciliation session or in the hearing room that followed despite frequent requests by the tenant. The decision was made purely on the force of personality and an entrenched prejudice within the tribunal against tenants.
· Complaints made against Conciliator: April 2011
1. A written complaint was made against the conciliator who participated in the conciliation session. The points raised are available in the full complaint in the case notes or can be provided by the tenant.
2. In summary the conciliator was accused of frequently whispering to the landlord, providing incorrect and outdated information on the Act, did not provide his name, did not introduce all the parties present, did not refer to evidence at any time, allowed the landlord to dominate discussions, ignored requests by the tenant to refer to the evidence, kept renaming emergency repairs as unauthorised improvements, ignored admissions by the landlord that she had not deposited the bond and that she had not kept rental records, threatened the tenant with greater loss if she progressed to a hearing, implied a time-frame without stating what it was, did not control the aggressive behaviour of the landlord’s brother, did nothing about accusations made against the tenant that were later agreed to be false or irrelevant.
3. The complaint against the conciliator was made in confidence to the tribunal so it could be investigated appropriately. Both the Privacy Act and the CTTT Code of Conduct guaranteed that the complaint would remain confidential and private information would be protected.
4. The Chairperson of the CTTT forwarded a copy of the complaint in full to the landlord who had no bearing on the matter. The tenant was not informed of this possibility and was led to believe the opposite would occur. The landlord admitted in the hearing after the second conciliation that she had been given a copy of the complaint. The member in attendance was aware of this fact and informed her she did not need to make a reply. This exchange of information was captured on the hearing recordings made by the CTTT. Fortunately this tape has not been misplaced by the tribunal.
5. No apology or recognition of this violation of the Privacy Act and the CTTT Code of Conduct has ever been provided to the tenant.
6. The tenant was informed that a decision would be made within 28 days of the complaint being made. The response took over six weeks and no reason was provided by the CTTT for this delay, even thought it violates the CTTT customer service charter.
· Application for re-hearing based on Complaint: April 2011
1. Based on the lack of correct process and outcomes that occurred during the conciliation, and the subsequent hearing, the tenant made an application for a re-hearing based on the complaint against the conciliator. These two documents were presented at the same time in person.
2. The tenant was told that a response to the application for re-hearing would occur within 24hours. A response did not occur for six weeks and at no time was the tenant made aware of the progress of the re-hearing or why the delay occurred.
3. The application for a re-hearing was rejected before the complaint against the conciliator had been fully investigated, so this cannot be the reason for the delay in the progress of the application.
4. The tenant specifically stated in the application for the re-hearing that no stay be placed on the repayment of money owed to the tenant. There is a specific box on the application form that refers to this point. This was ignored and the stay was granted; therefore giving the landlord an even longer free-interest loan at the expense of the tenant. This was adding insult to injury.
· Denial for Re-hearing occurs in June 2011
1. The official procedure related to applications for re-hearings are prejudicial from the beginning. The applicant provides their version of events with accompanying evidence. The respondent is then provided with the applicant’s statements and all the supporting evidence to examine before making a response. The applicant is never at any time given access to the respondent’s comments, evidence or lies. This severely advantages one side over the other and is inherently unfair. How does the applicant defend themselves against lies if they are never provided and the comments that will be used against them in secret?
2. The re-hearing application in this case was rejected by the tribunal, long before the findings of the investigation related to the complaint about the conciliator had been concluded. This demonstrates either an automatic rejection policy or a prejudiced rejection on the grounds of class.
3. The primary argument for the application for re-hearing was based on the complaint about the conciliator. It claims that the conciliator had repeatedly misled the tenant about facts contained within the Act and Regulations and that the conciliator had used such misinformation to bully her into signing an agreement.
4. Then to make matters worse, the final orders made by the member gave the landlord even more advantage that had never been agreed to during the conciliation. The tenant did not agree with these additional benefits at any time.
5. The most important admission in the re-hearing rejection letter was that the member referred to only one of three grounds on which the re-hearing application had being made. The other two points were completely ignored. New evidence provided was not referred to in the response, and having the decision made against the weight of evidence was also ignored. The comment stating that ‘the tenant had not suffered any injustice at all’ is completely unsubstantiated. Again the member remains completely anonymous. This is a complete travesty of justice. The outcome of the ‘investigation’ was pre-determined and the tenant has been consistently victimised by the CTTT ever since.
· Complaint rejected in June 2011 (after re-hearing decided)
1. The complaint was overseen by the Chairperson of the CTTT, Kay Ransome, who delegated the task to a registrar; name withheld. Kevin Wilson has been suggested as a possibility.
2. The investigation was conducted without the tenant being contacted at anytime and without any application to the tenant to supply any further evidence. How did the investigator assess the claims of bullying without consulting the victim?
3. Despite this oversight, the response letter demonstrates that the landlord was consulted during the investigation. The statements provided by the landlord that the landlord had agreed to final orders were false. The tenant did not agree to final orders at any time as these were made after the papers were signed.
4. The tape recording of the hearing would clearly demonstrate that agreement had never been consensual as it is claimed in the letter. Conveniently this tape is now unavailable according to the CTTT.
5. The tenant made the application for a re-hearing on the grounds that the agreement was not fully consensual. Why would the tenant do this if the case was the opposite and she had stated this?
6. The behaviour of the Conciliator which formed a large part of the complaint was not addressed at all in the reply from Kay Ransome. However the letter does confirm that the conciliator’s role is not to provide advice. This only strengthens the claims made in the complaint that the process was unfair and inappropriate.
7. The complaint referred to multiply episodes where the conciliator provided advice that was unwanted, inaccurate, outdated and deliberately misleading. None of these points were addressed by the investigator even though they formed the principle substance of the complaint.
8. The gradual repayment of excess rent, previously extorted by the landlord through threats of eviction, was not agreed to by the tenant. The agreement made between the landlord and her credit union occurred without the tenant being consulted. This was an illegal transaction which has now been legitimatised by the tribunal. It is in effect, an enforced interest-free loan made solely for the benefit of the landlord without reference to the tenant’s capacity to forego the money, or even the legality of the loan. This is a criminal act that can be proved by evidence from the Commonwealth bank. The new evidence that had been provided with the application for the re-hearing clearly demonstrates that this loan was illegal and that the Chairman and the investigator had the capacity to be aware of this fact.
9. The tenant’s insistence, that the excess rent money owed to the tenant be off-set against the bond awarded to the landlord, was completely ignored by the Chairman. There was no agreement on this repayment plan. Again the missing tape could confirm these facts.
10. No comment is made in Kay Ransome’s written response about the omission in the investigator’s findings where only one of the grounds for re-hearing was considered in the tenant’s application. This deliberate oversight demonstrates that Kay Ransome is prepared to cover-up for others within the CTTT regardless of the seriousness of their offense.
Counter Application made by the Tenant – Second Matter
· Request by the tenant for a delay before making her own application to the tribunal for funds owed.
1. The tenant requested information about how to delay an application for a hearing in the tenancy tribunal on health grounds. This conversation occurred over the phone with the Department of Fair Trading in January 2011. This application raised issues not included in the landlords claim for the bond and was a completely separate application.
2. Tenant was informed that she could have a lengthy delay before making an application, on the grounds of ill-health if written evidence could be provided by a doctor. The tenant was not told there was a time limit on making an application if delayed on health grounds.
3. Tenant was told it was not necessary for her to formally apply for permission for a delay. All she was required to do was to provide medical evidence if requested.
4. The tenant made a formal application in May 2011 and this was accepted without objection by the tribunal and evidence of the long illness was provided. Counter claims are a very frequent situation at the tribunal
· Tenant’s application for hearing on new matters: 26th May 2011
1. The tenant specifically asked in her application that the tribunal explain how she could subpoena the landlord about being placed on a tenancy database. This had been a threat given to the tenant by the landlord as well as her unauthorised collection agent. This request for direction was ignored by the tribunal even though the form necessary for a subpoena could only be obtained from the tribunal itself. It has to be stressed that the tenant had never been in arrears at any time and the even the landlord now admits this fact. The tenant had always been many weeks in advance; even as high as six weeks in advance at times.
2. The tenant requested that any information about her that had been unjustly placed on a residential database be immediately removed. She also required a letter from the landlord stating that the tenant had never been in arrears at any time and that she had left the house in a far better condition than when the tenancy began. This request was completely ignored.
3. Multiple breaches of the Tenancy Act were specified in the tenant’s application under a belief encouraged by the CTTT that landlords could be fined for breaches of the Act by the tribunal. The tenant would not have included these orders if she had been properly informed by the CTTT.
4. The tenant was also claiming that all outstanding money owed by the landlord for emergency repairs conducted in the house during the tenancy be repaid.
5. The tenant made a claim for compensation from the landlord for various breaches of the tenancy contract including: failure to provide vacant possession, excessive rent, restricted use of the house due to safety risks, compensation for goods held, immediate repayment of the entire bond and immediate repayment of excess rent extorted by both the landlord and her aggressive collection agent.
6. The tenant contacted the CTTT requesting that the matter go straight to hearing as Conciliation had already occurred between the parties. This request was not responded to by the CTTT.
7. The tenant expressed her concerns about having to attend a conciliation session because she did not feel safe and the stress would almost certainly have a serious negative impact on her continuing poor health. These concerns were ignored by the CTTT.
· Second Conciliation Session: 7th June 2011
1. The tenant applied to the member in person to forgo conciliation on the grounds that had already been made in the application of the hearing. This request was denied. The member stated on record that conciliation was not optional but was in fact mandatory. The tape recording of this comment has been made available to the tenant.
2. The tenant was forced to attend a conciliation session on her own without the presence of a conciliator despite her concerns for her wellbeing which had already been communicated via mail, email and fax. This appears to be a case of overt retaliation against the tenant for making a complaint to the tribunal.
3. The tenant ended the conciliation session after more insults and accusations were made by the landlord, again with no supportive evidence of any kind.
4. Then the member provided false information in the hearing room to the tenant. He claimed the tenant would have to make an application under the old act as she was not coved by the new act. This statement is false and was contradicted by a later tribunal member.
5. The member chastised the tenant for having so many points of contention in her application. He claimed that she had just copied everything from the act into the application form without discernment. Again evidence was not referred to and the member had not read the application in full.
6. The member also incorrectly informed the tenant that if her application went to hearing it would probably be rejected because she had exceeded the time limit that applies to making a claim. Either the member had not bothered to read about the permitted delay on health grounds, or he was deliberately discouraging the tenant from taking the application further.
7. The member overtly deceived the tenant when she asked about how she could discover if she had been unjustly placed on a tenancy database and what she could do about that. He replied he had no idea. This is remarkable considering making an order to rectify this situation is one of the tribunal’s purposes. The member claimed this was a new provision in the new act and he was not fully aware of it. This was almost six months after the act had come into effect. This person was a senior member of the tribunal who had asked to participate in the review of the proposed legislation which makes this claim by the member an overt lie. The member did not inform the tenant that there exists a secret procedure within the compliance section of the Fair Trading Department that could have issued penalties and dealt with this issue harshly and conclusively.
8. When the tenant requested that the member ask the landlord to provide rental records so she could clear her name, the tenant was told by the member that the landlord no longer had any obligation to have anything to do with the tenant. This statement was made even though the re-hearing application had not yet been rejected, and a second, separate application relating to completely different issues were still yet to be heard. The member had assumed prematurely that both applications would be thrown out without being considered. What did he know about the re-hearing process that the tenant did not?
9. Finally the member stated that due to there still being an application for a re-hearing in progress, (despite the CTTT’s published timeframe) orders could not be made. He adjourned the hearing until after the re-hearing application had been solved. There was no suggestion that this would involve yet another conciliation session.
· First attempt at third Conciliation session: 23rd June 2011
1. Letter provided by tribunal stating that another conciliation session was scheduled for the 27th June.
2. Attempts by the tenant to contact the tribunal by phone, registered mail, email and fax to question this situation were ignored.
3. Due to a further decline in health which was supported by medical evidence provided by a doctor; the tenant had to apply for an adjournment.
4. Another hearing date was set and published on the internet but the tenant was not informed for a full week. She was never consulted to see if her health issues may still be a problem. The tenant was given only two working days notice of the new date.
· Hearing set by Tribunal to be heard by Written Submission: 6th July 2011
1. A phone conversation with a tribunal officer occurred to discuss the various options available to the tenant due to her continuing ill health. This was purely an information gaining exercise which is one of the primary functions of the phone service at the CTTT.
2. This phone conversation was misquoted by the tribunal officer or another person within the CTTT. A recording made by the tenant of this phone call can demonstrate very clearly that the conversation did not occur as stated in a subsequent letter by the tribunal.
3. The tenant was informed by the CTTT in writing on the 2nd July that she had decided to make her submission in writing and so the case was to be decided in written form.
4. The tenant did not request, verbally or in writing, that the case be heard by written submission. This was simply an alternative presented to her to consider.
5. The tenant immediately responded by phone, email and letter that she wanted to present her submission in person, as is her right under the Act.
6. The tenant was contacted by the Deputy Register of the CTTT; named only Danielle. She stated there was not sufficient time for the tenant to obtain an adjournment on medical grounds due to the late notice of the appearance date. The hearing would continue even if the tenant was not able to attend due to ill-health. The tenant stated clearly that she or her representative wanted to attend in person.
7. While on the phone the Deputy Register confirmed that all past mail sent by the tenant had been received by the CTTT even though there had been no notification of receipt prior to this moment. Even receipt of evidence had not been acknowledged despite being sent by registered post. This is rude, unprofessional and unacceptable.
8. The tenant was accused of confusing the issues when she asked why she had to attend yet another conciliation session. She was told the member can force the tenant to attend an endless number of conciliation sessions. This was done in the belief that she would finally relent and accept an unfair outcome. The Deputy Registrar stated ‘that repeated appearance at conciliation sessions was a standard procedure’. This information is not provided in any of the literature or procedures and does not conform to any accepted view of due process.
· Preparation for the third mandatory conciliatory session/hearing
1. The tenant received the tape recording relating to the previous hearing, only two days before the next hearing had been set to be heard. This gave the tenant very little time to obtain advice based on the information contained within the tape.
2. Even the day before the hearing, the tenant was unsure if her application would even be heard based on advice obtained from an independent hearing of the tape. The procedural unfairness within this case was now building to alarming levels. From the very beginning the tenant has been continuously and deliberately misled by the Tribunal, the CTTT and the Fair Trading Department on how to make an application for a trial and the time limits involved, as well as any other restrictions that may apply. This has left the tenant with the strong possibility that she will never receive an opportunity to present her case and her evidence. Her right to have a fair hearing before the tribunal has been seriously jeopardised due to the incompetence, negligence, distortions and corruption that exists within the CTTT. The outcome of the tenant’s application has almost certainly been determined before a hearing even begins, and before any evidence has been examined.
· Third forced conciliation session – 6th July 2009
1. The day before the third conciliation session was to occur, the tenant was diagnosed with pneumonia and was told to rest. A medical certificate were provided. The tribunal ignored this situation and so the tenant nominated a friend to speak on her behalf.
2. The night before the group hearing the tenant received an email from the Chairperson of the CTTT, Kay Ransome, in response to a formal complaint the tenant had made about the discrepancy between members comments on mandatory conciliation and the CTTT literature that clearly states conciliation is supposed to be optional. Kay Ransome apologised that the member at her previous group hearing had claimed that conciliation was mandatory and went on to stress that this directive was incorrect. This was an admission that the tenant had been the victim of procedural unfairness. According to a precedent case sent in the High Court in 1984, this error meant that all previous orders were now null and void. By law the tenant was now entitled to begin the process again completely from the beginning without the burden of past unfairness.
3. Despite being very ill the tenant accompanied her representative to the tribunal. All persons at the tribunal completely ignored how sick the tenant was; even the TAAS representative who was present on the day. Interestingly when the tenant visited the Fair Trading office after the hearing her lack of health was immediately noticed and people volunteered to assist her. This callous disregard for another human being is possibly the most accurate way to portray the toxic culture that exists within the tribunal at Parramatta.
4. The member began his pre-prepared justification on why the tenant’s case could not precede. His intention was to throw the case out on a technical matter that had been caused by the deliberate obstructive behaviour of corrupt personnel within the CTTT. The Registrar of the Parramatta tribunal is the prime suspect in this tampering with evidence and the obstruction of due process.
5. The tenant’s representative informed the member that the tenant would not attend another conciliation session as this was an optional process. The rest of the people attending the group session were then forced into mandatory conciliation sessions. The member then attempted to dismiss the case against the tenant but was interrupted. The tenant’s representative informed the member of the confessions of the Chairperson which demonstrated procedural unfairness. This was followed by the ruling from the High Court. After a period of very assertive insistence by the tenant’s representative, the member lost his resolve and deferred the problem to a later date. The case was therefore sent to be consideration at a directional hearing in August. This meant that the tenant had to attend a hearing simply to prove that she is entitled to receive a fair hearing! Aren’t all people entitled to a fair hearing? That is certainly the opinion of the United Nations as specified in their Charter of Human Rights. Maybe the tenancy tribunal considers itself to above both the High Court of Australia and the United Nations.
6. Interestingly the tenant was the only residential case to be heard that morning. The rest were commercial cases. No comment was made by the Member about this odd situation. Despite this, a tenancy advocate had been appointed to the tribunal for the morning. There had never been a TAAS representative in attendance at the other hearings, so it is clearly not a standard procedure. This person approached the tenant but did not identify her-self or where she was from until questioned many times.
7. After the hearing the TAAS representative spent some time with the tenant explaining how best to prepare for the directional hearing. The advice the TAAS representative provided was incorrect. She also blamed the tenant for not presenting her application properly; she denied that the tenant’s problems with the landlord had actually occurred; she did not inform the tenant that she was funded by the CTTT, and she deflected the tenant from questioned related to applying penalties to landlords. Finally she left the room in frustration when she realised she did not have the influence over the tenant that would be necessary to get her to forego her legal rights under the Act.
8. Before the tenant and her representative left the tribunal they filled in a request form for a copy of the tape of the hearing. The people at the front desk at the tribunal confirmed that the equipment was in full working order during the hearing and that the back-up tapes were also fully functional. The following day the tenant asked the receptionist if the tape had been recorded without any problems. She was assured there had been no problems and the woman was certain of this.
9. While asking for the current tape, the tenant also asked about the earlier tapes she had ordered. One of these had being withheld by the tribunal but the tenant wanted more information on why it had been withheld. The receptionist was very helpful until she heard the date of the hearing. The she immediately referred the matter to her superior. This person informed the tenant and her representative that the equipment was not functioning for the whole day. There had never been a recording of any sessions that day. This is a very serious admission. If there had never been a recording of the hearing, then how did the investigator reach his conclusion that the tenant had not objected to the final order made on the 2ndMay 2011. The tenant strongly denies this claim and has two witnesses to support this. Meanwhile the investigator has no tape or any other objective evidence on which to base his findings. It is reasonable to assume that the mysterious unavailability of the tape only occurred because it supports the tenant’s version of events. The destruction or theft of evidence is a criminal act and the registrar should be immediately sacked.
10. The fact that vital evidence directly related to the complaint was not available is grounds by itself to justify a re-hearing. The tribunal should have informed all participants who attended on the 2nd of May of the lack of recording as soon as this error was discovered; not months after the event. If the participants required the tape or a transcript of the hearing and none was available then they should automatically have been given the option of a re-hearing. Participants are entitled to a recording or a transcript by law and failure to provide this means that procedural fairness has been compromised. The findings of any hearing are therefore not valid.
· Preparation for the next step – July 2011
1. After researching the true legal situation related to the tenant’s case; as opposed to the false information provided to the tenant by the TAAS Representative, the member, the staff at the tribunal, the chairperson of the CTTT and advisory personnel from the CTTT; the tenant decided to take control of the situation.
2. The tenant decided that she would not participate in the Directional Hearing set for the 30th of August due to the procedural unfairness connected with the process. These are as follows:
· The tenant is entitled to an extension to the application process on health grounds. The CTTT and the tribunal have been aware of this fact for over eight months. The tenant has provided the medical evidence specifying her exact situation over eight times to the tribunal. None of this evidence was acknowledged and no directions to the tenant were provided on the next step in the process. She was told she did not have to take any action at all. Only now does the member inform the tenant that this information should have been given to a member for approval. This is seven months after they were initially informed of the need for extra time.
· This sudden, new requirement depends on an internal process over which the tenant has no control. If the registrar has withheld the tenant’s medical state from the relevant member, then that is a disciplinary issue that needs to be dealt with by the Chairperson. It is not the tenant’s job to make sure that secret processes are followed as required.
· An application for a directional hearing requires the tenant to provide all her personal medical information to the landlord. This is a violation of the Privacy Act and the CTTT Code of Conduct. Confidentiality is supposed to be guaranteed. Why should the landlord have any say in relation to the tenant’s medical situation? This is plain offensive.
· In addition, why should a member be entitled to have an opinion about a person’s medical condition? That is the role of the treating doctor; not a person with no medical training at all. The certificates have been provided and so that should be the end of the matter.
· The second part of the directional hearing requires the tenant to demonstrate that her application has been prepared correctly. This is usually a simple process but for this particular tenant it has been transformed into a demand for perfection. Failure to reach perfection could result in a rejection of the whole application. The member at the hearing on the 6th July repeatedly refused to provide clarity about the application. He would not guarantee that the application would not be thrown out if the problem could be shown to be an internal administrative error. He also refused to assure the tenant that the whole application would not be rejected simply because only one point was not considered appropriate. The tenant is being set up to fail.
· What is most offensive about this situation is that the landlord did not have to demonstrate that she had presented her case correctly when she made her application. This is blatant bias. If the landlord does not have to prepare her application correctly, then neither should the tenant. This overt discrimination against the tenant is a violation of her human rights, her rights under the Tenancy Act, the oath taken by the members of the tribunal and the regulations under which the CTTT operates. This is evidence of systemic corruption that exists at all levels within the CTTT.
3. The application for an extension is irrelevant anyway. The original application made the landlord, within the specified timeframe, is now required to be returned to the tribunal for re-hearing. Due to the volumes of evidence to demonstrate procedural unfairness the previous orders are now null and void and the tribunal must hear the original application again from the beginning. The tenant will add her own points to the landlord’s application as per correct procedure.
4. Due to this legal fact, the tenant will insist that the process begin from the beginning and that procedural fairness be adhered to all times. Failure to provide the tenant with a new hearing on these grounds will result in a formal complaint against all three members who have dealt with this case and a application for a re-hearing based on that complaint.
5. A complaint will be made against the registrar for falsifying and removing evidence; for obstruction the due process of the law and for causing the tenant extreme stress, a decline in physical health and economic hardship. The failure of the Chairperson to discipline the registrar sufficiently will result in a formal complaint against the chairperson with the Director General of the Fair Trading Department.
6. A case against the Fair Trading Department, in particularly the CTTT, is being prepared to be sent to the ICAC. They will be requested to investigate the systemic corruption that exists within the Fair Trading Department.
7. The failure of the Fair Trading Minister to respond in any way to this very serious violation of public trust is inexcusable. A formal complaint will be made against the Minster to the Premier. He is not worthy of a ministerial portfolio.
8. If all these efforts fail to provide the tenant with a fair hearing, then the case will be taken to the United Nations for the violation of the tenant’s human rights on the basis of social class.
9. Naturally all these steps will be held in the public forum and publicised as heavily as the tenant is able to achieve. ‘In Justices Australia’ will support the tenant through this whole process. The tenant and ‘In Justices Australia’ have no intention to interfere with the hearing and the decisions that result. All that is demanded here is procedural fairness and an examination of the evidence.
Research supporting personal claims of corruption within the CTTT in NSW
· Overt misleading of the public that the Tenancy Tribunal has the authority to issue penalties as specified in the Act.
1. The Act and Regulations clearly define which parts of the Act will incur a fine if they are breached. They also specify the maximum penalty points that are applicable to that particular breach and how much these points are worth.
2. The Act states that Authorised Officers have the power to impose these fines if provided with written authority to do so by the Director General of the Fair Trading Department. No limits are placed on the number or type of people that can be authorised to conduct these activities within the Act.
3. The application forms used to make submissions to the tribunal refer to the penalties and the points that may be applied to them. The overall impression is that fines will be issued to landlords by the Tribunal if there is a breach of the Act occurs for which a penalty is specified. In fact there are clear directives stating that fines be issued in these cases.
4. The tenancy tribunal does not have the authority to issue penalties, fines or any other punishment for breaches of the Tenancy Act. This has been confirmed in writing by the CTTT on two separate occasions and a number of phone conversations. This fact is completely unknown by tenants and the general community.
5. Why has the Director General not authorised tribunal members with the power to issue fines as specified in the Act? This overtly contradicts the instructions made to the Director General in the Act. It is logical and appropriate that tribunal members have to power to do what even a parking inspector has the authority to do. Separating the penalties from other functions within the Act is a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice.
6. There are no published procedures or fact sheets relating to the process of dispensing fines or penalties. Despite repeated attempts by ‘In Justices Australia’ to obtain a clear statement of how these penalties are issued, none had been discovered.
7. Officials within the CTTT and the Fair Trading Department will not provide even basic information on who is responsible for issuing these fines and how a tenant could go about ensuring that such event did occur. The tenant is deliberately kept ignorant of the process and is not even considered a party in the proceedings. The result s of these processes is kept secret. It is highly suspected that no penalties were issued over the previous twelve months for any breach of the Act, other than the Bond not being submitted to the Bond Board. Even on this matter there were only five individuals investigated. How many received a fine, rather than ‘education’ is not known. The total amount collected from penalties for breaches of the Act over the previous financial year, by the Fair Trading compliance section amounts to only $2,200.
· Existence of an undisclosed conflict of interest at TAAS due to funding arrangements.
1. There is no disclosure of the fact that TAAS is actually funded by the CTTT at either the TAAS website or the CTTT website. None of their published fact sheets disclose this funding relationship either.
2. Tenants are referred to the Tenants’ Advisory Service and the Tenants’ Union to obtain impartial and independent advice about the tribunal. They are deliberately misled on this matter by both the tribunal and the Fair Trading Department, as is the rest of the public. The tribunal, the CTTT and Fair Trading all refer tenants to these bodies. The tribunal even encourages tenants to have TAAS advocates represent them during the hearing process. They are told the advocates are completely independent of the tribunal. This is false.
3. The real role of TAAS is to encourage tenants to settle matters without attending the tribunal or to settle matters within conciliation. This advice assists the CTTT senior managers meet their performance targets. The meeting or exceeding of performance targets results in significant bonus payments to senior management within the CTTT. There is a financial reward for structuring a system that achieves the required target at the expense of dispensing justice.
4. The conflict of interest presented by the funding relationship between the CTTT and TAAS undermines the entire process of justice by making tenants believe they have no hope of winning a hearing in the tenancy tribunal regardless of the evidence and the law.
5. TAAS never provides information to tenants on how to ensure that a landlord will be penalised for breaches of the Tenancy Act or Regulations. This procedure is kept secret by both TAAS and the CTTT. As always fines are included in the literature, but again the only directive on the literate is to go to the CTTT and the tribunal. No mention is made of the real and secret procedure that actually could result in a fine being issued. The compliance section of the Fair Trading Department is never mentioned by TAAS.
· Discovery of misalignment of performance measurements within the CTTT.
1. Performance measures are not based on the principal purpose of the CTTT. That purpose is to provide a fair, impartial hearing for all parties based on the evidence provided.
2. Performance measures are based on how many cases can be resolved within conciliation sessions, how quickly cases progress through the system and how few re-hearings occur. There is no overall requirement that the primary function of dispensing justice must not be undermined in the process of achieving these targets.
3. As a consequence more emphasis and recognition is given to these secondary factors than to the primary function of the organisation. As a consequence justice is routinely bypassed in the effort to achieve the poorly conceived performance targets.
4. Consistent rejection of applications for re-hearings, loosing paperwork and evidence, and making conciliation mandatory are all techniques that are regularly employed by the CTTT in order to maximise their performance results. Tenants who insist on a hearing are financially penalised in most cases. Any compensation provided is little more than a token gesture and does not reflect the actual situation. The published cases provide ample evidence of these negative outcomes for tenants. The CTTT and the Fair Trading Department annual report provides statistic, which prove conclusively that tenants in NSW are not protected by the tenancy act.
5. Performance targets also require that there be few complaints that demonstrate the tribunal is not performing its primary function of dispensing justice. As a consequence complaints are dismissed. The complaint is handled internally by a person whose bonus payment is linked to ensuring no complaints are substantiated. This is an overt conflict of interest. It is not appropriate that the Chairperson of the CTTT should assess complaints when she is rewarded for achieving only one of the outcomes possible. This flaw encourages a culture of secrecy, cover-ups, victimisation and systemic corruption.
6. The CTTT sets their own targets and then later audits the target results. There is no external, independent examination of the effectiveness or accurateness of the performance management system. There is also no external audit of the statistics presented in their annual report and how these are obtained, measured and presented.
7. It is mostly due to these counter-productive performance measures that the corruption with the CTTT has become systemic throughout the entire organisation. The results in discrimination against tenants. Tenants have no access to a just outcome by going through the tenancy tribunal to resolve a dispute.
8. It would be far better to have no tenancy tribunal and save everyone a great deal of time and money. The savings for the government would be significant.
· Actions following 3rd Conciliation Session:
1. On the 19th July the tenant sent off four separate complaints via email and through the official CTTT feedback page on their website. The CTTT does not provide automatic responses to complaints or emails so it is not possible for the tenant to know that her complaint has been received. As a result the tenant also took printed versions of the complaints to the Parramatta registry to be stamped.
2. The complaints were about the Parramatta Register and the three members who have dealt with this case: Members McMillan, O’Keeffe and Peter Smith. They contain information already detailed in this summary. The tenant requested that the directional hearing be delayed until these four complaints has been fully investigated and the results communicated to the tenant.
|
Evidence supporting Experiences
· Letter from landlord
· Notes and names recorded
· Evidence of non-response
· Phone records
· Photos of cut wires
· Expert Inspection Reports
· Text messages
· Letters
· Witnesses
· Hazardous Material Factsheet
· Landlord written admission
· Landlord’s failure to remove
· Evidence of non-response
· Landlord agreement to pay
· Evidence of non-response
· Written refusal to respond
· Evidence of deception on Act
· Bond Board Records
· CTTT Information sheets
· Notes and names recorded
· CTTT and Fair trading Websites
· Notes and names recorded
· CTTT Websites
· CTTT Information sheets
· Phone Records
· Text messages from landlord
· Letters from landlord
· CTTT Information Sheets
· CTTT Website
· Tribunal hearing notice
· Fair trading and CTTT Websites
· Fair trading and CTTT Sheets
· TAAS Website
· Emails to Fair trading and CTTT
· Registered mail receipts
· Recordings of phone calls
· Responses to emails to CTTT
· Hearing notice dates
· Dated letters from CTTT
· Letters from CTTT
· Emails from CTTT
· Responses from CTTT
· Admission from Chairperson
· Recordings of phone calls
· Responses from CTTT
· Hearing recordings
· Witness accounts
· Responses from CTTT
· Missing evidence
· Hearing Recordings
· Responses from CTTT
· Bond Board Records
· Notes and names recorded
· Hearing notice
· Notes and names recorded
· Phone records
· Hearing application form
· Application form instruction
· Hearing application form
· Attached signed letter
· Final Inspection Report
· Water bills
· CTTT Literature
· Bond Board phone call
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Conciliation witnesses
· CTTT Website
· CTTT Factsheets
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Hearing recording
· Tribunal hearing notice
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Residential Tenancy Regulation
· Conciliation witnesses
· Tenant’s written complaints
· Hearing room witnesses
· Final orders
· Conciliation agreement sheet
· Removed tape with evidence
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Witnesses
· Conciliation witnesses
· Hearing room witnesses
· Tenant’s written complaints
· Tenant’s written complaint
· Conciliation witnesses
· Tenant’s written complaint
· Application for re-hearing
· Conciliation witnesses
· Bond board records
· No evidence from landlord
· Past written accusations
· Privacy Act
· CTTT code of conduct
· CTTT Act 2001
· Hearing confession recorded
· Taped phone calls
· CTTT website and factsheets
· CTTT standard procedures
· Evidence of non-response
· CTTT customer service charter
· CTTT Factsheets
· Response letters
· Re-hearing application
· Tenant’s complaint
· Response letters
· Reception at CTTT
· Complaint response date
· Re-hearing response date
· Removed hearing room tape
· Final orders
· Hearing room witnesses
· Letters to CTTT
· Phone recordings to Tribunal
· Hearing Recordings
· Absence of such a procedure
· Complaint response date
· Re-hearing response date
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Residential Tenancy Regulation
· Final orders
· Hearing room witnesses
· Removed hearing room tape
· Re-hearing application
· Re-hearing response
· Commonwealth Bank letters
· Complaint response letter
· Taped phone conversation
· Evidence of non-response
· Hearing room confession
· Re-hearing response letter
· Removed hearing room tape
· Complaint application
· Complaint Response letter
· High Court Ruling 1984
· Conciliation room witnesses
· Complaint response letter
· Removed hearing room tape
· Letters from CUSCAL
· Phone call notes
· Phone records
· Letter to Commonwealth Bank
· Lack of consent signature
· Final orders
· Hearing room witnesses
· Removed hearing room tape
· Complaint response letter
· Re-hearing response letter
· Medical Certificates
· Witnesses
· Request letters
· Phone notes
· Phone records
· CTTT website
· Application for hearing
· Tribunal Findings Website
· Application form
· Letter from tenant
· Evidence of non-response
· Legal advice
· Tenant’s electronic records
· Witnesses
· Formal letter to Louis Carr
· Letters to landlord
· Hearing application
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Application form format
· TAAS website
· CTTT website and factsheets
· Fair trading website
· E-mail responses
· Witnesses
· Letters to CTTT
· Evidence of non-response
· CTTT website and factsheets
· Medical certificates
· No conciliator rostered on
· Complaint to Kay Ransome
· Witnesses
· Hearing room tape
· Letters to CTTT
· Taped phone conversation
· Registered mail receipts
· Evidence of non-response
· Landlord concurrence
· Taped phone conversation
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· 3rd hearing room tape
· Hearing room tape
· Orders
· CTTT procedures
· Medical certificates
· Hearing room tape
· Hearing room tape
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· CTTT Annual Report 2009/10
· E-mails to Fair Trading & CTTT
· E-mail responses from CTTT
· Witness experiences
· Hearing room tape
· Lack of records supplied
· Letters requesting records
· Residential tenancy Act 2010
· Penalty points published
· Hearing room tape
· Orders
· Hearing notice
· Registered mail receipt
· Taped phone conversation
· Medical certificates
· Web site records
· Hearing notice
· Taped phone conversation
· CTTT customer service charter
· CTTT website and factsheets
· Letter from Tribunal
· Taped phone conversations
· Letter from tribunal
· Taped phone conversation
· Letter & e-mail sent to CTTT
· Taped phone conversation
· Medical certificates
· Witness statements
· Taped phone conversation
· Registered mail receipt
· CTTT customer service charter
· Taped phone conversation
· Hearing room tape
· CTTT website & factsheets
· CTTT procedures
· Procedural fairness standards
· Witness statements
· Mail packaging
· Procedural fairness standards
· High Court ruling 1984
· Taped phone conversations
· Letter from Kay Ransome
· CTTT website & factsheets
· Fair Trading website
· Application form instructions
· Published penalties
· Residential tenancy Act 2010
· Residential tenancy Regulation
· Hearing rooms recordings
· Medical certificate
· Witness statements
· 3rd hearing room recording
· Procedural fairness standards
· High Court ruling 1984
· Taped phone conversations
· Letter from Kay Ransome
· CTTT website & factsheets
· Fair Trading website
· Application form instructions
· Published penalties
· Residential tenancy Act 2010
· Residential tenancy Regulation
· Hearing rooms recordings
· TAAS Website
· TAAS reps business card
· Other hearing room witnesses
· Recorded phone conversations
· Complaint response letter
· 3rd hearing room recording
· Procedural fairness standards
· High Court ruling 1984
· Orders
· UN Charter of Human Rights
· Witness statements
· Other hearing room witnesses
· Landlord concurrence
· Conciliation witnesses
· TAAS rosters
· Witness statements
· Lack of written procedure
· Witness statements
· TAAS Website
· Notes taken by tenant
· Copy of order form
· Witness statements
· Recorded phone conversation
· Request for conformation
· Stamp on letter from CTTT
· Witness statements
· Standard procedures
· Conciliation Witnesses
· Removed hearing tape
· Complaint response letter
· Re-hearing response letter
· Re-hearing application
· Removed hearing tape
· Procedural fairness standards
· High Court ruling 1984
· Residential tenancy Act 2010
· Recorded phone conversation
· TAAS website
· CTTT website & factsheets
· Procedural fairness standards
· High Court ruling 1984
· Medical Certificates
· 3rd hearing tape
· Witness statements
· Phone call notes
· Phone records
· Registered mail receipts
· CTTT Code of Conduct
· Orders
· CTTT Privacy Policy
· Privacy Act
· Procedural Fairness Standard
· Medical Certificates
· Procedural Fairness Standards
· High Court Ruling 1984
· Orders
· 3rd hearing recording
· CTTT website & factsheets
· Usual Procedures
· Landlord’s application
· CTTT website & factsheets
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Residential tenancy regulation
· UN Charter of Human Rights
· Procedural fairness standards
· High Court ruling 1984
· CTTT website & factsheets
· TAAS Website
· CTTT website & factsheets
· CTTT standard procedures
· UN Charter of Human Rights
· CTTT standard procedures
· CTTT code of conduct
· CTTT Privacy Policy
· Privacy Act
· ICAC compliant process
· Emails to Minister
· Evidence of receipt of emails
· UN Charter of Human Rights
· In Justices Australia
· Letters to the Media
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Residential Tenancy Regulation
· Tribunal application form
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Recorded phone calls
· Tribunal application form
· TAAS Website & factsheets
· CTTT website & factsheets
· Email admissions
· Recorded phone calls
· Fair trading publications
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Authorisation at other tribunal
· Fair Trading publications
· Emails sent to Fair Trading
· Emails sent to CTTT
· Email admissions
· Unanswered email requests
· Lack of evidence of penalties
· Very low total bond penalty figures
· TAAS website & Factsheets
· CTTT website & Factsheets
· Witnesses at Tribunal
· Fair Trading information
· Fair Trading Annual Report
· Fair Trading Annual Report
· Expert Opinion
· Observable behaviours
· Residential Tenancy Act 2010
· Residential Tenancy Regulation
· Witnesses at Tribunal
· TAAS website & factsheets
· CTTT website & factsheets
· Email admissions
· Fair Trading annual report
· Expert Opinion
· Fair Trading annual report
· Expert Opinion
· Case presented here
· Public complaints on Internet
· Published tribunal cases
· Fair Trading annual reports
· Email admissions
· Comparison to other states
· Fair Trading annual report
· CTTT annual reports
· Expert opinion
· CTTT internal procedures
· Case presented here
· CTTT annual report
· CTTT internal procedures
· Email requests for statistics
· Case presented here
· Published tribunal cases
· Common Sense
· First Complaint Letter
· Second Complaint Letter
· Third Complaint Letter
· Fourth Complaint Letter
· Copies of date stamped letters from registry counter
|
No comments:
Post a Comment