More stimulus package refurbishment carry on

The botched Housing NSW refurbishment of kitchens in one of its Sydney retirement villages had a couple of positive outcomes. It resulted in two meetings of public housing tenants - the first held there for seven years, possibly even longer.
Keeping us isolated from each other appears to be part of a 'divide and rule' policy by the management of the retirement village and Housing NSW in the interests of the self-funded residents who live there as well. The underdogs have to be kept under the thumb.
At the second meeting it was revealed that the flat taps would be replaced by high arched ones, and the single sinks would be replaced by double ones. H-e-l-l-o! So why were the high arched taps and double sinks removed in the first place? The return of the double sinks would mean ripping out the new single sinks and reconfiguring the new cupboards underneath. Well, that's what the stimulus package was all about, wasn't it? Keeping tradesmen busy. Making sure they had enough work. 
The housos were unimpressed. They just wanted their old kitchens back. But management told them that they thought the refurbishment program had been a success and to rate it 8 out of 10.
Was this to make the Housing NSW team leader and the young man who chose the new kitchens, both of whom were present, feel a bit better?
Housos were being told the emperor was wearing clothes but he was actually naked.

Carry on refurbishing

Every houso has a maintenance story to tell, usually about shoddy workmanship. This one takes out the 'colander' (full of holes) award.
The DOH powers that be decided used some of the Rudd stimulus package to install new kitchens in a retirement village - naturally without any consultation with its clients, the people who had to use them. 
So the first recipients of this unexpected largess were shocked to find that their double sinks had been replaced by single ones, and that the high arched water spouts had been replaced with flat ones, making it impossible to fit large pots underneath them.
Then there were the cupboards, the top shelves of which extended right up to the ceiling, requiring elderly people to teeter on tiptoe on chairs in order to access anything from them.
The biggest bungle was the removal of a beam containing a very strong flourescent light that extended above the full length of the kitchen bench. This great aid for ailing elderly eyesight when trying to read recipe books was removed in the name of allowing more light into the area during the day.
Mmmm. Does the young man who came up with this 'colander concept' ever do the washing up, or does he always leave it to his mum?
Sorry. Can't afford prizes for all those correct answers.

Putting the boot into tenants

Well, Housing NSW has tried to evict me twice now for 'management reasons', as if I was in in their custody and they were not simply my landlords.
The bullying and intimidation of me by its legal department as well as its senior staff has been horrendous.
The team leaders I have encountered as part of the appeals process have made my blood run cold.
Why have these insensitive, uncaring people been given so much power over their tenants?
Particularly when many of their tenants would be victims of child abuse and possibly former clients of DOCS?
It doesn't figure, professing to want to help abused children then putting the boot into them when they are adults.
Why they want to put the boot into me is because I've complained about their incompetence and their abuse of power.
I've finally spoken up about it after living with it for seven years in a state of fear.
I have had enough.

Is anybody home?

The woman who answers the phone at the Sydney electoral office of the Federal Housing Minister, Tania Plibesek, is very adept at fielding complaints about Housing NSW and the state Labour government. I guess she's had a lot of practice which means you don't get much of a chance to get a word in. The office is located in inner city Surry Hills is just a couple of blocks away from the public housing development Northcott Estate.

Still pushing for green light to greener pastures

This week I received a reply to a letter I wrote to Federal Housing Minister, Tania Plibesek two and a half months ago about the need for a national interstate transfer system for public housing tenants. She didn't address the issue at all. Instead I was told about the $629 million the federal government has provided for new public housing in all states and territories, plus another $400 million to renovate homes many of which are already unsuitable for occupancy or are about to become so. That's important too. My argument is that it would be sensible to build more public housing in capital cities where land is cheaper and make it easy for public housing tenants living in Sydney to transfer there. Ms Plibesek is on ABC-TV Q&A tonight so I've submitted my question about this subject to her on-line and hope it gets chosen to be heard.

Taking Housing NSW to tribunal no easy matter

Why do so few public housing tenants take Housing NSW to the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal? Earlier this year the then Shadow Minister for Fair Trading, Catherine Cusack (Country Liberal) claimed that of all the applications made in regard to public housing matters, only 4 per cent were made by public housing tenants and a whopping 96 per cent by Housing NSW.
Well, firstly the very thought of going to court is frightening for most people, let alone the elderly and the disabled. Secondly, you need a lawyer or advocate to help you prepare your case and represent you, but such people are extremely difficult to find, even in the ranks of government-funded tenancy services. Thirdly, Housing NSW's own legal department is handling these types of tenancy matters all the time and is the resident expert in this field. Fourthly, if you are on a low income as most public housing tenants are you cannot afford to take your grievances to court.

Housing NSW now 'partnering' public guardian

According to Housing NSW's Draft Disability Action Plan 2009-2013, the public housing landlord is now working in partnership with the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC)/Office of Protective Guardian(OPG). Anyone who has had a relative taken away from them by either of these two sinister bodies knows what a shocking experience it is, to have the life of their loved one controlled totally by the state. Housing NSW is now saying that this partnership will 'ensure that when tenancies are at risk, OPC/OPG are able to intervene early to provide assistance'. This is most alarming news, particularly in view of the fact that Housing NSW appears to be able to obtain medical/psychiatric reports on its clients without their knowledge or permission. And to phone its clients' doctors and put pressure on them in regard to a tenant if he or she is not doing as they are told by the DOH. And it does not stop there. The OPG/OFT has recently been merged with the NSW Public Trustee which suggests that anyone who has assigned it Power of Attorney to protect themselves from the OPG/OFT had better think again.

No escape to greener pastures

Ever wanted to abandon the sinking state of NSW? To get off it before it goes under? Well, the once-premier state's public housing tenants will be going down with it because there are no interstate transfers for public housos.
If you want to go north, south or west of the border, you will have to go to the bottom of the queues of all those waiting for public housing there.
Where do you live in the meantime? Who knows or cares.
Can the Federal Minister for Housing, Tania Plibisek, please fix this?

Housing NSW launches Draft Disability Action Plan

Well I guess a 'draft' disability action plan is a tenative step in the right direction, but the uncaring tone in which it is written suggests the spelling ought to be 'draught', a reminder of those blasts of cold air experienced by tenants living in unmaintained dwellings.
It was launched last May, but as a NSW public housing tenant with a disability, I was not informed. I knew nothing about it until I stumbled across it on the web, well after the closing date for 'comments by the public' on Friday 26 June.
But then being a 'public' housing tenant is not the same as being a member of the 'public'. More like 'public' property.
The DDAP claims that public housing tenants with disabilities were consulted as part of its preparation, but it appears that no survey of tenants was conducted. It would have been nice to have been consulted and to be able to assist Housing NSW to improve its services to its clients.
According to the DDAP 2009-2013, one third of NSW public housing tenants have a disability. Yet none of the department's staff appear to have any tertiary training in psychology, special needs or social work. The plan reveals that client service officers can do a training course called the Certificate IV in Social Housing. Just what that equips them to do is not known.
Organisations like COTA NSW and NDS NSW have made comments about the DDAP and you can view them on the web.

NSW public housing complaints now more out in the open

Until October 2008, most complaints about the NSW Department of Housing (now Housing NSW) by its tenants were dealt with behind closed doors or 'in-house'. A new social housing division was then introduced into the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal so it will be interesting to see the statistics after the first 12 months of its operation.
On 3 March this year, the then NSW Shadow Minister for Fair Trading, Catherine Cusack (Country Liberal) provided the Upper House with the following statistics:
a) from 2005-2008 the DOH made 46,404 applications to the CTTT against its own tenants;
b) in 2005 the number of applications was 9,747 but this grew to 14,649 in 2008 - an astonishing increase of 55 per cent over the four year period;
c) an examination of the tribunal's applications concerning public housing reveals 96 per cent of applications are made by the DOH and only 4 per cent by tenants.

Self-determination goes out the window

Being a public housing tenant means having your life controlled by your landlord in ways that would be abhorrent to anyone in a private rental situation. Just because someone has a disability of some kind that makes it difficult for them to sustain a private rental property does not mean they have to become virtual prisoners in their own homes. But there is a custodial aspect of public housing that can make it feel like that. Why does needing affordable housing have to carry such a high personal cost?