Case types of Second Tier Appeals

You can find case examples of the types of Second Tier appeals the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) deals with. Personal details have been changed to protect the identity of applicants.

Recognition as a Tenant

The client

Ms R applied for Recognition as a Tenant after her mother passed away.

The background of the appeal

Ms R was raised in the property but moved out when she became an adult. Years later Ms R's mother was diagnosed with complex health issues which required Ms R to give up her job and home. Ms R moved in with her mother as an authorised additional occupant and a full-time carer. Seven years later her mother passed away and Ms R applied for Recognition as a Tenant. 

The Department rejected the application as Ms R is not a spouse or de facto partner over the age of 55. Additionally, there were no children, and she did not relinquish a social housing property to care for her mother. Lastly, the Department did not consider Ms R to be eligible for Priority Housing because she had a history of employment and would not find it difficult to rent privately once she secured employment.

Our finding

The Committee determined Ms R met the common eligibility criteria for Recognition as a Tenant, being a permanent resident, who had been an approved occupant of the property for more than 2 years and had agreed to relocate.

As a ‘Other Household Member’ Ms R also needed to meet the criteria for priority housing. The Department had agreed she met the first 2 criteria: being eligible for social housing and in urgent need of housing. The Committee needed to assess whether she also met the third criteria of being unable to resolve her own housing need.

During the appeal hearing, Ms R disclosed that while it was true that she had employment as a housekeeper for years, at the age of 63 and having a big gap in her resume would make it difficult to secure a job as her own physical health had declined over the years. She was also on a waitlist for a total knee replacement on both legs and found it difficult to walk short distances. She cannot manage stairs and needs a ground floor property.

She received a Jobseeker allowance and therefore there were no affordable one-bedroom properties in the area she needs to live in. Ms R also provided new support letters which suggested that being full-time carer had severely impacted her mental health. She saw a psychiatrist every fortnight and attends a support group in her area. Additionally, she has no rental history as she had always lived with ex-partners or friends. never holding a lease in her name. 

Based on the new evidence, the Committee recommended that Ms R was eligible for Priority Housing and therefore eligible for Recognition as a Tenant.
 

Transfer to Tweed Heads

The clients

Mr and Mrs T are both in their late 60s and applied for a transfer to Tweed Heads.

The background of the appeal

After 15 years of living in Homes NSW accommodation in a southern coastal town, Mr and Mrs T sought a transfer to Tweed Heads because they wanted to:

• be closer to their adult daughters who were living on the Gold Coast, Queensland 
• improve their access to medical services for treatment for their heart conditions.

The couple still wanted the security of social housing and could not transfer to Queensland due to no interstate transfer arrangements and sought housing to the closest town in NSW which is Tweed Heads.

Their application was rejected on the basis that they:

• had reasonable transport access to medical services
• did not have sufficient reasons to be housed only in Tweed Heads.

Our finding

While sympathetic to the need to be closer to medical services, the Committee found the transfer could not be justified to only Tweed Heads. The Committee did consider that there was some justification in relocating the couple to be closer to medical services but found that alternative areas with medical services existed such as Newcastle or Lismore. 

Due to the limited supply of Homes NSW housing and long wait times, the couple could not be placed on the waiting list for Tweed Heads. Mr and Mrs T only wanted a transfer to Tweed Heads. The Committee agreed with Homes NSW’s decision. 

Offers of Housing: location

The client

Ms K is a private teacher of English as a second language.

The background of the appeal

Ms K appealed to the Committee after being removed from the Homes NSW Housing waiting list after refusing 2 offers deemed as ‘reasonable offers’ under its policy guidelines. Ms K strongly felt that she should only be listed for particular suburbs within one of Homes NSW allocation zones and she was prepared to wait longer for housing in those suburbs. Ms K was offered housing in a suburb approximately 4 kms from her preferred suburb. Ms K did not want housing in the area offered because it:

• was away from her social and support network near the beach
• took her away from job opportunities.

Before making the second offer, Homes NSW interviewed Ms K and advised her the reasons for her only wishing to live in certain suburbs were not considered essential factors in the locational need policy and that the next offer would be her last and would be within the zone. The second offer was in a similar location to the first, but slightly closer to Ms K’s preferred suburbs. Ms K was removed from the Homes NSW Housing waiting list after rejecting the second offer. 

Our finding

After detailed discussions with Ms K and viewing the medical evidence provided, the Committee found:

• the client did not have specific medical support needs to be in a particular area of the zone
• the client did not have mobility restrictions preventing her from using public transport
• the client’s reasons for not wishing to relocate were social.

The Committee agreed with the decision of the Homes NSW and rejected Ms K’s appeal and advised her:

• that if she applied again for housing, it would likely be a long wait in her preferred zone
• to seek alternative options through community housing or in private rental housing.

Offers of Housing: suitability

The client

Ms P is in her 70s and applied for transfer on medical grounds.

Background of the appeal

The reasons Ms P applied for a transfer was to:

• be closer to support services
• manage her worsening osteoarthritis that prevented her from using the stairs in her current Homes NSW property.

Ms P was approved for transfer and listed for ground floor housing in a zone where she could receive support. Ms P was removed from the transfer waiting list on the grounds that 3 reasonable offers of housing had been made and she rejected these offers without a good reason.

Our finding

After examining the offers to establish whether they were reasonable under Homes NSW’s housing policy at the time, the Committee found:

• the first offer of ground floor housing in an area was close to her support network, so it was suitable
• the second offer was cancelled after Ms P was away at the time and did not receive the offer and was not properly noted in her file
• the third offer was not considered suitable even if it was a ground floor property because it was a considerable distance from Ms P’s support network and from public transport linking her to the network.

The Committee found Homes NSW only made one ‘reasonable’ offer of housing and an additional offer should be made. Homes NSW agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. 

Priority housing issue

The clients

Mr and Mrs D were in private rental and applied for housing assistance due to:

• their medical and psychological conditions
• higher rents
• the need to be closer to their support networks within the Bosnian community.

Background of the appeal

The couple had settled in Australia as refugees from the war in the former Yugoslavia and had lived in Australia for years. They have no family support in Australia and lost their daughter during the war. Mrs D suffered acute post-traumatic stress symptoms and medical problems. Mr D is his wife’s full-time carer. 

The couple were seeking priority housing. Mrs D was distressed by needing to move due to her experiences as a refugee of constantly moving during, and after the war.

Homes NSW rejected their application on the basis that:

• their current housing was reasonably suitable and affordable
• they could afford alternative housing.

By the time the Committee met with the couple, they had been issued a notice of termination and were experiencing harassment by the owner who wanted to live in the property himself.

Our finding

The Committee found the couple’s:

• fragile emotional and psychological condition was affecting their physical health
• conditions had worsened after the termination of their tenancy.

The question for the Committee to decide was whether they could find another private rental which was affordable and suitable to their medical and psychological conditions. Based on evidence provided by their psychiatrist, the Bosnian support worker and the interview with the clients, the Committee concluded that the couple were in a poor position to relocate to another private rental because:

• they did not have the resources to relocate
• Mrs D was not able to psychologically deal with any further moves and the ongoing lack of housing stability.

While the Committee agreed they could just meet the affordability criteria, it considered the issues of acute mental health (supported strongly by psychiatrist reports) made private rental housing less suitable for them.

The Committee recommended a change of decision by Homes NSW and discussed the needs of the clients with senior staff. Homes NSW willingly approved Mr and Mrs D for priority housing based on their changed situation and the issues raised by the Committee.