Uncategorized

The grounds for the notice to leave included the reporting to Department of Housing and Public Works (DHPW) by Queensland Police of a search at the tenant’s address where the tenant was found to be in possession of dangerous drugs and mention of a stolen motorcycle located at the premises.

It is noteworthy that the dangerous drugs located at the premises by Police were all below trafficable quantities and appropriately assessed as personal use quantities. Further, the tenant was not charge by police in relation to the allegedly stolen motorcycle.

Section 63 of the Housing Act provides for a review of a ‘reviewable decision’. The decision to end a tenancy under the antisocial behaviour policy and section 290A RTRA falls under the category of reviewable decisions.

In response to the notice to leave the premises, we prepared a document with representations to support a section 63 Housing Act review of the decision of the DHPW decision to terminate the tenancy on 18 March 2026. 

The application for review centred around the DHPW assessment of the tenant’s behaviour as dangerous or severe and that the tenant had not used the premises for illegal activity.

The application for review demonstrated the DHPW had failed to interpret and apply their own policy, assessing the tenant’s behaviour as dangerous or severe and that the tenant had not used the premises for illegal activity.

The application for review made observations of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation and other legislation Amendment Bill 2013 Explanatory Notes, which set out the requirement for section 290A as a need to respond to the cost of drug laboratories and the risk they pose to neighbouring properties, furthermore that over time, the application of this section to more and more frequently less serious instances of behaviour tends to offend the original intention behind the introduction of section 290A.

Reference was made to written decisions from another court in the same region, of extremely similar nature and the Magistrate’s decision to dismiss based on the DHPW failing to interpret and apply their own policy, assessing the tenant’s behaviour as dangerous or severe and that the tenant had not used the premises for illegal activity.

Reference was made to Victorian and South Australian tenancy legislation and case law and its application being inconsistent with the application of similar legislation in Queensland, that the determination that an illegal act was committed on the premises can justifiably fall within the category of illegal use of the premises.

We maintain the position of the Victorian Supreme Court in their view that ‘it is not sufficient to show that the offence was one with which the premises had nothing to do beyond [being] the scene of its commission’, that is, if the premises were not an inherent part of the offending, DHPW cannot rely on the application of section 290A when tenant offending and the premises are so casually linked.

The Regulatory Services response.

On 15 May 2026, Regulatory Services determined that the Notice to Leave is withdrawn. In summary, Regulatory Services stated –

The review has considered all other relevant information held and or obtained by the department including the nature of the behaviour and your response and supporting documentation, and it is determined that the original decision to issue the NTL will be withdrawn.

The review found that the behaviour in question, where the Queensland Police Service attended your home and charged you with four counts possession of dangerous drugs and one count possession of drug utensils, while a breach of the ABS Policy, is more appropriately classified as Serious rather than Dangerous/Severe. This classification reflects that while the incident on 9 March 2026 caused concern and distress, it did not pose a demonstrable risk to the safety or security of your neighbours or the community. The department’s ASB Policy requires that responses to ASB be proportionate, evidence-based, and consider the frequency, severity, and impact of the behaviour. In this case, the decision to issue a First and Final NTL for a single incident of Serious behaviour was not consistent with these principles.

William, a man in his mid‑80s, has lived in his long‑term private rental in regional Queensland  for more than 12 years. The area is being heavily impacted by the loss of long‑term rental properties to the short‑term accommodation market. This has left renters like William increasingly vulnerable.

William is well established in the local community and reliant on access to essential and medical services which he currently walks to.  Remaining in his home is vital to his wellbeing. William’s only income is the Age Pension and he holds no significant assets. To manage rising living costs, he recently took in an elderly co‑tenant, also an Age Pension recipient.

William experiences age‑related health issues, including chronic pain and fatigue, and he struggles with complex administrative processes. He is digitally excluded, relying heavily on mail and supported phone calls. Large amounts of information can feel overwhelming, so clear explanations and written summaries are essential for him.

After William’s property was transferred to a larger real estate agency, he received a sudden rent increase of $250 per week alongside a demand for a $1,000 bond top‑up. The notice included threats of breach and eviction. Already managing considerable stress from recent life‑saving cancer surgery—which he paid for on his credit card to avoid treatment delays—William was terrified of becoming homeless. His credit card debt exceeded $50,000, and minimum repayments of more than $1,000 per month were unmanageable on a pension income. Rising essential expenses pushed him into financial crisis, and he relied increasingly on emergency food relief.

William approached the Department of Housing for help but was initially told no immediate assistance was available. Although placed on the social housing register, he feared being forced to move away from his community and to live alone—something he deeply wanted to avoid. Distressed, he expressed genuine fear of being homeless and living in his car by Christmas.

William was referred by the TQ telephone advice line to the Financial Counselling service which he did not previously know existed. The Financial Counsellor took the time to understand William’s situation and communicate in a supportive, accessible way, including mailing written summaries and local support service details after each session.

Together, and in collaboration with the tenancy advice workers, they re‑engaged with Housing, uncovering that William’s Centrelink records had not been updated for over 15 years. Once corrected, Housing approved immediate assistance to cover the bond top‑up.

The Financial Counsellor arranged an in‑person appointment with William and his cotenant and completed a full Statement of Financial Position, submitted hardship applications, and advocated directly with creditors. This resulted in significant outcomes, including:

• $1,000 bond top‑up paid through RentConnect
• Full waiver of William’s $50,652.38 credit card debt
• Full waiver of co‑tenant’s $4,916.70 credit card debt
• $720 HEEAS electricity grant
• Transfer to seniors’ electricity plan: approx. $400 annual savings
• Mobile hardship support and discounts totalling over $400
• Internet hardship support totalling $460 in credits and discounts
• Insurance savings exceeding $1,000 annually
• Emergency relief assistance including food, fuel and medication support

These outcomes stabilised William’s housing, eliminated unmanageable debt, and significantly reduced stress during his cancer recovery—allowing him to remain safely in his community. To find out more about TQ’s free Financial Counselling service, click here:  https://tenantsqld.org.au/free-financial-counselling-service/

Alby’s responsibilities cover vast distances, stretching from Cairns to the Torres Strait.

The regional scope of his role is significant. He often travels to large centres such as Townsville, and smaller communities like Tully, building the strong local relationships that are essential for regional service delivery.

Alby first joined the Tenants’ Union in 2013, bringing prior experience from the housing and homelessness sector. In that first role he provided advice and advocacy for renters, but the regional office closed soon after due to changes to funding, a difficult time for TQ team members and tenants alike. When the organisation was refunded in 2015, he returned as a Senior Advice Worker before moving into coordination and management. This progression reflects both his expertise and his commitment to people who rent their home. As Alby explains, “I’ve grown up from a little fella to a manager […] It’s given me confidence, direction, and challenges I never thought I’d have”.

During his time with the organisation, Alby has also seen Tenants Queensland expand significantly. Despite this growth, his focus has remained the same: “I think day-to-day all I’ve got to do is help those that come to our organisation, whether or not it’s empowering them to do it themselves or educating them to know what to do and who to call”. His perspective highlights the consistent mission of Tenants Queensland – to improve conditions for renters across the state while adapting to the needs of an expanding service. As he puts it, “Nothing’s really changed in that: the work is still all about improving things for those that are renting their home in Queensland. It’s extremely satisfying work. I can’t imagine wanting to work for a different organisation”.

The rent policy required of CHPs is being updated to align rent assessments across social housing. The aim is for all eligible applicants housed from the housing register to have rent assessed using the same assessable incomes and rates.

This policy has been developed but there is no date yet for it to commence. You will get an update prior to its implementation and CH tenants who will be impacted will have a long lead in time.

Current differences between public and community housing rents, and that which will change include:

The Department is still working on FAQs, key messages etc. to be made available before the policy is launched.  CHPs will need an implementation plan and no household is meant to experience financial hardship as a result of the changes.

• An implementation plan will be required to be submitted to the Dept by all providers.
• Once commenced, the policy can be applied immediately for new tenants.

CHPs will have to:

• Amend current rent policy to reflect and include how they will be sensitive to the household’s circumstances (s17 of the housing regulations 2015 require providers to keep a rent policy and implement it consistently and fairly.
• Reflect how they apply any decisions/ considerations for any discounts applied ot household rent calculations.

For sitting tenants:

• Providers must consider tenants’ existing costs and their ability to pay
• Manage any rent increases on a case-by-case basis
• Graduate increases
• Options to ‘grandfather’ if providers choose

About 80% of the CH portfolio are smaller household types. It is the bigger intergenerational households that will be most impacted –  about 20% of sitting CH renters. Most of these are on fixed incomes so the transition will be difficult. Dept are not prescribing timeframes and are stating that hardship impact must be minimalised and considered when implementing the policy. Some guestimates of rent increase impacts are::

• Single people and couples – impact likely to be 6.15% maximum – 0 – $7.50 per week
• Small families with one adult child – 20.1% max – $38.38 per week
• Large households with multiple children –   42.7% max – $104.15 per week!

Providers will have a choice not to charge the 25% on income as rent i.e. not to pursue all or some of the increases at their discretion. This might be something we advocate for those severely impacted households once the policy is implemented.

A final note

This policy has not yet been implemented. You will receive further information prior to commencement and there will be lead in time. This is just initial information.

The Department have developed new product to deliver subsidies to Community Housing providers who house you people on low incomes such as Youth Allowance. This is a response to CHPs concerns that housing yp is costly to the providers, given the income-based rent model, and a disincentive to housing them.

Eligibility for Youth Subsidy will include: –

• The young person is the primary tenant on a GTA in a registered community housing (CH) service.
• They are between 16- 25yrs and offered housing from the housing register
• Their assessable household income is less than JobSeeker Payments
• They are paying no more than 25% of assessable household income plus 100% of CRA

The subsidy is the difference between the young person’s income, (usually) Youth Allowance, and the JobSeeker Allowance.

Subsidy is paid to CH providers quarterly but the rate is calculated each July ( i.e. not indexed as statutory income increases)

CHPs (including new youth foyers) must register for the youth subsidy

• CHP submits the claim based on all the young people (yp) eligible in the quarter x how many weeks they have been housed @ the level of subsidy per yp.
• CHPs are paid by the Dept on a quarterly basis following the submission of the claim.

New online claim form goes live in September for claims from July 1 just passed.