Review of the Boarding Houses Act

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Anonymous

Questions on possible options

  1. Are the objects of the Boarding Houses Act 2012 still valid? Why or why not?

    The legislation contained in the Act has provided a fair framework to regulate the Boarding House sector but as an long term responsible owner I would not want further restrictions placed on the daily management of the house. Boarding Houses Agreements and Rental Tenancy Leases have always been treated as separate and I would regard any referral of disputes to NCAT as helpful rather it would erode the reasonable authority of the owner.

  2. Are there any types of premises which should be included in or excluded from the Act?

    No.

  3. Should the exclusion that currently applies to specialist disability accommodation for the purposes of the NDIS be extended to other NDIS service types, such as where residents are in receipt of SIL packages?

    I believe the current situation adequate.

  4. What are the benefits of the two tier system in NSW? How does it compare with systems in other jurisdictions? Please provide comments.

    I believe the current situation adequate.

  5. Should anything be changed in, or added to, the list of information provided to the Commissioner?

    I believe the current situation adequate.

  6. Is the information on the public Register sufficient? Why or why not?

    I believe the current situation adequate.

  7. What other information could be added to, or removed from, the public Register?

    I believe the current situation adequate.

  8. Should the Commissioner have the power to remove the details of a boarding house from the public Register under prescribed circumstances, if it has ceased to be used as a boarding house?

    Yes.

  9. How could we improve the local regulation of boarding houses?

    Annual Inspections from Council.

  10. Should councils be required to let NSW Fair Trading know of enforcement action against boarding houses, so that it can be recorded in the Register?

    I believe this to be fair and reasonable.

  11. Are there any provisions of the Standard Occupancy Agreement which should be changed, or are any additional provisions required?

    I believe the current situation adequate.

  12. Do you have any comments on the use of either the Standard Occupancy Agreement, or other occupancy agreements?

    I believe each property should be permitted to maintain its own Agreement.

  13. How aware are you of the occupancy principles?

    Very familiar.

  14. Should the occupancy principles be handed separately to each resident when they enter a boarding house or is it enough to include them in the Occupancy Agreement?

    It is enough to include them in the Occupancy Agreement.

  15. Should the occupancy principles be clearly displayed on a notice board in a common area in the boarding house?

    Yes this would be recommended.

  16. Are the occupancy principles useful and appropriate?

    None.

  17. Are the occupancy principles being complied with? If not, why not?

    Yes.

  18. Should any other information be provided to a resident when they move into a boarding house? For example, a fact sheet with information about access to outside services, such as dental, Housing NSW, casework psychologists.

    Not necessary.

  19. Should any information be provided to operators of boarding houses, for example, a fact sheet outlining their responsibilities?

    Not necessary.

  20. Are the occupancy principle provisions for termination and notice working or are there any changes which should be made?

    The legislation contained in the Act has provided a fair framework to regulate the Boarding House sector but as an long term responsible owner I would not want further restrictions placed on the daily management of the house. Boarding Houses Agreements and Rental Tenancy Leases have always been treated as separate and I would regard any referral of disputes to NCAT as helpful rather it would erode the reasonable authority of the owner.

  21. Do the suggested notice periods in the Standard Occupancy Agreement constitute “reasonable notice” for terminating an agreement by either a proprietor or a resident? If not, why not?

    The present situation is satisfactory.

  22. Should a proprietor be required to provide a reason for terminating an agreement? Why or why not?

    No. The owner should have complete control over his property and management.

  23. Do the current provisions provide sufficient security for residents of boarding houses?

    Yes

  24. How aware are you of the dispute resolution mechanisms available for house residents and proprietors?

    The legislation contained in the Act has provided a fair framework to regulate the Boarding House sector but as an long term responsible owner I would not want further restrictions placed on the daily management of the house. Boarding Houses Agreements and Rental Tenancy Leases have always been treated as separate and I would regard any referral of disputes to NCAT as helpful rather it would erode the reasonable authority of the owner.

  25. How effective and appropriate are the current dispute resolution processes?

    Very appropriate and effective to this special sector of accommodation which is often family run.

  26. Do you have any other suggestions to encourage the early resolution of boarding house disputes and to reduce the number of boarding house disputes?

    Satisfied with current situation.

  27. Is the definition of a “person with additional needs” clear? If not, why not?

    Yes.

  28. Does the definition need to be more detailed?

    No.

  29. Should it make reference to the Disability Support Pension as an indicator that the person may have “additional needs”?

  30. Should it be linked to, or make reference to, NDIS eligibility where those NDIS funded supports are to address a disability support need which is permanent, or likely to be permanent (i.e. not a one-off package for equipment or for where the support is time limited and is not intended to be permanent)?

  31. Should it be made identical to the definition in Section 24 of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013 (with a provision to also include people with an age related disability as people aged 65 years and over are not eligible for the NDIS)?

  32. Should the present two-tiered system of “assisted” and “general” boarding houses remain unchanged, and only “assisted boarding houses”, as presently defined, be allowed to accommodate a person with “additional needs” under the legislation? Why or why not?

    Present situation adequate. Each tier has its own special circumstances.

  33. If you think that some general boarding houses should be allowed to accommodate some people with “additional needs” provided certain safeguards are met, what should these standards and safeguards entail?

    No

  34. Should the general boarding house be allowed to accommodate a person with “additional needs” but only if the person has a “package” of supports such as under the NDIS, or provided by NSW Health?

    No

  35. If the general boarding house is allowed to accommodate people with “additional needs”, should a condition of that be that they are subject to certain requirements?

  36. What other safeguards, if any, would be needed, and why?

  37. What is the impact of specifying that only one person can be the applicant to be the licensee?

  38. Should corporations and companies be excluded, given that a company can be purchased and sold, in order to prevent a buyer of a company which holds a licence of an assisted boarding house circumvent the requirement to apply for a licence?

  39. Is 28 days adequate time for a licensee to give notice of closure and to allow for alternative accommodation for the residents to be secured?

    Yes

  40. When a person is asked to answer questions, should the warning be simplified to state that the person must be advised that: (a) they have the right not to answer the question or produce documents only if they believe such answers or documents will be self-incriminating; and (b) if they do choose to say anything, anything they do say may be noted; and (c) if they say anything which is self-incriminating, it may be used against them in future legal or administrative proceedings?

    Unnecessary.

  41. Is the current requirement that one person be specified as an “authorised service provider” adequate? Should the definition of “authorised service provider” be broadened to include any employees of a named organisation providing services to an assisted boarding house?

    Yes

  42. Is the maximum number of 30 residents appropriate? Why or why not?

    Not necessary. as it depends on the size of the property with possibly the provision of an On Site Manager for larger properties.

  43. Are the current arrangements adequate in meeting privacy needs of residents?

    Adequate

  44. Where two residents have decided to share a bedroom, should it be enforced that an additional room not less than 7.5 square metres be set aside for the exclusive use of those two residents only?

    Not necessary.

  45. Is the current requirement of 11 square metres adequate for a room that two residents choose to share?

    Yes - adequate.

  46. Should there be a minimum size for the private or quiet room? If yes, what should this be?

    Not necessary.

  47. Should a minimum size for a communal living space be specified? Why or why not? If yes, should this be based on the number of residents accommodated e.g. a specified number of square metres per resident?

    In older existing houses this provision could cause much costly alteration and not of huge importance. Most residents prefer a quiet enjoyment without necessarily any social interaction which could lead to unacceptable noise.

  48. Are the current provisions of the Act in relation to young persons adequate? Why or why not?

  49. Is the current purpose of the Screening Tool still valid?

  50. If an assisted boarding house resident, actual or proposed, has a package of supports which meets their needs, should he or she be considered eligible to live in an assisted boarding house regardless of their level of need? (For instance, if a person needed daily personal care but he or she had an NDIS package where he or she could purchase those supports, could this be delivered in an assisted boarding house?)

  51. Are the current provisions of the Act adequate in relation to abuse and neglect?

    Annual Council Inspections could address this issue.

  52. Should there be a clause in the Regulation which states that in a boarding house which is authorised to accommodate a person with additional needs, a receipt for any money received from, or on behalf of that person, must be issued to the person and a copy of all such receipts kept? This includes details of the purpose of the receipt of money or payment.

  53. Should there be a clause in the Regulation which specifically covers financial exploitation? If yes, given many residents of assisted boarding houses have difficulty managing their finances, how would “exploitation” be defined and differentiated from “assistance”?

  54. If yes, should the clause also cover the management and delivery of the resident’s NDIS Plan?

  55. Are the current provisions of the Act in relation to record keeping adequate?

    Yes. For older long term proprietors any further blue tape would be undesirable.

  56. Should the records required to be kept by an assisted boarding house, and which are therefore available for inspection by a Department of Communities and Justice boarding house enforcement officer, be expanded to include: a) Occupancy Agreements? b) NDIS Plans and NDIS Service Agreements? c) Payments to a service provider under the NDIS Plan? d) Any other record or document?

At our discretion we may remove parts of submissions because of length, content, appropriateness or confidentiality (privacy) reasons.

Website https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

©