Flinders Journal of Law Reform
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Flinders Journal of Law Reform |
|
JANE ROLAND[†]
‘Round my Place’ (Roland 2001) is a report written by Shelter SA based on research examining the experiences of young people in the South Australian private rental market. The report provides a unique perspective. Not only does it present a detailed analysis of the experiences of young people in accessing and maintaining tenancies in the private rental market, it also examines the perceptions and experiences of property managers who have rented homes to young people.
In this paper, I will present an overview of the findings, and conclude with some challenges that the research raises in specific relation to this Conference.
The research tells us a lot about the processes and problems associated with looking for and securing a place to rent privately. The research also examines some of the less tangible aspects of the process of securing a place, particularly in relation to the ability to create a meaningful sense of ‘home’.
For many young people, the first consideration in looking for a place is ‘how much is the rent?’ Most interviewees placed a limit of how much they could afford to spend on rent of between $100 and $145 per week. Some even had limits as low as $55 per week. Compared to the average weekly private rent in South Australia of $175 per week, it is clear that young people are living in the lowest cost accommodation available. Young parents especially found it hard to find a ‘decent’ family home — with extra space indoors and outdoors — in the lower price range.
Most interviewees, on beginning their search, initially expected to have a good choice of properties. However, after several inspections and rejections, many young people felt that their choice was restricted to ‘what they could get’, rather than what they wanted. Many young people reported that they had compromised on accommodation standards, or taken places out of desperation.
The experiences of young people in this respect provide an interesting contrast to the perceptions of some property managers. They felt that if a young person didn’t like what was on offer in a particular place, they could easily find somewhere else. Often the reality was that young people felt they had to settle for less–than–desirable accommodation.
A few young people were in a position to be able to ‘wait for the right place to come along’. This group were invariably young people who had made a decision to leave their parents’ home when they felt they were ready, rather than being under pressure to leave. For this group of people, the local press was a secondary means of identifying suitable properties. More often than not, this group of young people would find out about properties through personal contacts.
The second most important criterion affecting choice of property was area. The preferred area was sometimes widened or redefined after the early stages of the search to increase the choice of properties available, and therefore the likelihood of finding a property.
Area was important because many young people wanted to live close to another family member, or to friends. The desire to be close to a family member was particularly strong for those young people who had moved to Adelaide from elsewhere. Most of these wanted to be close to a brother, sister or other relative who had also moved from the country or from interstate. For those young people who were not living near friends or family, there were concerns about not having support in times of crisis, particularly when there were children in the household, or where the young person had moved from outside of the metropolitan area.
Another reason for the importance of location was the need to be near to a place of study or work. Where this was not possible, the priority was to be close to good transport links — particularly public transport — so they could access work or study.
The types of properties that young people were looking for, also reveals something of their needs. The greatest majority of young people were looking for a two-bedroom property, with three bedrooms being the next most popular choice. Often, an extra bedroom was required for more internal space, either for storage or for studying. Therefore single people preferred two-bedroom accommodation, couples or pairs preferred three bedroom accommodation and so on. This obviously raises the question of whether or not one-bedroom places are a desirable or practical housing option for young people, or adequately meet their needs. Only one person specified that they wanted a one-bedroom home.
Apart from number of bedrooms, relatively few young people mentioned any specific features as being of primary importance in their choice of property. Surprisingly, perhaps, the most commonly desired feature was a garden either to grow vegetables, to have somewhere for children to play, or to create a greater a sense of space. Other desirable features mentioned were somewhere to store or park a vehicle and air conditioning — as might be expected in South Australia!
Property managers felt that young people should decide in advance what features they want in a property, in order to be more focused in their search. Unfortunately, the reality is often that young people lack the experience to be able to decide in advance what features of a property they would or wouldn’t like. Even when they do have specific features in mind, our research has shown that young people continually have to compromise what they want in order to get a place they can afford.
The application process was one of the most problematic areas for young people in the private rental market. The current private rental market is extremely tight. Vacancy rates have been under 2 per cent for some time, and at the time of the research were 0.8 per cent. Young people, especially those on low incomes, are consistently squeezed into marginal housing. Property managers are very aware of the current market power that they have. As one landlord said:
If you get a couple that are both working, and you phone up the previous landlord and everything’s rosy, as opposed to a couple of lads, that are sixteen, or whatever. Of course you’re going to take the easy one. Aren’t you? Because you’ve got a choice.
References are the most important factor affecting whether an applicant will be selected for a property. It is clear that young people are disadvantaged by this. If they have no private rental history they cannot provide references from a previous tenancy. The same applies to employment references. It was pleasing to discover, however, that some property managers were flexible if an applicant was able to provide good, checkable, references from another source. This had helped some interviewees, as they were able to provide references from school officials, or from other organisations that they were involved with.
Property managers generally held the opinion that young people were not as competent at completing tenancy application forms as older people. This is likely to be because they are inexperienced, or unaware of the expectations regarding the way information is to be presented on the forms. The research revealed that property managers generally did not go through the application form with the prospective tenant, and did not systematically give feedback on unsuccessful applications. Given this, some young people were in a position of having to be unsuccessful a number of times before they build up enough experience about the application process to fill in the forms to the expected requirements.
While the application form is the formal and official means of assessing prospective tenants, the research highlighted a number of interesting ‘informal’ factors that also come into play. The most obvious of these was visual presentation, but generally this was not about standards of dress. In fact, in many cases, property managers were keen to point out that they tried not to judge a person on this basis. Rather, property managers were more concerned with gaining a general impression of a person’s level of cleanliness and tidiness from their general presentation, and a sense that they had made some effort to visually present themselves in a positive way. An interesting example is the condition of an applicant’s car, both internally and externally. This was often seen as an indication of a person’s suitability as a tenant. Cars were mentioned more frequently than any other visual factor. To quote one landlord, ‘[i]f the car’s a tip on four wheels, you can guess what the house is going to look like inside a week!’
The research therefore paints a clear picture of the disadvantage faced by young people in the application process, by both formal and informal selection criteria. This disadvantage is compounded in a tight rental market and leads to many young people feeling bewildered and undermined by the application process.
Some young people felt that they had been discriminated against on the basis of age when applying for properties. To draw out any evidence of discrimination towards young people as tenants, property managers were asked what they thought the advantages and disadvantages were in renting properties to young people. Interviews did not reveal any direct discrimination against young people, although there were some consistent perceptions about young people as tenants, namely that they were less capable of looking after a property, less likely to communicate with their landlord, and more likely to default on rental payments.
The basis of the claims of discrimination from young people, was primarily the perception that property managers favoured certain household types, particularly couples or families, and, more surprisingly single mothers. Very young males (16–18 year olds) were most commonly perceived as the least desirable tenants, both by young people and by property managers. The perception that certain household types have a better chance of being offered a property than others meant that, in certain cases, young people consciously presented themselves to prospective property managers to ‘fit’ perceived preferences; for example, by posing as couples.
This highlighted some interesting dynamics in the application process. On the one hand property managers argued that they want an applicant to ‘check out’ — in other words the information on the form needed to correlate with the ‘reality’. Some made comments about how young people would present themselves as one household type, but turn out to be something different, resulting in the applicant being regarded with suspicion. On the other hand, property managers actively shape and affirm an environment where this takes place, through their very choice of tenants. Young people can only make these perceptions ‘work’ in their favour if they are 100 per cent successful in deceiving property managers about their status — in other words, they don’t get ‘found out’!
Interviews with young people revealed high levels of consistency in what they defined as ‘home’. The most important factors mentioned by young people were focused around being able to express themselves freely and make decisions about their own behaviour and lifestyle without interference from someone else.
The majority of young people interviewed felt that they were restricted in what they were able to do within their homes, particularly in terms of decorating and putting up pictures or posters. Being able to make alterations to the external space according to their own needs or taste was also important to some respondents, particularly where they said that having a garden was important in their choice of property, or where there were children in the household.
Being comfortable in a property contributed to a sense of home, and included such basics as being warm, and having decent fixtures and fittings within a property. It was also about feeling relaxed enough to behave how you wanted to. One simple example given was being able to eat breakfast in the lounge room in pyjamas!
For a few young people, having pets contributed to a sense of home. Some had left loved pets behind at their parents’ house, as there were restrictions against having pets in rented properties.
It is worrying that 28 per cent of respondents cited ‘not being hassled’ as critical in establishing a sense of home. In addition, 24 per cent mentioned security and safety. This clearly demonstrates that a lack of personal safety and privacy is a significant issue for many young people in private rental. Fully 34 per cent of respondents had experienced problems with their property managers, and 48 per cent had experienced trouble with neighbours or fellow tenants in their current or previous properties. These problems ranged from property managers frequently ‘checking up’ on the property, to more serious problems of sexual harassment and threats. Unfortunately, many young people provided examples of how their landlords had intruded on their everyday lives.
Interviews also revealed the concerns that young people had about security features in their homes, including poorly maintained or broken locks and screen doors. Security was of particular concern to young people in selecting the type of property to live in, with flats often regarded as being less secure than houses or units.
The issue of privacy also arose in relation to neighbours, whereby young people felt that they could not use their outdoor space as they would like for fear of unwanted attention from neighbours. This was most often reported in units, or by households with children.
Having security of tenure was important for most of the young people interviewed, in that they felt more able to relax and be at home in a place knowing that they would not have to leave with little notice. It impacted upon the practical aspects of running the property, with some reporting that they would be more willing to invest in improvements to the property, even in fairly minor ways, if they had security of tenure. The main exception to this was students who were coming up to the end of their studies. They did not want to be tied to a place, wanting instead to have the freedom and flexibility necessary to pursue employment opportunities.
Young people were asked about their experiences of moving from their parents’ home. Just over one third of the young people interviewed had decided to leave their parental home because of problematic circumstances, with a further 21 per cent being ‘kicked out’ by their parents, as a result of problems. Twenty-one per cent had left home to take up studies in another area. Only 13 per cent reported they had left home because they felt ‘ready’. The most common home–leaving age for interviewees was 15 or 16 years old, with the range being 12 to 21.
For those young people who had moved out of their parents’ home for the first time, a sense of independence and determining their own agenda and lifestyle was important in being able to feel at home in a property. Although these young people were coping, many spoke about how they had experienced problems with things such as budgeting, cooking and other home–management activities. External guidance or support systems could prevent or alleviate many of the problems that these young people faced. Young people who left home early or as the result of problems with their parents would particularly benefit.
Nearly 40 per cent of the young people interviewed struggled to identify any advantages to renting privately, reflecting perhaps the negative experiences that many had gone through. In analysing the reported advantages, it seems that private rental suits young people because there are fewer responsibilities than home ownership — it is seen as a good transitional tenure. However, despite the fact that getting maintenance done was seen as the main benefit of private rental, it is worth noting that 59 per cent of respondents reported problems in getting maintenance dealt with adequately.
Other reported advantages reflected the desire for many young people to be independent, to make the decision about where they live, and to choose what type of property to live in, although choice was strongly dependent on rental costs.
In discussing the disadvantages of private rental, young people most often mentioned property managers who were intrusive or who interfered with the way that they lived in the property. This again reflects the personal experiences of many of the young people interviewed, with 34 per cent having experienced problems with a current or previous landlord.
Another major theme that emerged was lacking a sense of ownership for the property. The factors that contributed to this were: the rent payments, which were seen as ‘dead money’ (27 per cent); not being able to make alterations or to decorate the property internally (24 per cent) and having inspections (17 per cent). Inspections were seen as intrusive and served as a reminder that the property did not really belong to them.
The research also explored the main financial issues that young people face. It examined, too, the experiences of property managers in dealing with the economic problems associated with younger tenants.
Youth Allowance and wages were the main sources of income for interviewees, with 30 per cent in receipt of Youth Allowance, and 27 per cent working. Twenty seven per cent received other statutory incomes, such as Austudy or Disability Support Pension. A small proportion (7 per cent), all of whom were students who had moved from regional areas, were entirely supported by their parents. The majority of interviewees were on low incomes, with half having incomes of $250 or less per week. This income group conceals the fact that those on Youth Allowance would have had incomes of only $135 per week. Fully 62 per cent of young people interviewed were spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rent each week, putting them in housing stress.
The research aimed to gain an understanding of the sorts of techniques that young people employed in managing their money, as well as finding out the sacrifices young people were making in order to pay the rent.
For those on statutory incomes, arranging to have their money paid to them weekly — an option available from Centrelink — was seen as a successful technique for managing their money more effectively. These young people were concerned that they would not be able to cope with managing their money over a fortnight, and would overspend in the first week.
Only a small proportion said that they put money aside each week or fortnight to cover bills. Most often, young people said that they paid bills when they arrived, while recognising it was not an ideal way to manage their money. A few said that they would wait until they received bill reminders or letters threatening to cut off their supply before paying a bill. Many had intentions of being more focused or disciplined in putting money aside for bills, but others simply did not have enough money to pay all of their bills, and therefore had to sacrifice other items in order to pay them.
A very small proportion of young people had been able to get to the point of being able to keep a ‘reserve’ of a few dollars in their bank account, which could absorb unexpected expenses. This proved to a be a very successful money management technique for those that used it, not only from a practical point of view, but it also gave peace of mind.
There was a perception among some of the property managers that young people did not place rental payments at the top of their list of financial priorities. The majority of property managers who were interviewed argued that, in their experience, young people were more likely to default on their rental payments than older tenants. The majority of young people interviewed were generally able to make their rental payments on time, and so there is little evidence in the interview data of rental payment problems.
However, many of the young people interviewed said that they had, at times, sacrificed something so that they could pay the rent. Food quality was most often sacrificed, along with leisure items, such as CDs, clothes, or simply going out with friends. To quote one young person, ‘[w]ith our groceries and that kind of stuff we wait until after the rent, and so we’ll be eating two minute noodles for a week.’
Where there were children in a household, the sacrifices were different. Occasionally the young parents interviewed had to put off buying baby care items in order to pay the rent. Purchasing items on credit was sometimes a means of buying needed items, which the young person could not afford to purchase outright. For childcare items there is little point in waiting to save up — a cot is no use to a 5 year old!
The irony is that people on lower incomes are forced to spend a much higher proportion of their income on a new item, because of availability of credit, while someone with a slightly higher income is able to purchase a lower priced, second hand item because they can afford to pay for it outright.
The majority of young people were receiving some form of government financial assistance, whether in the form of a South Australian Housing Trust bond or rent relief, or Commonwealth Rent Assistance. Analysis of the data showed a negative relationship between age and receipt of government financial assistance. This means that the younger the person, the more likely they were to be financially dependent on government assistance, rather than having an independent income.
Of those interviewed, 45 per cent did not get bond assistance from the Housing Trust. These young people either met the bond payment themselves, or borrowed money from their parents. A few young people were not aware that bond assistance was available. A few interviewees had experienced difficulties in getting Housing Trust bonds paid to property managers, particularly when transferring the bond from one property to another.
At the time of writing the report 38 per cent percent of young people interviewed were receiving rent relief. Even in spite of this, one third of interviewees were still paying over 40 per cent of their income on rent.
Interviews also provided some worrying insights into share households. People in share households, despite paying lower (shared) rent, were the group most likely to be in receipt of rent relief. While the share of rent that young people pay in share households is less than they would pay if they were living on their own, their income is so low that sharing is the only financially viable accommodation option available to them. For example if a person on Youth Allowance were renting a ‘cheap’ unit for $100 per week, they would be paying almost 75 per cent of their income on rent.
The research examines the relationships between young tenants and their property managers. It also explores the area of tenant rights and responsibilities.
Interviews with young people revealed large gaps in their knowledge about their rights and responsibilities as tenants. A few of the young people interviewed said they did not know about the Residential Tenancies Branch, despite the fact that the information brochure given to them at the beginning of a tenancy is produced by the Branch, and has contact details on the back cover. The lack of understanding about the legalities of being a tenant is worrying and would suggest not only that young people are more at risk of having their rights breached, but also that they lack the knowledge that would allow them to address any problems. When signing up a new tenant, most property managers said that they would verbally brief them about their main rights and responsibilities, because they felt that young people would not read or even keep the Information Brochure provided to them at the start of their tenancy.
A disturbing discovery was made in relation to the application process. On many application forms for tenancies there is a clause stating that, on signing the form, an applicant is legally obliged to take the tenancy. The problem for young people is that in order to maximise their chances of getting offered a place, they will often apply for several places at once. In reality, and especially given the current rental market climate, a property manager will most likely offer the tenancy to another applicant when one person changes their mind. However, it is cause for concern that this research revealed cases where property managers had sued prospective tenants for breach of contract.
The general impression from property managers is that young people are not aware of their rights or responsibilities as tenants. Interviews with young people tended to support this conclusion. In examining the levels of awareness of tenants’ rights and responsibilities among young tenants, it became clear that only a very small proportion had what could be considered anywhere near a complete knowledge about their rights and responsibilities.
Young people were asked to list their rights and responsibilities as a tenant. In comparing their responses to their actual rights and obligations, as listed in the Information Brochure, it is clear that there is a significant lack of understanding among younger tenants.
With regard to responsibilities, the two most important factors mentioned by property managers were to pay the rent on time and to keep the property clean and tidy. However, only 38 per cent of young people mentioned paying the rent on time as a specific responsibility, leaving a large proportion who were not aware that this was a legal requirement of their lease.
A high proportion, 66 per cent, mentioned keeping the property in good order. However, very few were aware of their responsibility to not cause a nuisance, or allow others to cause a nuisance to those around (21 per cent), to not make alterations to the property (14 per cent) or to notify damage to the property manager (7 per cent).
Awareness of tenants’ rights among young people was even more fragmented. The most commonly known right was that of having the property maintained, with 62 per cent of young people correctly identifying this right.
The right to privacy was most often expressed as freedom from being hassled by a landlord. In fact, 50 per cent of respondents cited it in that specific context. This certainly reflects the high proportion of young people who spoke about specific problems they had experienced with landlords, either in their current or previous property.
One third of interviewees correctly mentioned the right to be given notice for visits to the property by their property manager. Despite clear guidelines in the Information Brochure about a property manager’s right of entry to a premises, many young people had experienced problems with their property manager coming to the premises without giving notice to them.
Interviews with young people revealed various ‘checking’ techniques that seemed to be employed by property managers. These were most commonly visits to the property under the guise of doing some maintenance, or of fetching something. In reality the main purpose of these visits was to check on the tenants. In all cases where this type of behaviour was reported, it was the owners who were turning up at the premises, irrespective of whether the property was rented directly by them or through an agent. This would seem to indicate a lack of trust on the part of the owners towards their tenants, and also highlight possible concerns owners have about handing over control of the property to another person, whether it is a tenant or an agent. While this type of behaviour could be viewed as relatively harmless, it was a common experience for the young people interviewed.
In a few cases, young people mentioned more serious invasions of their privacy. In these cases, the property managers had placed unreasonable restrictions on younger tenants, watched their tenants’ personal activities, sexually harassed them or threatened them with eviction if they did not comply with certain conditions. While these examples represent the extreme, it needs to be recognised that the young people interviewed could be viewed as being relatively ‘successful’ in terms of their housing situation. As such, it could be assumed that young people who are less successful, who live in even poorer quality accommodation, may have a greater likelihood of experiencing these types of problems.
Security issues for young tenants mainly focused around inadequate or poorly maintained locks. The majority of requests for maintenance in this respect had not been adequately responded to, and as a result tenants felt their security was compromised. Very few property managers correctly identified the provision of reasonable security and locks as their responsibility, or identified privacy as the right of the tenant, which offers some cause for concern.
Other young people mentioned the type or style of the property as having a negative effect on their sense of security. The main sources of insecurity mentioned were living in very close proximity to others, or sharing access or certain facilities with others, even when not in a share household.
While privacy was most commonly mentioned in relation to property managers, 48 per cent of young people felt their right to privacy was restricted or undermined by their neighbours or fellow tenants. This was of particular relevance to households with children, shared households and people living in apartments.
Only 17 per cent of young people were aware of their responsibility towards their neighbours, which is interesting given that such a high proportion had experienced problems with other tenants or neighbours. For those who had experienced more serious neighbour problems, some said this was why they had moved from a previous property.
As it is the tenant’s responsibility to ‘not allow’ their activities to interfere with their neighbour’s privacy, there seems to be little to protect the ‘quiet’ tenant if they decide to make a complaint against problematic neighbours. In some cases, confronting neighbours who are causing a problem might actually exacerbate the situation. Often the tenant’s sense of personal safety was threatened, and therefore a confrontation was avoided. This can result in the problem going unsolved, as the ‘quiet’ tenant moves on, leaving the problem tenant behind.
A further responsibility of property managers is to maintain and repair the premises. Unfortunately, the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 has no specific requirements regarding how or when repairs should take place. As a result, some young people mentioned that the process of getting maintenance or repairs done was often problematic and drawn out, with 57 per cent ultimately reporting that their property was inadequately maintained. There were numerous examples given of poor maintenance, or of property managers taking a long time to complete repairs.
Interviews with young people revealed that certain property managers placed an expectation on tenants to repair the property themselves. While some young people consented to this, in some cases, they were expected to bear the cost, either directly or through rent increases. While this is not seen as ideal by any of the tenants involved, it is often supported where the tenant has a relationship with the property manager, or where the property manager is elderly or infirm. In certain cases, the young people identified instances where they had carried out minor repairs or maintenance themselves because there was a basic assumption that their property manager would not, or could not, do it.
Perhaps the single most important factor in whether or not a young person was successful in the private rental market was whether they had some form of personal support from a significant adult, especially from a parent. The research revealed that this support occurred in a variety of ways, even in cases where the young person had initially left home because of problematic family relationships.
Young people often gave examples of the ways in which their parents or other family members had been involved in the process of finding suitable accommodation. This included help with identifying properties, making phone calls to property managers, getting details of properties, arranging and attending inspections, helping with application forms and meeting the property managers when signing for a tenancy. Crucially, these people had acted as a form of brokerage service on behalf of the young person. This support was seen as critical for the young person in being able to secure a tenancy. It was even more significant for young people living in country areas, or for those moving from the country to Adelaide.
Property managers viewed the involvement of parents at the application stage very positively. It was perceived to give the impression that the young person was going to be a responsible tenant, even if the young person had no rental history or work references. It also implied an assurance to the property manager that if there were any problems with the tenancy, or with the young person, they could rely on the support person to intervene.
A very small proportion of young people were supported financially entirely by parents. A few others had received some financial support from parents at times where they were unable to meet a particular financial cost, for example, the bond, or a bill, or particular purchase. Normally, with the exception of bonds, these were only small amounts of money, which were given by parents with the expectation that the young person would repay the money. Parental financial support also came in the form of being guarantors on loans or hire purchase agreements, where the young person was too young to sign on their own behalf.
Financial assistance from parents was not seen as a right or taken for granted by young people. On the contrary, parental financial support seemed to promote better budgeting and a greater awareness of what was needed to manage money more effectively, rather than promoting financial irresponsibility. As one young man reported:
When I go to the house, I can eat as much as I want, but if I want to take anything back with me, I have to pay for it, which is a little frustrating at times, because they’re my parents. But what they’re doing is they’re saying that when I’m thirty-five, I’m not going to be coming home and taking all their food.
More common than financial support was emotional support and other forms of guidance from parents or other significant adults. Not only does having someone to rely on in times of need promote peace of mind in the young person, but it also serves very practical purposes.
Practical support was mostly in the form of providing emergency accommodation when the young person was having problems in private rental, or when they had come to the end of a tenancy. Almost 30 per cent of the interviewees said that they had returned to their parents for accommodation after they had initially moved out. However, this was not generally seen as desirable, since there was a sense that it would be a backward step for them if they returned. In addition, for those who had come to Adelaide from country areas, or from interstate, the option of returning to their parental home was even more problematic, since the relocation would mean having to discontinue employment or study.
Another area of practical support given by parents and other family members was in the provision of food, clothing, laundry facilities and caring for pets left behind by young people when they left home.
Many of the property managers felt that it was not their responsibility to help young people gain accommodation. However, there were some who provided support to younger tenants. One example was by providing feedback to unsuccessful applicants so that a young person’s chances of being successful in their next application were improved. While this was considered useful, it was generally only given in response to direct request from a young person and was not systematically provided at the application stage.
Other examples included the positive relationships that had been established between young people and their property managers, and in these cases tenancies seemed to be more successful. Often property managers would support a young person who was ‘starting out’ and who showed that they had a certain level of commitment to making their tenancy work. This support was most often in the form of guidance about how to meet their obligations, namely money management and cleanliness. However, it also extended to emotional and practical support, such as a greater willingness to respond to maintenance requests. For property managers who adopted this positive attitude these were seen as very positive experiences, and there was a sense of pride taken in their nurturing role towards younger tenants. To quote one landlord:
Actually letting, especially to a younger person that does the right thing and that shows that they’re really trying is, and I know you shouldn’t get personal or emotional or attached to people, but I feel great when you’ve got a tenant like that, you know?
Not surprisingly interviews revealed a general perception that young people had limited life skills to enable them to be successful as a tenant. This perception was shared by young people and property managers. Particular life skills that were identified as lacking were budgeting, cleaning and cooking. This lack of skill was not generally seen as inherently the fault of young people, but rather as a result of a general lack of experience, or guidance from families or schools in teaching basic life skills. Most interviewees felt that young people would benefit from extra help or guidance in life skills either at school, before leaving their parents’ home, or once they had left and were living independently.
Share households provided a good case study of the typical issues young people faced in private rental, as well as presenting a set of unique issues of their own. Just over half of the young people interviewed were currently, or had previously lived in shared accommodation.
The main reason that young people gave for choosing a share household was to reduce rental costs. Generally it was the case that those in share accommodation were paying significantly lower rents than other household types, with an average weekly rent for those currently sharing of $66.50, with the range of rents being $50 to $90 per week.
The need for company, or not feeling ready or comfortable about living alone, was also a significant factor in choosing shared accommodation. Obviously this has an impact on who young people share with. The majority, 80 per cent, of those currently in shared accommodation were friends with sharers before moving into that household.
Interviews revealed three main ways that share households were formed.
A minority of interviewees had been in shared houses with people that they did not know beforehand. There were mixed views among this group about whether this was desirable. Some felt it would be easier to share with people that were not their friends, as the arrangement could be more formal, and would be less susceptible to relationship breakdowns. Others felt that living with people that they didn’t know was a mistake for them and related negative experiences of sharing with people who were not their friends.
Some share households were spontaneous arrangements to help out a friend who was facing a housing or personal crisis. Some of these arrangements were temporary, and there was an understanding that the arrangement would come to an end after a specific period of time. Others were arranged as a trial run to see if the young people could live together successfully as a shared house before making the arrangement formal.
Again, there was no consistency among interviewees as to whether these ‘spontaneous shares’ worked or not. In some cases there had been no problems, while in others this kind of arrangement had been unstable and had promoted a sense of insecurity and vulnerability in the young person. However, in all cases, success depended on each person having mutual understanding of the terms of the share, and the original tenant not feeling they were being taken for granted.
Other young people had looked specifically as part of a group of friends for a place to rent as a share household. This carried its own set of problems, particularly in finding a suitable property, which leads the discussion on to the problems and barriers faced by sharers.
Lack of, or impractical allocation of, space was a major barrier to young people trying to access suitable accommodation for sharing. A group of young people might be looking for a place, but not be able to find anything suitable for a larger group. In cases where this happened with interviewees, the group often fragmented and ended up looking for a place in pairs, rather than as a larger group.
The suitability of properties for share accommodation is also dependent on sharers agreeing to the allocation of space. Both young people and property managers mentioned the issue of different bedroom sizes. For example, in three bedroom houses, the third bedroom is often significantly smaller that the other two. Young people looking for share houses stated how they were trying to get a place where the bedroom sizes were even, so that there would be a fair allocation of space. When this was not possible, other compromises had to be made over the space or facilities in the property. If a compromise over space couldn’t be reached, the inequity was reflected in the share of rent each individual was expected to pay. As one sharer said, ‘[w]e’ve got a carport, which is good, which I’ve got because I’ve got the smallest bedroom so I reckon that’s a good deal.’
Another set of problems was the combination of perceptions about the desirability of shared households, both from young people themselves, and from property managers. Some young people felt that property managers were not willing to accommodate share households, and would prefer couples or families instead. The perceptions about desirable household types explored earlier seem to have a greater impact on share households.
While there were some property managers who did not consider share households to pose any problems to them, there were a few who stated that they would avoid accommodating share households if they had a choice. These property managers spoke about the problems they had encountered with share households. Of particular concern was the apparently transient nature of share arrangements. Property managers explained how in the shared households they had accommodated, there were often breakdowns in the relationships causing one or more members of the household to leave and new people to move in without their knowledge. Alternatively, if there was a disruptive individual within a share household, the concern was that others members of the household would move out, leaving them stuck with a ‘problem’ tenant.
As outlined earlier, some young people felt their only hope of success, when applying for a share household, lay in successfully convincing the property manager that they were a couple, or to secure accommodation as a single person and then have sharers move in afterwards.
Most who had shared had some positive experiences, and felt sharing had given them the independence they wanted while still having company and a shared sense of responsibility. For many, successful sharing was seen as an intermediate form of accommodation when single — particularly for students — before taking on the responsibility of managing or owning a house by themselves.
However, interviews with past or current sharers revealed 46 per cent had experienced problems with fellow tenants. With those towards the older end of the age range, who had longer experience in private rental, these problems had resulted in them moving out of the property, either to another share household, back to their parents’ home, or to live on their own. Some had such negative experiences that sharing was not an option they would consider again in the future.
One area where problems arose could be broadly defined as personality clashes. These ranged from minor disagreements about lifestyles and generally unsupportive environments, to more serious situations where fellow tenants were abusive or violent. These problems undermined the fact that many young people had chosen to live in share households to have company or support.
Most young people who spoke about household responsibilities felt that they were managing to deal with them well, and were pleased to have the responsibility for chores and other household tasks shared. A few young people mentioned that they had experienced problems in shared households with allocating responsibility fairly.
There is a sense that resentment and problems with fellow tenants, associated with unfair allocation of chores, or lifestyle clashes, could destabilise the household, and could ultimately cause relationship breakdowns or result in someone moving out. Interviews showed that many share houses are occupied by young people on the lowest incomes and, particularly in the ‘spontaneous share’ situation, often from vulnerable or unstable backgrounds. Given this situation, the added instability and insecurity of shared accommodation where these problems exist, could lead to further marginalisation of young people, who are significantly marginalised already.
Success in share households depended, in part on the relationship between tenant and landlord. This in turn was influenced by the attitude and arrangements that property managers had towards share households.
Some landlords used a sub-tenant arrangement, with one person only on the lease responsible for the bond and rent. The arguments used to support this position were that, if one person was responsible, it minimised the risk to the landlord if someone moved in or out without notifying them. There was also a sense that it simplified the procedure for property managers. Other property managers used a joint tenancy arrangement with share households, or at least, kept details of everyone living in the house. This shared the responsibility of rent and bond between the tenants. Property managers that tended towards this arrangement stated that it was an effective means to enable them to keep a record of who was living in the house.
The inconsistency in the approach taken by property managers was reflected in interviews with young people. There was a lack of awareness and understanding among young people of what would happen if a member of their share household were to leave. For some who had looked for a place as a group of friends, there was resistance and embarrassment towards making arrangements formal, as this seemed to undermine the trust and friendship of the people involved. Others felt that they would put off making a decision until the situation arose, but assumed that the person that was leaving would be expected to ‘buy out’ the others if the remaining person or people chose to stay in the property. While there was recognition that making such arrangements was important, few had done so.
When arrangements are not formalised with the property manager, there could be unforeseen problems with remaining tenants. Obviously there are issues in this situation about affordability: the rent share for remaining tenants could increase if they were unable to find another suitable tenant to replace the one who was leaving. This could have implications for their sustaining the lease, and therefore put them at risk of eviction.
Two of the young people who were included within the share household analysis, actually lived in rooming houses. These young people felt pleased that they were individually responsible for their rent and bond, and so were not at risk of having problems with fellow tenants who defaulted on their payments or left the household. They also felt that the large household gave them the level of company and security that they wanted from living in a share household. Although their rent was slightly higher than other young people in share households, their experiences of living in the rooming house were very positive, and both felt that it was the ideal form of accommodation for young people leaving home for the first time.
While there is evidence that young people can achieve success in the private rental market, there is also evidence of factors that can either support or serve as barriers to that success.
• The involvement and support of a parent or other significant adult in helping to access or finance accommodation, or to offer practical or emotional support.
• Having a certain level of life skills that enable the young tenant to manage household responsibilities including managing money, cleaning, looking after the property and themselves.
• Developing open relationships with fellow tenants and neighbours to minimise the impact of any issues that may arise.
• Developing good relationships with property managers who are cooperative or sympathetic to the needs of young people.
• The emphasis placed on rental and work references in the application forms.
• Lack of awareness about their rights and responsibilities as tenants.
• Negative perceptions of some property managers towards young people and share households.
• Problems in negotiating the application process and dealing with property agents.
• Insecure or unstable backgrounds or relationships, which can lead to a cycle of instability and marginalisation in poor quality accommodation.
In relation to this Conference the research presents a number of challenges.
• For young people on low incomes, accessing share accommodation is vital in minimising the proportion of their income spent on rent. There is an apparent need to address some of the confusion in the application of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 to eliminate the administrative and legal problems associated with share households.
• Young people clearly have a limited understanding of their rights. As such they are at risk of having those rights breached, and not understanding the process to get breaches addressed. Evidence from this research shows particular problems in getting adequately and securely maintained properties, as well as compromised privacy.
• It is clear that the information presented to young tenants at the commencement of tenancies is not being fully understood. Coupled with the issues around life skills, there is a need to develop more effective techniques to inform young people about their rights and responsibilities.
• This research demonstrates that security of tenure is desirable for most young people. More protection should be given to tenants in this respect, particularly those who have signed fixed term leases. If a tenant wishes to serve notice on the landlord, then letting fees etc are taken out of the bond. If the landlord serves notice on the tenant, no compensation for relocation expenses or family disruption is forthcoming.
• Young people are clearly disadvantaged in the application process because they might not have previous rental references. Landlords need to be encouraged to view other types of evidence as providing satisfactory indication of a person’s suitability as a tenant. The rhetoric of ‘as long as they pay the rent of time and keep the place clean, there’s no problem’ does not match the evidence that young people are systematically excluded from the chance to prove their abilities, because of the application process.
• There is an obvious message that tenants, particularly those on low incomes, face numerous barriers to achieving good housing outcomes in the private rental market without any formal support, advice or advocacy service. Use of the Tenancy Advice Line is problematic. There are low levels of awareness of the service, particularly among young people. More importantly, however, because it operates under the principle of ‘impartiality’, it is unable to offer personal support or assistance to individual tenants, and as such serves to maintain the status quo, where the balance of power rests securely with the property manager. There is an urgent need to establish a private rental tenant support service within this state.
REFERENCE
Roland, J. 2000, Round My Place: examining the experiences of young people in the private rental market in South Australia, Shelter SA Adelaide.
[†] Research and Policy Officer, Shelter SA.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FlinJlLawRfm/2003/22.html