AN 87-year-old social housing tenant is being turfed out of the house she has lived in for 22 years with her husband, with a debt of more than $12,500.
The woman's husband died just over two years ago, in June 2024, leaving her as the sole tenant. Less than a year later, however, the NSW Land and Housing Corporation wrote to her after learning there were seven "unauthorised" people living at the house with her, including her daughter and granddaughter.
She was invited to an interview, and was later informed that as at the end of June, 2025, she would no longer receive the rent subsidy and would be paying market rent of $410 per week going forward.
In about November 2025, the department began legal proceedings against her in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). She was ordered to pay rent arrears of just over $10,000 by instalments.
The department issued a notice of termination under the Residential Tenancy Act for failing to pay rent and seeking vacant possession on December 31, 2025.
Consent orders were made on January 16, 2026, but the woman lodged an appeal, and was granted a stay of those orders, until the appeal could be heard.
At the appeal hearing, her daughter and granddaughter gave evidence saying their mother had not understood the orders, and/or was under duress or undue influence causing her to agree.
The tribunal was told that the 87-year-old woman would be homeless if she was removed from the house, located in a south Newcastle suburb, because no family member could assist her, and that she would need at least 60 days to find accommodation.
Her granddaughter told the tribunal that she did not live permanently at the address, but spent time there assisting and caring for her grandmother, and that she left her stuff there, and would be unable to remove her stuff, which included two caravans on the property, by the end of July.
The department told the tribunal there was no duress, mistake, undue influence, unconscionable conduct or misrepresentation by them and that the tenant had said she agreed to and understood the orders that were made.
The tribunal found that while the department landlord's position may have been "unpalatable and confronting" to the tenant, it was reasonable, particularly considering the substantial amount of rent arrears (which exceeded $12,000), and failure to meet conditions of the previous order to the pay arrears in instalments.
The appeal panel acknowledged that the tenant was an elderly person, and accepted that she was likely under stress by reason of the amount of rent arrears, the prospect that the tenancy would be terminated, and the refusal of the landlord to engage in negotiations for a specific performance order.
The landlord's representative may have spoken to the tenant and family members in a firm or impolite manner, but even if the version of events of the tenant was accepted, the conduct of the landlord's representative did not constitute duress, undue influence, or unconscionable conduct, the tribunal found.
The appeal was dismissed, but taking into account the woman's age, and the length of time she had lived at the home, the termination of her lease was pushed out to August 28, 2026.
