The " Hot Bedding " issue !

The New South Wales state government is considering a law change to give more power to Owner's Corporations to police the by-laws that apply to resident numbers in rental accommodation.  At present, units in the inner city and adjacent to university areas are commonly partitioned to create more bedrooms and in some cases " hot bedding " means each bed is occupied by several occupants on a time share basis.

The present laws are cumbersome.  An owner's Corporation wishing to prosecute a breach must  lay a charge with the Consumer, Trading and Tenancy Tribunal, but if this proceeds to the point of a fine, the money is paid to Fair Trading.  Not a penny finds it's way to the Owner's Corporation, hence that body bears all the costs - and no reward !

Both South Australia and Western Australia have had a law change that allows Owner's Corporations to levy a $ 500 fine for by-law breaches and it is claimed that this has cleaned up problem areas such as noise complaints, hanging laundry on balconies and illegal on site parking.   The question of tenant numbers in relation to bedroom numbers and floor space is a separate issue - and tends to involve owners as much as those renting the premises.

Opportunistic owners know that they can greatly increase income if they pack more people into a unit by way of illegal subdivision.   They will always have willing customers because housing demand outstrips supply.   Desperate people will pay more money for sub standard facilities - because they have no other option.

At present, these owners get away with it because of lax council laws and a cumbersome prosecution system that not only fails to deliver justice, but actually prolongs this illegality by meandering endlessly through the review system.   Dodgy owners know that with the help of a smart lawyer they can delay legal progress indefinitely.

The present thinking seems to be a limit of two adults allowed for each bedroom, but that could bring new problems where the occupants are members of a large family.   It would be easy to end up with a draconian law that prevents a big family from legally living in a dwelling that they actually own.   It will be very difficult to frame a new law that covers each situation - and still prevents dodgy owners rorting the system.

Then there is the matter of policing this limit on tenancy numbers.   That takes us into the murky world of " proof capable of convincing a court " , which raises the access question.    This onus could rightly descend onto the shoulders of council inspectors, but at what cost - and to whom ?    We could easily create a monster - that satisfies nobody and creates more new problems than it solves.

Overcrowding is certainly in need of solution on the grounds of both fire safety and humanity, but putting together the nuts and bolts to achieve success is no easy task.     The law framers would do well to think long and hard before venturing into dangerous waters.