19. There was no new evidence introduced at the hearing. The photos the applicant referred in his affidavit8 were provided to the applicant by email on 21 April 2022. Further, the photographs were of the applicant’s personal property stored at the subject premises, at various times throughout the tenancy. Various notices of breach and the Notice to Leave that gave rise to the termination order were issued to the applicant because of the property. The applicant could not fairly have been unaware of, or caught by surprise, by content of the photographs at the hearing.

Paragraph 41 of my Affidavit contains the following:

41. During the hearing, the applicant introduced new evidence in the form of photographs taken after the submission referred to in [22] above. Neither adjudicator LeMass nor myself had access to these photographs. The applicant discussed these photographs at length.

Paragraph 22 of my Affidavit contains the following:

22. At 0916hrs on 21 April 2022, the applicant sent additional material by email to both QCAT and myself, consisting of a large number of photographs, all but one of which were dated before the original application was made.


It appears that the writer of the submission has mistakenly assumed that these two paragraphs are discussing the same material, when they are not. Paragraph 22 refers to the submission of photographs provided to both QCAT and myself at 0916 on 21 April 2022. [41] explicitly mentions that the evidence to which it relates was submitted during the hearing and was not part of the evidence referred to in [22]. The Department's representive admitted that the photographs had been taken on 21 April 2022. They could not have been part of the submission made at only 0916 that morning. In fact, the photographs which are the subject of [41] were taken during a visit to my premises by Department staff at approximately 1100 - nearly two hours after the submission referred to in [22]. This fact is corrorborated by both an admission of the Department's representative that a visit was made to my premises on that day, and my own sighting of Department officers inside my front yard as I was driving past in my car at the time. I repeat that the photographs taken at 1100 on 21 April 2022 have never been provided to me, and were not provided to QCAT before or during the hearing, only a verebal description of them from the Department's representative. This could hardly be an objective presentation of such evidence.



23. The respondent submits that the applicant is not unfamiliar with the conduct of proceedings in the Tribunal given his prior involvement in Tribunal proceedings in 2021. Relevantly, the level of assistance provided to self-represented litigants will vary depending on the circumstances.

QCAT proceedings in 2022 are very different to 2021 due to the COVID Practice Directions. This added layer of complication is essentially the underlying reason for the problems encontered. Adjudicator LeMass admitted that even QCAT makes mistakes from time to time and that documents do not always reach their destination.

The premise of this paragraph is therefore unreasonable.




27. The applicant had enough time to consider the evidence and respond. If the applicant had concerns, he could have sought an adjournment at the hearing or requested copies of the relevant documents if required.

An adjournment was sought at the hearing. The Department opposed it and it was refused.




31. On his own admission, the applicant was able to access the internet over the ANZAC day long weekend to login to the online account for his secondary contact number. The respondent submits that the applicant had a sufficient opportunity to address the issues he now seeks to agitate and communicate these to the registry by email, or in person, prior to the hearing on 26 April 2022.

Paragraph 41 of my Affidavit contains the following:

26. Over the ANZAC Day long weekend, I realised that the situation described in [17] above had not been resolved. I attempted to log in to the online account for my Secondary Contact Number to investigate its status and possibly attempt to reinstate the service but I was unsuccessful. I realised I would have to call the service provider directly. As this could only be done during business hours, the next available opportunity was Tuesday 26 April 2022, which was the scheduled date of the hearing. Although I knew that there would only be one or two hours to reinstate the service, I was confident that this could be achieved based on previous experience.

Again, we see the writer of this submission misunderstanding the content of the paragraph, which then causes them to make a false allegation. This allegation is then used as grounds to support the submission.

The submission makes the assumption that I successfully logged in to the online account for my secondary contact number over the ANZAC Day weekend. My Affidavit specifically says that my attempt was unsuccessful [26], and goes on to explain why in [27]. The allegation is therefore refuted and the grounds upon which the submission relies have been destroyed.



40. The applicant has now had 24 days to ameliorate that risk by seeking alternative accommodation in the private rental market, or with friends and family. The applicant has not applied for a Bond Loan, rental grant or made an appointment with the respondent to discuss obtain assistance to find alternative accommodation. Without any additional income the applicant receives from his business his weekly income is $540.10, and the private rental market range in a similar rental area he resides in is upwards of $340.00 per week.

I have not applied for a Bond Loan because I would be ineligible due to the existence of a maintence debt allegedly owing to the Department, which will be contested in due course.
Most of the time since the hearing has been spent preparing the appeal and stay documents. Some preparations for homelessness have been undertaken but resources are very limited. The submission grossly overstates my income which is solely derived from the Disability Support Pension. The Department is be able to know the amount of this because it is published online by the Australian Government. For the record, the amount is $927.50 per fortnight, or $464 per week. There is no income received from any "business".


41. The Park Hotel is currently being operated by the department as temporary accommodation for the homeless. It accepts referrals from the respondent, Communify, MICAH Projects and HART. During the RentConnect appointment, the respondent can make referrals to support organisations to obtain access to the Park Hotel and the services that it offers. The respondent has not attempted to make an appointment with the respondent to discuss these options.

Aside from the obvious grammatical error in the last sentence of this paragraph, the premise of the sentence is demonstreably false. I sent email to both the Department and Communify on 12 May 2022 to make enquiries about alternative accommodation. I admit that this email did not specifically seek to make an appointment, as it was my intention to seek and consider information before making a commitment. The last 3 weeks have shown that the Department is not keen to provide written information about these programs. Communify began suggesting private rental and sidestepped the Park Hotel option, despite the submission now admitting it was in Communify's discretion to make such a referral on my behalf at that time or even earlier. The Department did not respond to my email for more than a week. Their response did not directly address my requests, but merely directed that I attend the office to make an appointment. to discuss my options.



42. In respect of ameliorating the risk of the disadvantage occurring, the respondent has:
a. reviewed the applicant’s affordability based on known income. However, the applicant may receive income from his business that has not been disclosed and considered. The applicant’s affordability is between $180-220.00 per week which means he is currently able to rent a one bedroom in shared accommodation;

As mentioned in paragraph 40 of the submission, the income attributed to me is more than I actually receive. Also, as previously stated, there is no income form any business. I offer to provide my personal income tax documents to prove this.


b. attended the applicant’s property on numerous occasions to encourage the applicant to attend the Housing Service Centre to discuss alternate housing options;
c. On 29 March 2022, staff attended the applicant’s property to offer Rent Connect services/attend the Fortitude Valley Housing Service Centre to discuss his housing options and left a calling card;
d. On 5 April 2022, staff attended applicant’s property to discuss the upcoming QCAT hearing, and the applicant advised that he didn’t want to discuss this, and everything will come out in court during this conversation the applicant was encouraged to attend the HSC for an appointment through the Rent Connect program to assist him in alternative accommodation;
e. On 21 April 2022, staff attended applicant’s property to hand deliver the QCAT hearing reminder letter and offer support services to assist find alternative accommodation. The applicant was not home, and this letter was placed in his mailbox;
f. On 27 April 2022, staff attended applicant’s property to discuss what assistance the HSC could provide in assisting him find alternative housing a letter was left requesting the applicant engage with the HSC with a list of community support services;
g. On 5 May 2022, staff attended applicant’s property to discuss what assistance the Housing Service Centre could provide in assisting him find alternative housing;
h. On 12 May 2022, staff attended applicant’s property, the applicant advised he had lodged an appeal and a stay of the decision. Staff discussed supports and engaging with the department around the Rent Connect program, and that if he did not wish to attend the Housing Service Centre for an appointment, a phone interview could be arranged.

I sincerely declare that the first time I ever heard about RentConnect was during this conversation at 1100 on 12 May 2022. RentConnect was not mentioned during the QCAT hearing nor in any previous written communications. Most oral communications have not been recorded and I therefore cannot comment about what was said. It must be noted, however, that the Department is not renowned for accuracy and truthfullness, which is why written communication is so essential.


i. On 20 May 2022, an email response was sent to the applicant in response to the applicant’s email of 16 May 2022 regarding the Rent Connect Service. The respondent discussed the variety of products available for customers through this program however there were varying factors to consider including the suburb, financial limits, housing requirements and what kind of property was suitable for the household.

The submission incorrectly states that my email waas sent on 16 May, when in fact is was sent four days earier on 12 May. The content of the email is as follows:

Good morning David,
 
Thank you for your recent email in relation to the options and products available through the Rent Connect service.
 
There are multiple products available to customer that engage with this service, such as head leasing and advocating for our customers to obtain a private rental. These appointments are more successful when the engagement with customers is face to face. There are a number of different avenues that can be explored and department products that we can offer however this will all depend on a number of varying factors regarding your suburb selection; financial capacity; housing requirements and what type of property you are interested in.
 
Therefore, we strongly encourage you to come into the office and have a face to face discussion with one of our officers to go through all of these variables with you the team may be able to obtain a more successful and specific outcome that aligns with your specific needs.
 
We are more than happy to accommodate you at any time however, if you would like to make an appointment please contact either Ray or Marlena on 3034 6500 or alternatively reply to this email.
 
Regards,
 
Kathleen Molloy
Customer Service Manager
Fortitude Valley Housing Service Centre
Housing and Homelessness Services
Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy


The email clearly describes the services provided by the Department in generic terms only. My email was seeking details of specific programs which may be suitable for my situation. The email deliberately avoided such details. Again, we see the Department actively avoiding written communication to prevent a trail of evidence being created.



