In discussions and actions on housing human rights – like in a recent case in the ACT where public housing tenants successfully argued that relocation plans breached their rights – the focus has traditionally been on protecting renters from arbitrary interference in their homes (ABC News).
However, there is currently another set of housing human rights concerns emerging in Victoria: the rights of property owners and neighbours affected by unlawful conduct and threats from problematic tenants in mismanaged social housing nestled within private developments.
The Context: Social Housing Strains in Victoria
Victoria faces acute housing pressures, with public and community housing systems under stress and complaint systems overwhelmed. The Victorian Ombudsman found tens of thousands of complaints from social housing renters that highlighted administrative lapses and poor dispute and management handling — illustrating systemic dysfunction (Victorian Ombudsman).
Reports from diverse forums and community discussions describe instances where tenants’ behaviour has affected surrounding property occupants, impacting neighbours’ safety, peace and enjoyment of their homes and, the valuation of privately owned residences. In some such cases, neighbours recount noise disturbances, property damage and confrontational behaviour that, if occurring as described, implicate their own rights to quiet enjoyment and security and, reduce the value of their privately owned dwellings as resale value is affected by these domestic disturbances.
Extreme examples within inner Melbourne, including recent events which unfolded inside the Botanic Building (where a meth lab was found to have been constructed within two social housing units), resulting in some tenants receiving multiple death threats, having their vehicles tampered with in a manner that could have ended their lives and, being repeatedly targeted, stalked and harassed by drug addicts who formed part of the Governments ‘from Homeless to Housed Program’. Multiple case studies highlight that Victoria Police refused to intervene and protect property owners affected due to pressures from the bureaucracy not to expose the extent of the problems experienced.
Owners corporations are fearful of getting on the wrong side of the Department of Family Fairness and Housing and do not have the capacity or resources to pursue class actions that would see property owners adequately compensated.
These issues potentially run into the hundreds of millions of dollars when measuring lost value in property investments and, harm done to the community. Let alone the psychological trauma that comes with property owners being displaced from their own homes and propelled into financial hardship due to their need to protect their lives and personal safety.
Property Owners’ Rights Matter Too
Across Australia, property owners have legal protections designed to secure their right to peaceful possession and use of their homes. Under Victoria’s legal framework, landlords and neighbouring property owners have recourse through tribunals like the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) when tenants breach rental agreements or cause damage. But when social housing tenants engage in violent or destructive acts — such as damaging structures, throwing objects, terrorising occupants and creating unsafe environments — the impact on others’ fundamental rights becomes a living nightmare.
Human rights principles encompass security of person and protection of property, not only the right to shelter. Conduct that puts neighbours at risk or diminishes their quality of life and value of investments are therefore, to be viewed as an infringement of those rights, yet this is often under-examined or remedied in public discussion or legal forums. This perspective asks a critical question: how should the human rights of property owners and neighbours be weighed alongside those of social housing tenants occupying mismanaged government owned apartments?
The Impact of Anti-Social Behaviour
Examples circulating in local forums and community networks include accounts of physical intimidation, construction of drug labs which pose a significant threat to the health of all tenants and prolonged disturbances linked to dysfunctional tenancy situations and reparations required to building infrastructure by the harmful chemicals permeating through entire buildings through internal air-conditioning infrastructure. While these reports are anecdotal, they reflect lived experiences where human rights norms like safety, privacy and property integrity are under threat.
Even isolated incidents of anti-social behaviour can escalate feelings of insecurity and injustice for property owners who have complied with legal responsibilities and expect the rule of law to protect their rights or Victoria Police intervention where crimes committed are self-evident.
Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
A balanced human rights approach must grapple with the reality that rights are interdependent and sometimes conflicting. Secure housing is a fundamental right but, so too are the rights to life and security of the person, right to due process and fair hearing, right to equality and non-discrimination, right to privacy, family and home, right to adequate housing and right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s property.
Policy frameworks that focus exclusively on shielding tenants from state action overlook the needs of others affected by third-party behaviour - this is especially so given the State Government is continuing to encourage and incentivise social housing within privately owned developments.
Victorian law already provides mechanisms for landlords and neighbours to seek remedies when tenants materially breach tenancy obligations. Yet critics argue that enforcement is often practically not achieved, it is slow and disputes are poorly mediated. Concerningly, extreme examples involve Owners Corporations and Victoria Police concealing what has occurred and refusing to assist tenants who have been attacked through the influence of bureaucracy.
Though property owners have specified rights under law, the cost of legal proceedings prohibits access to justice. Legal Aid services do not provide representation in relation to these matters at all. The end result is that it is often cost-prohibitive for property owners to engage legal representation with a view to enforcing their legal rights and obtaining appropriate compensation commensurate with the damage and trauma endured - the reality is most are left in financial ruin with properties worth less than the purchase price and impacts such as long-lasting psychological distress.
Towards a More Inclusive Human Rights Lens
Human rights discourse must broaden beyond an exclusive focus on state-tenant relations — such as claims against relocation or redevelopment — to include protections for property owners and communities experiencing the consequences of anti-social behaviour.
This isn’t about vilifying social housing tenants; the vast majority abide by the law and are themselves vulnerable. Rather, it is about ensuring the rights of all parties are respected and so that property owners are not left in hundreds of thousands of debt, experiencing huge losses on property investments, if not millions of debt as a consequence of mismanaged mixed social housing tenants.
Human rights — whether for tenants, landlords or communities — should not be selectively applied. In Victoria’s complex housing landscape, situations in which social housing tenants attack property owners or damage property highlight the need for a holistic human rights framework that acknowledges the rights and responsibilities of all actors and property owners. Addressing these issues requires enforcement, support services, and policies that balance protection from state interference with protection from harm caused by others.