NSW Statutory Instruments / Rules

[Scruff]

"So we don't need to comply with s39(1)(a),(b), and (c)."

I don't see how that's correct. 137 says "to the extent of the inconsistency" and the inconsistency only extends to (a), not (b) or (c).

Thanks for pointing out s32 of the Interpretation Act though - that's valuable info.

 

[Docupedia]

I'm not quite following what you think is the inconsistency. So, let's break it down.

For starters, the inconsistency is at the 'provision' level. Section 39 is a provision in and of itself. Subsection (1)(b) (for example) is not a provision - it is a part of a provision. It must be read as part of the whole provision; it cannot be taken on its own.

Next, section 137 comes into effect where there is an inconsistency at a provision level. Part 7 (as a whole) then applies to the extent of the inconsistency.

Section 39 is all predicated on tenants paying for water but only if the conditions in ss39(1)(a), (b), and (c) are all satisfied. These conditions are the 'gatekeeper'. If all of them together do not apply, the tenant does not pay. It's not (a), (b), or (c) - it's (a), (b), and (c). So, it's all or nothing. Therefore you cannot split out the 'separately metered' part and just rely on that.

Then, both s39 and s139 are about the notions that tenants have to pay for their water usage. No inconsistency there.

Then s39 says 'you have to satisfy the conditions (a), (b), and (c) before the tenant has to pay pursuant to this section'. s139 says 'you have to be a public housing tenant before the tenant has to pay pursuant to this section, but we're not saying anything about (a), (b), or (c).'

To put it in a table like format:
- Covers tenants? s39: yes. s139: yes. No inconsistency.
- Covers all residential tenants? s39: yes. s139: no, public housing only. Inconsistency.
- Concerns paying for water? s39: yes. s139: yes. No inconsistency.
- Requires separate metering? s39: yes. s139: no. Inconsistency.
- Requires water efficiency measures? s39: yes. s139: no. Inconsistency.
- Requires amount not to exceed that paid by landlord? s39: yes. s139: no. Inconsistency (but other factors should preclude the government making a profit)

The extent of the inconsistency, without having to go further, is that s139 provides public housing tenants' payment for water is not reliant on separate metering, water efficiency measures, and not exceeding amount paid by the landlord. That's inconsistent with s39, so s139 overrides those aspects.

 

[Tim W]

Some of it is contractual. Depends which one.

Consider s39(7) of that act.
That makes section 39 a term of the lease
(that is, of the contract between landlord and tenant)
therefore, my term "contractual".

What's the back story to your question?

 

[Scruff]

Basically the legality of the way the charges are calculated. It involves "adjusting" the actual bill from the water authority. This always results in the tenant being under or over charged. For example, my latest is $159.80 from the water authority, but I'm being charged $23 per week for 13 weeks which is $299. There are other issues as well, such as not passing on credits to tenants (instead, the tenant gets charged double and triple for previous usage), plus charging for usage without providing billing details.

At the end of the current 13 week billing cycle, the difference between the water authority charges and what I've been charged will be over $330. That's over the entire account which only has $1716 in water authority charges since Dec 2005 when charging began. And that $330 is after $476 of credits applied as a result of their stupid policy. So the difference in debits throught the life of the account is actually just over $800.

Whoever came up with the formula is a criminal genius, because they've been getting away with fraud for 15 years and noone knows how they're doing - because noone can make heads or tails of the idiotic formula.

 

[Scruff]

Okay, making some headway.

A Google search for "in accordance with" legal definition showing results from Australia only, pops this up as the first result: Words and Phrases Guide - ACT Parliamentary Counsel's Office

Although we're talking about NSW and this document is from the ACT, given that "accord" generally means to "come to an agreement with compromise", I believe this text would pretty much apply everywhere.

From the above document (quotes and emphasis added for clarity):

in accordance with
...
extra information

1 compound preposition

2 Generally, prefer "under" to "in accordance with". However, use "in accordance with" if it is necessary to emphasise, or make it clear, that something must be done in a particular way or in a way complying with certain requirements.

3 See LA, dict, pt 1, def under.

examples of no change

1 An exemption under subsection (1) must be made in accordance with the
guidelines (if any) made under subsection (4).

2 A person is authorised under this section to carry out a forensic procedure under
this part only in accordance with part 2.6.

example of change

1 Despite the filing of a caveat in the Supreme Court in accordance with under
subsection (1) (e)

further reading

Garner’s Dictionary p 14 (accord; accordance)
Gowers’ Plain Words p 55

So we take from the above that guidelines under s139 replace all other provisions and s39 does not apply at all to social housing.

Correct?

 

[Scruff]

I have a question that is totally unrelated, but given something that just happened today, I'm curious.

What law (NSW) do you break (if any) if you threaten to take action under a section of law that no longer applies (repealed 9 months ago) and in this case, never would have applied in the circumstances even when the law was valid?

In case you're wondering, it's s133 of the NSW Residential Tenancies Act (Repealed 1 July 2020).

 

[Scruff]

Screw it - I can't help myself, so let's have some fun!

All three letters say pretty much the same thing and they appear very serious - but this is hilarious!!! I already know from experience that these clowns are criminal geniuses (or "genii" if that word doesn't sit right with you), but it appears that they moonlight as stand-up comedians as well - and they're bloody damn good at it too!!!

NOTICE TO REMOVE VEHICLE

FACS Housing has received a number of complaints about a Vehicle, [description and rego] that you, or a member of your household own.

The vehicle has been left in nature strip adjacent to [address] for approximately 12 weeks.

DJC Housing has reasonable grounds to believe that this car has been abandoned.

If this vehicle is not removed within seven days of this notice being issued, FACS Housing will apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an order to dispose of the vehiscle under Section 133 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact us on the telephone number at the top of this letter.

DCJ Housing

Okay, let's count the jokes in this routine...

FACS Housing ... that you, or a member of your household own ...
...
DJC Housing has reasonable grounds to believe that this car has been abandoned.

Umm - they claim that I or a member of my household own the car, yet at the same time they claim that I/we've relinquished ownership??? Umm, Okay. Can somebody buy these poor decrepit souls a dictionary please? (Google: abandon definition) Apparently I'm living in a paradox.

Moving on...

Hang on a minute - who's "DCJ Housing?" Isn't it "FACS Housing?"

If this vehicle is not removed within seven days of this notice being issued, FACS Housing ...

Oh, it is FACS Housing. Whew... I thought I was seeing things...

... will apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an order to dispose of the vehicle under Section 133 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Ummm?!?!? ... and you are aware that s133 resides in an entire division that was repealed on 1 July 2020, right? But I do find myself wondering... what does s133 actually say? Hmmm, let's see ...

133 Landlord may seek Tribunal direction
(1) This section applies if the tenant abandons the residential premises or dies.

HOLY SH*T!! SOMEONE CALL A BLOODY AMBULANCE!!! (Now you gotta admit - that's a pretty damn good pun!)

Well, given that the rent is 4 weeks in credit and a payment was made today, I'm pretty sure that these clowns are well aware of the fact that I haven't abandoned the premises. So... I guess I must be dead, right? Well, let's see...

[checks for breath, heartbeat, etc]

Hmmm... Nup. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not dead. Do you guys think I should seek a second opinion???

Signed ...

DCJ Housing

POOF!!!! MY HEAD JUST EXPLODED!!!!

Okay, now that's enough. I'm always making jokes about these clowns changing their name from week to week, but this is just outright ridiculous! And YES - these are REAL letters and there really are THREE of them!!!

Even these idiots themselves can't keep up with what they are called. It's such a shame that "DoCS" is already taken, because clearly the only valid and apt name for this department is the "Department of Corrupted Services".

I haven't laughed so hard since binge watching the entire collection of Robin Williams' stand-up gigs - and given that he was the greatest comedian of all time, that's really saying something!

But at the end of the day, these guys just don't compare. I miss you Robin.