Decline/termination decisions: Accommodation
Summaries of decisions by Disability Discrimination Commissioner or delegate to decline complaints, and of the President of HREOC or delegate reviewing such decisions; or (from 13 April 2000) decisions by the President or delegate to terminate complaints. Last updated: 19 April 2000
Requiring tenant to leave for unmanageable behaviour not unlawful
A tenant complained she had been discriminated against on the basis of her disability by being required to leave her home because of behaviour which caused nuisance to neighbours. The Commissioner declined the complaint on the basis that the acts complained of were not unlawful. While he accepted that the behaviour might have been a symptom of the tenant s disability, he noted that
- there were substantiated complaints of causing damage to the proprety, subjecting neighbours to verbal abuse and entering neighbours premises without permission
- the accommodation provider did not have the expertise or budget to assist the tenant to remain at home while ill
- while the accommodation provider provided general support services to people with a disability, requiring it to provide specialist support services of the kind need by the complainant would change the nature of the service, which the DDA did not require
- the accommodation provider s lease was subject to repossession if there were persistent substantiated complaints about a tenants behaviour, and repossession would mean the premises were no longer available for other people with a disability. (30 July 1998).
Not unlawful for hostel to fail to relocate toilet facilities
A man with a mobility disability complained that he had been discriminated against by a youth hostel's refusal to relocate the men's toilet from the first to the ground floor during his stay. Confirming a decision by a delegate of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner to decline the complaint, the delegate of the President decided that in the circumstances the relocation of the toilet would have imposed unjustifiable hardship. He took into account that the hostel had advised the complainant in advance that it occupied an old building with access limitations; that alternative accessible accommodation had been available; that the women's toilets were specifically equipped as such and were not easily relocated; that confusion would have been caused to other guests by a relocation, and the short term nature of the complainant's stay (28 April 1998).
Not unlawful to require provision of own assistant
A man with a mobility disability complained that a youth hostel proposed to discriminate against him by requiring that he be accompanied by a carer or assistant on his next visit. The delegate of the President confirmed the decision of a delegate of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner to decline the complaint. He found that in the circumstances, including that the complainant was otherwise in the position of requesting other travellers for assistance in showering and using the toilet, the provision of accommodation without the attendance of a personal assistant would have imposed unjustifiable hardship on the hostel (28 April 1998).
Reasonable conditions on tenancy not unlawful
In confirming decisions by delegates of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner to decline complaints, the President has decided that it was reasonable, and therefore not unlawful under the DDA, to require a tenant not to create a fire hazard (21 August 1996); not to create disturbances (19 May 1997) and to maintain premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (10 June 1997).
Disability accommodation service complaint better dealt with by Community Services Commission
The parents of a girl with an intellectual disability, epilepsy and diabetes complained that she had been discriminated against by not being given the opportunity to move out of an institution into a group home, because of higher support needs (24 hour supervision) due to her diabetes, and by a failure to arrange alternative accommodation for the girl when it became clear the institution was not meeting her needs. The Commissioner declined the complaint on the basis that the matter could be more effectively dealt with by the NSW Community Services Commission (1995).
Rejection of preferred design of ramp not discrimination
A man with a mobility impairment complained that the body corporate of the building where he rented accommodation had discriminated against him by refusing permission to install ramp access to his flat. The Commissioner declined the complaint. Evidence indicated that the body corporate had rejected the design of ramp submitted by the complainant but had invited him to submit an alternative design, which he had not done (1995).