Applications to VCAT seeking (interim) restraining order/injunction against a landlord(s)

knav2013 made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney-General's Department

Attorney-General's Department did not have the information requested.

From: knav2013

Delivered

Dear Attorney-General's Department,

This request is made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) to request document(s) that contain the:

1) Number of applications lodged at VCAT [1] under the residential tenancies list.

2) Number of applications in (1) where the applicant(s) seeked a restraining order/injunction against a landlord(s) under the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act.

3) Number of applications where eviction [2] HAD NOT yet taken place when the application was made, for the figures in (2).

4) Number of applications where eviction [2] HAD already taken place when the application was made, for the figures in (2).

5) Number of interim restraining orders/injunctions granted against the landlord(s) for the figures in (3).

6) Number of interim restraining orders/injunctions granted against the landlord(s) for the figures in (4).

7) Number of restraining orders/injunctions granted against the landlord(s) for the figures in (3).

8) Number of restraining orders/injunctions granted against the landlord(s) for the figures in (4).

Please send (post on this site) the document(s) in .doc format (microsoft word 97/2000 format) or PDF format if this is not too resource intensive.

Note that the The Right to Know email address is valid for the purposes of s.15(2)(c) of the FOI Act.

I also make an application that all costs for the processing of this request be waived on the grounds that the release of this information will provide the general public a snapshot of access to justice modes with regards to the particular matter under discussion.

Yours faithfully,

[Redacted Name]

[1] - Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), 55, King Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, for applications lodged and hearing taking place on 18 November 2013 and 19 November 2013.

[2] - to include all instances where the applicant was excluded from a property or premises.

Link to this

From: FOI Requests
Attorney-General's Department

Thank you for your email. This is an automated response to advise you that
your email has been received by the Attorney-General's Department's FOI
Coordinator.

 

If you wish to lodge a request for access to documents under the Freedom
of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), please ensure that your request is in
writing, states that it is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act
and provides sufficient detail describing the documents you wish to
access. The FOI Coordinator will acknowledge your request within 14 days.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Freedom of Information and Privacy Section.

 

show quoted sections

Privacy Collection Notice

When you make a request for documents or an inquiry about privacy matters,
the Attorney-General’s Department will only collect your personal
information where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to,
our functions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 or the Privacy Act
1988. We may collect your name, email address and telephone number so that
we can contact you about your request under the Freedom of Information Act
for access to documents or access to, or correction of, personal
information; or a complaint you have made or your request for access to,
or correction of, personal information under the Privacy Act. If your
request concerns your personal information, we will collect the minimum
amount of evidence necessary to verify your identity. The handling of your
personal information is protected by the Privacy Act 1988 and our privacy
policy is available at http://www.ag.gov.au/Pages/Privacystatem....
If you have an enquiry or complaint about your privacy, please contact the
Privacy Contact Officer on 02 6141 2660 or via e-mail [email address].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to this

From: FOI Requests
Attorney-General's Department

For Official Use Only
Dear Kushra Navartne

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request of 18 May 2014.

Your request relates specifically to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT is established under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). Its purpose is to provide Victorians with a low cost, accessible, efficient and independent tribunal. The Tribunal provides an alternative dispute resolution process to settle disputes outside of Court and is specific to the state of Victoria although other states have similar Tribunal systems.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department focusses on Australia’s Commonwealth legal system, not the state legal systems. The Department advises the Government about federal court jurisdictions and related legislation matters, provides advice on the role, structure and administration of the federal courts including operations and resources.

We recommend that you send your request to either VCAT or the Victorian Department of Justice responsible for the Courts and Tribunals of Victoria. Information in relation to file and document access requests from VCAT are at this link: http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/resources/doc.... You can access the Department of Justice’s FOI email and information about the process through this link: http://www.foi.vic.gov.au/home/foi/index....

On this basis, as the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department does not hold the records you are seeking, please let us know if you would like to withdraw your request from this Department. If we do not hear from you in the next 14 days we will take it that you have decided to withdraw your request to this Department and make a request to either VCAT and/or the Victorian Department of Justice.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require further information by email [AGD request email] or telephone (02) 6141 666.

Kind Regards

FOI Contact Officer

Freedom of Information and Privacy Section | Office of Corporate Counsel Attorney-General's Department | 3 - 5 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600
*: [AGD request email]

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: knav2013

Delivered

Dear FOI Contact Officer,

As you are part of the same Commonwealth, please transfer the request to VCAT, [1] the most appropriate agency [2] to deal with this request.

Yours faithfully,

[Redacted Name]

[1] - If VCAT do not hold the document (or cannot produce/compile a fresh document) the request would need to be transferred to the Victorian Ministry of Justice by VCAT.

[2] - There is no strict definition of 'agency' within the FOI act. Simply put 'agency means a Department, a prescribed authority or a Norfolk Island authority.' In this instance the prescribed authority is VCAT.

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

Footnote [2] in the applicant's email of 15 June 2004 is incorrect. The definition of "agency" in s4 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 is "a Department, a prescribed authority or a Norfolk Island authority." This much the applicant states correctly, but she does not understand what a prescribed authority is. She also does not understand what a "Department" is. "Department" is defined, also in s 4, as "a Department of the Australian Public Service that corresponds to a Department of State of the Commonwealth." Although it is not stated in the Freedom of Information Act, a "Department of State of the Commonwealth" is something that is effectively created by the Governor-General by the pro tem Administrative Arrangement Order. "Prescribed Authority" is also defined in section 4. The definition is long but a person can read it here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...

So, the final consequence is that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is not a "department" and it is not a "prescribed authority". Of significance is the fact that it is not a Commonwealth entity and is therefore not ruled by the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act. The VCAT was formed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 in the state of Victoria, Australia, and the relevant FOI Act is the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) --- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/c... .

The reason by which this is important is that it is not helpful only to say "As you are part of the same Commonwealth ...". The laws are different and they do not speak to each other. The Commonwealth FOI Act has instructions in section 16 to understand what it means to transfer a request from one agency to another agency. There is regulation of how the transfer is effected and on which date the request must be taken to have been made. It is cosy to think that the Australian Federal Police can transfer the applicant's request to VCAT, but what exactly must they do. Must they send the original letter? What date must be assumed as the date when the applicant has applied under Victorian law to VCAT. No, it will not happen. The applicant must make the request herself. There is also one last thing; to make an application under the Victorian law, an applicant must pay(!); this is not something that I think the Federal Police will do for Ms Navartne.

On another side of the problem, Right to Know is not organized to make requests to departments of a state of Australia. It might be so in a future time, but not yet.

Link to this

From: FOI Requests
Attorney-General's Department

For Official Use Only
Dear Kushra Navartne

Thank you for your response to our email on 15 June 2014.

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) applies only to Australian Government ministers and most Australian Government agencies. Agencies subject to the FOI Act include:

- all Departments of State (that is, departments of the Australian Public Service)

- an agency that is a 'prescribed authority', which covers most other Australian Government agencies that are not Departments of State, and in particular agencies that are subject to either the
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) or the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth).

The jurisdiction of the FOI Act is the Commonwealth of Australia. Other Australian States and Territories have equivalent FOI legislation. The Freedom of Information process for the State of Victoria is legislated under the Victorian Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic).

Due to the fact that the Commonwealth and the States and Territories of Australia operate their Freedom of Information processes under separate legislation, it is not possible for the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department to transfer an FOI request to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Further information on the separation of Commonwealth and State and Territory Freedom of Information processes is available at this website: http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-inform....

As explained in our previous email, you will need to apply for the information you are requesting through the Victorian State Government Freedom of Information website at this address: http://www.foi.vic.gov.au/home/about+us/. The information on this site applies to Victorian state and local government agencies only.

Unfortunately the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department does not hold the records you are seeking. Please let us know if you would like to withdraw your request to this Department. If we do not hear from you in the next 14 days we will take it that you have decided to withdraw your request to this Department and make a request to either VCAT and/or the Victorian Department of Justice.

Regards

FOI Contact Officer
Freedom of Information and Privacy Section | Office of Corporate Counsel Attorney-General's Department | 3 - 5 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600
Email: [AGD request email]

show quoted sections

Link to this

knav2013 left an annotation ()

If anyone would like to see how ‘jurisdiction’ is used for ulterior motives please visit my blog -

http://wp.me/P4YcP0-u

This is not the only occasion where ‘jurisdiction’ has been used to play the system. Anyone playing the ‘jurisdiction’ card without valid reasons has vested interest.

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

The Right to Know website makes so very much plain that a person should not use the site for personal information that I think it would not normally be good to make annotations about a personal aspect of an application.

But the FOI applicant in this case wants it to be personal. He is aggrieved by a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). In his annotation he implies that the VCAT decision is not correct and that "vested interests" and "ulterior motives" are the it.

The VCAT decisions are on the AustLII website at:
1. [Redacted Name] v Asian Pacific Property Investment Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2014] VCAT 865 (8 July 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/V...
2. [Redacted Name] v Asian Pacific Property Investment Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2014] VCAT 900 (25 July 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/V....

Before a user of Right to Know makes for a conclusion that the FOI applicant has been a victim of a conspiracy, it is useful to read the VCAT decisions carefully. There is great relevance to [Redacted Name] case in section 20 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodi... of the Residential Tenancies Act 1990 of the State of Victoria. The section says that the Residential Tenancies Act is not applicable in many cases when a rented room is in a place that is licenced with the Liquor Control Reform Act of 1998. Also, it is as the VCAT says; it cannot order a hotel to un-evict a person who has been evicted!

It is possible to feel much sympathy for Mr [Redacted Name] and his situation. But this does not mean that the VCAT has "ulterior motives" or that the law was not applied fairly. Mr [Redacted Name] advertises his personal blog in his annotation but I do not think that this is a good use of the Right to Know website. This is very much a case when the blog speaks of "corruption" and when these allegations of corruption are based on the fact that the law, correctly applied, did not give Mr [Redacted Name] what he wanted.

Link to this

knav2013 left an annotation ()

Dear Annotator,

You seem to have worked out my gender now. But then you also seem to have missed working out the founder of RTK before you left an annotation for him.

However, it is clear that you were instructed by someone and informed of my background.

Your previous annotations are indicative of this.

Also, I cannot accept the picture you post on this site is an true portrayal of yourself.

You say "In his annotation he implies that the VCAT decision is not correct ...." My annotation does not IMPLY this at all. READ IT!, You will see for yourself. I leave the working out to the reader to decide for herself.

Clearly, you come from a legal background. You seem to be asserting your own opinion on others, without recourse that they may not be as able and clued-up on intricate legal arguments as yourself. Expressing your opinion is fine, but asserting it the way you have is perverse.

I have at no point asked for personal documents. This should be done using the Right of Access legislation of the State/territory. I think, what I just said there shows what we are dealing with here. For you of course, it would serve well, because of your background, you would know the legal jargon I just mentioned. For anyone else who is not from a legal background. Tough Luck!. It is perverse, insensitive and abhorrent for someone to make light ("fun") of someone's misfortune like you did when you annotated the following:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...

You are incorrect in your assertion that I "advertise" my blog in my annotation. My blog is there to provide additional commentary to the so called "reasons", highlight the gross corruption, bias and discrimination that is inherently part of what it (VCAT) has the nerve to call a "Tribunal".

It degenerates the title "Tribunal", and I would very much like to share this with others.

Clearly YOU need a helping hand with your intuitions, but it is shameful for you to work alongside others who are privileged with more information than us all.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Attorney-General's Department only: