'A load has been lifted off our shoulders’: Landlord ordered to pay $2000 after major fail
- Replies 1
What started as a straightforward legal dispute quickly spiralled into something far more complicated.
A landlord's attempt to take control of her property led to an unexpected outcome that has left many questioning the boundaries of tenant privacy.
The fallout from this case not only changed the lives of the tenants involved but also set a new precedent for what can—and cannot—be done in the name of property management.
A Gold Coast landlord's attempt to evict her tenants ended in disaster after the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered her to pay $2,000 for spying on them.
Ming Fang had taken her tenants, Joel Bruen and Stacey Harty, to the tribunal, hoping to terminate their lease.
However, the couple counterclaimed that their rights had been breached.
While leasing the entire property, the couple was aware that Fang had access to a shed used for office and storage space.
What they didn’t know was that Fang had installed CCTV cameras around the property, supposedly to protect her belongings.
One of these cameras, however, faced directly into the yard, capturing footage of their three school-aged children.
At the tribunal hearing, Adjudicator David Bancroft questioned Fang, asking: ‘Do you understand why I'm concerned that you've taken footage of children?’
‘Do you know it's not appropriate to take pictures of children?’ he added.
Fang initially argued that she was a ‘kind’ landlord and disagreed with accusations that she was mistreating her tenants.
‘You want me to say I’m a bad landlord. I disagree, I’m so kind and so I give them my kindness – they started to do bad things for me,’ she said at the hearing.
Despite her claims, the tribunal sided with the tenants and awarded them compensation.
‘We were subsequently granted compensation, so we are so happy,’ Ms Harty shared.
‘(It’s) amazing. A load has been lifted off our shoulders. It's been such a long hard battle and there were a lot of times that we questioned ourselves.’
‘We knew in our guts that we were right and she shouldn't have been doing that.’
The couple has since moved to a new property.
Fang did not comment on the tribunal’s decision but maintained her innocence throughout the process.
In the end, the tribunal’s ruling meant a $2,000 penalty for the landlord, proving her surveillance tactics were a breach of privacy.
In a previous story, we uncovered the shocking reasons behind landlords' reluctance to fix lingering issues like mould.
Could this be happening to you? You can read all about it here.
With this case setting a new precedent for tenant privacy, how far do you think landlords can go when it comes to protecting their property? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
A landlord's attempt to take control of her property led to an unexpected outcome that has left many questioning the boundaries of tenant privacy.
The fallout from this case not only changed the lives of the tenants involved but also set a new precedent for what can—and cannot—be done in the name of property management.
A Gold Coast landlord's attempt to evict her tenants ended in disaster after the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered her to pay $2,000 for spying on them.
Ming Fang had taken her tenants, Joel Bruen and Stacey Harty, to the tribunal, hoping to terminate their lease.
However, the couple counterclaimed that their rights had been breached.
While leasing the entire property, the couple was aware that Fang had access to a shed used for office and storage space.
What they didn’t know was that Fang had installed CCTV cameras around the property, supposedly to protect her belongings.
One of these cameras, however, faced directly into the yard, capturing footage of their three school-aged children.
At the tribunal hearing, Adjudicator David Bancroft questioned Fang, asking: ‘Do you understand why I'm concerned that you've taken footage of children?’
‘Do you know it's not appropriate to take pictures of children?’ he added.
Fang initially argued that she was a ‘kind’ landlord and disagreed with accusations that she was mistreating her tenants.
‘You want me to say I’m a bad landlord. I disagree, I’m so kind and so I give them my kindness – they started to do bad things for me,’ she said at the hearing.
Despite her claims, the tribunal sided with the tenants and awarded them compensation.
‘We were subsequently granted compensation, so we are so happy,’ Ms Harty shared.
‘(It’s) amazing. A load has been lifted off our shoulders. It's been such a long hard battle and there were a lot of times that we questioned ourselves.’
‘We knew in our guts that we were right and she shouldn't have been doing that.’
The couple has since moved to a new property.
Fang did not comment on the tribunal’s decision but maintained her innocence throughout the process.
In the end, the tribunal’s ruling meant a $2,000 penalty for the landlord, proving her surveillance tactics were a breach of privacy.
Could this be happening to you? You can read all about it here.
With this case setting a new precedent for tenant privacy, how far do you think landlords can go when it comes to protecting their property? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
.png){kind=icon}
