I know when I see it
Here you will see the inconsistent, unfair, untimely and corrupt practices of VCAT exposed. As Justice Stewart of the United States Supreme Court once said “I know it when I see it”. Corruption is easily apparent and distinguishable, as it affects the whole organization. Usually, it flows right from the top. Its similar to a “fish that rots from the head down”.
The corruption you will become aware from the procedures themselves and decisions. Hearings are held for the sake of saying “there was a hearing” and an outcome reached. Member’s are appointed to serve the best interest of certain parties. When questioned about how come Member interests’, like directorships, shares owned, and affiliations are not published, they told me that there is no requirement to publish them, however, if you suspect a conflict of interest then this should be mentioned at the start of the hearing.
Although, there is such a rule. This rule is rarely adhered to by the members. When I strongly objected about a member presiding in a residential tenancies matter, she just continued nevertheless.
The VCAT Act allows a party to request for the member to be changed, where there is bias. I experienced bias from two members. On both occasions I told the member to step-down. I even told him/her that it is written in the VCAT Act, that the registrar has the powers to appoint another member. But the member, on each occasion, just carried on. Of course, they may be shy to step-down as it would mean accepting that there was bias.
The VCAT even put the same member I had previously complained about, just to re-iterate that there was no bias by that member. I told her, that I will not have the matter determined by a biased member, said “thank you” and walked out of the hearing room. There is no point going through a hearing when someone has expressed bias against a member. It will not be a Fair trial (hearing). Until it is fixed, by appointing another member, it will be a waste of the Tribunal’s time and resources. I told the counter staff about this and also the “manager”, but he said that he was “not there” when I requested the change of member, and said I could lodge a complaint or appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Decision made by biased member, without the parties present
Even though I had left the hearing room before taking an oath, the member went ahead and dismissed the case. So in effect, no one was there to witness the hearing, except her. The other party was not served with a hearing notice. I think, members must be assigned a number of cases each day and if they step-down from one hearing they must miss their targets. But this does not excuse them proceeding without an ounce of decency.
Bias explained clearly to Tribunal by way of a complaint
I lodged a complaint about the conduct and behaviour of the member to explain how I came to the conclusion that she was biased.
1) at the previous hearing she continuously interrupted me while speaking. Not so, when the respondent’s lawyer was speaking.
2) She threatened to “call security” at one point, and did not explain what for.
3) She did not consider the evidence I presented. When I handed her a document that required careful analysis by her, she just read the title of the document, “licence agreement” and handed it back to me.
4) I presented photos relevant to the case lodged prior to the hearing. There was no comment about these at all.
5) No opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The member was the only person who asked the witness questions. It was obvious that the questions were discussed with the witness before the hearing.
6) Clubby behaviour with the legal counsel for the respondent (other party).
These are just a few of the aspects. This Tribunal is rotten from head to tail. Not all members/staff are corrupt, but some are spoiling it for the others, so much that there is more of the spoilers or their influence has become stronger.
Each time I see a procedure flouted, a member behaving badly I complain. I will continue …if I do not complain anymore I am certain someone will take up the responsibility to complain on our behalf.
Here you will see the letter sent to me by the president of VCAT, Justice Garde. It denies all allegations of bad conduct and bad behavior by the member.
First Impressions
I initially became involved/had dealings with VCAT in November 2013, by lodging an application under the Residential Tenancies List seeking an interim restraining order/injunction against my former landlord.
The application lodgement went smoothly, and so did the arranging of the hearing. It was arranged for the same day, and the hearing took place at about 3pm, after filing the application at around 1pm.
But after the start of the hearing I could sense that there was something fishy, but you do not expect this from a Tribunal. So I continued to put my faith in it and went ahead with the hearing. Without any kind of documents, the member went on to make decisions. The only thing I found that the member did do correctly was to amend that application to become an application under the Residential Tenancies list and Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012. This is a power that VCAT has under the VCAT Act. However, he dismissed the matter saying it was a licence agreement. But when I asked him persistently to look at the agreement I was given by the landlord, he refused. So how did he work out that it was a licence agreement?.
Request for Audio CD
Under the VCAT rules any party to the proceedings has the right to request an audio CD of the proceedings thorough an approved supplier listed on the VCAT ‘request a CD’ form but they are not accurate or of much use, mostly because they are heavily edited. I’ve ordered two recordings up to now and on the initial one the inaccuracies were so stark that the questions and responses were interferred with. So, in one instance, where I asked the Tribunal Member a question, and he remained silent, in the audio, he is actually answering the question, using a monologue from another part of the recording.
The sound level with that recording was increased, which is okay. But everything else, appalling. The questionable editing is reported elsewhere. See:
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/vcat-tribunal-edited-hearing-audio-c759290.html
Not the only one
This is not the only instance where VCAT has shown bias, shown outright disregard for the rules, and maladministration. See:
https://www.aussielegal.com.au/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23086&SponsorStateID=4
(see point No.13. of above link for members editing audio before it’s released)
http://malverneastgroup.freehostia.com/vcat/MEG_VCAT_Exposed_presentation_final.pdf
There’s countless more. It’s high time to put a stop to this farce of a Tribunal.
Page Last Updated: 27 March 2020.
VCAT On Trial - Here On this Website 
Is the VCAT owners corporation list corrupt?
I give you 10 facts.
Fact 1. The owners corporation law allows managers to transfer money from the owners pool to their own private bank account. This means if a manager steals money from the pool, the Police will not act, as by the law it’s perfectly legal (OC Act, Section 27)
Fact 2. Due to how VCAT interprets privacy laws, some owners corporations can not even access their own accounts. They are forced to trust the manager.
Why does VCAT & the law refuse to allow owners to access their own owners corporation account???
Fact 3. Managers take the interest of the owners account and pay it to the Victorian Property Fund. From this fund more than a million is paid to VCAT yearly. (Eg: SCA Annual Report AGM 2014 page 18. VCAT Annual Report page 53).
Effectively, managers are stealing the owners money to pay-off VCAT.
Owners know nothing of this.
Fact 4. In 2012, the VCAT President invited managers and their lawyers to meet him on a regular basis. Since this time they have regularly met and discussed how VCAT should run cases. (Eg: VCAT Annual Report 2013-14, page 28).
Owners are not permitted to attend.
So can VCAT’s President be relied upon to protect owners when meeting with the managers and their lawyers?
Is he fair?
Fact 5. The VCAT president himself was involved in a controversial tribunal case against a property owner.
A water company cuts off the water to a property making it worthless. The water company then forces the owner of the property to sell it to them, dirt cheap. When the owner appeals for justice, the tribunal ruled that the water company had the right to do this, and orders the owner to pay all legal costs for complaining.
Yes, it was our VCAT President who represented the water company.
How did he do it?
It certainly appears that the VCAT president deliberately fabricated a mass of evidence against the owner, and presented it as fact to the tribunal. It appears the judges were fully aware of the fraud. Details of this extraordinary case, and what the President and judges got away with, is on the website courtsontrial.com
This is not an official legal website however, if the fraud allegations are false, how could someone openly get away with making false claims against our esteemed VCAT President?
Fact 5. VCAT, with the manager’s funding it, the user group, and the Presidents dubious past, and more, appears loaded with conflicts of interest
So do owners get a fair go at VCAT?
Fact 6. Owners win less than 5% of cases at VCAT (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/).
Fact 7. This Age article titled “Rip off managers” highlights the bias against owners (http://www.smh.com.au/national/rip-off-body-corporate-managers-stay-registered-20130205-2dwj0.html).
It humorously refers to a manager who was repeatedly taken to VCAT . The manager even admitted charging owners for water supplies to individual car parks. In another case he allegedly took $10, 000 from an owners corporation’s account that had sacked him, because it was summer and he wanted air conditioners to cool himself (Not listed in article).
VCAT continually refused to rule against him. After an outcry he finally he lost a case, and in the article says he only lost because he did not turn up. With this statement, he appears to be ‘bang on the money’.
If VCAT, its president, judges, lawyers or even employees read or hear this, they will act horrified.
“You’re saying VCAT’s corrupt, how dare you… vexatious!
Vexatious is the argument that lawyers use when their crook has no defence. It’s a boring, lazy, cliché defence. It takes no skill, research or effort to claim vexatious, and it appears it’s exactly how VCAT deals with ‘difficult’ owners (VCAT Act, Sections 75, 79, 109)
Fact 8. When VCAT rules an owner as vexatious, it not only dismisses the case But orders the owner to pay all the manager’s legal costs. This can cost the owner from hundreds up to $30, 000, or more. Not only does the owner lose the case, not get back owed money, and be ordered to pay all costs, but the same manager is free to carry on ripping off the same owner
Fact 9. An overwhelming majority of lawyers not in VCAT’s inner circle, despise VCAT for its lack of due process, fairness and natural justice.
A final fact
Fact 10. Lawyer James Johnson, a solicitor and barrister of the High Court of Australia, has openly referred to VCAT as a criminal Star Chamber, and the corrupt nature of the VCAT President and others at VCAT, by name. (http://jamesjohnsonchr.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/all-the-attorney-generals-men-vcat-political-crime-spree-show-trial-j1342011/).
VCAT and its members are just another proud ‘lawyer joke’.
VCAT owners corporation list – exposed
LikeLiked by 1 person
I absolutely agree with the initial post. The judges are blatant, and show no regard for the law. If you’re against a protected party the decision is made beforehand. The more proof you have the more abusive the member (judge) is.
I know if I want an issue solved civilly, then VCAT is not the place to go.
Shame on all legal people and members who particpate in this ZOO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bias is absolutely guaranteed in kangaroo tribunals due to the total absence of fair dinkum accountability. Queensland goes further than I understand is the case in other states by joining the Office of the Public Guardian and Office of the Public Trustee to QCAT in all guardianship matters (a deliberate breach of separation of powers. Any suggestion from the tribunal or the Attorney General that there are functional review and appeal provisions is a blatant lie. Furthermore, the protection endowed on the quasi-judges means they can, and do, thumb their noses at all legislation save that which they invent on the fly. Same goes for evidence. Anything probative is completely ignored by whatever they fabricate is regarded as the oracle of wisdom. Again, Queensland is leading the pack by including in the Guardianship and Administration and Other legislation Amendment Bill 2018 a provision that fabrication of evidence by quasi-judges is perfectly legitimate.
LikeLike
“V/CAT AS BAD AS IT GETS”
If it were Not for the Supreme Court, peoples lives would be adversely affected by the wrongful, and unlawful decisions of V/crap.
We have taken the Director of Housing to V/Cat in Two Tenants Application cases, in our first case the Senior male Member wrote Misleading, False, Written Reasons covering up the failings of the Director of Housing, example a Gaping Hole on the roof repointing took three and half Years for the Director of Housing to repair, yet the Member placed three and half Days,
The Senior Member disregarded all our evidence including SES reports and our roof plumbers report, and left out the Consumer Affairs report which ordered the Director to carry out repairs, we have also experienced female Members preventing us from speaking more than a minute and preventing us asking the respondents questions, and also did not want to see our Video and photos evidence. V/Cat refuse to hear about the Maladministration of the Director of Housing, and Misquotes us.
The V/Cat Registrar is just as Unprofessional sending back our Tenants Application to V/Cat against the Director of Housing when there were No issues with any part of it, we had to email Fifty three pages of submissions back to V/cat. A trick of V/Cat is they have a habit of wrongfully opening another V/cat File to dilute the case, that has happened twice.
We have also experienced other Government agencies like Victorian Ombudsman, Victorian Inspectorate, Consumer Affairs and local member all Covering up the Failings of the Director of Housing we have emails, video, and photos proof. We Summoned in a staff member from Victorian Ombudsman office and V/cat prevented this, we also Summoned in Two staff the Director of Property and Assets Branch and V/cat prevented these as well using unreasonable excuses.
V/Cat is Not a Forum of Justice its a Forum full of Corruption, and deception, Members need to re- read their own V/cat rules and abide by them for once and especially the Fair Hearing rule.
Don’t be afraid to speak up for your Rights, V/cat will only pay attention when people take a stand in numbers.
Mel
LikeLiked by 1 person
In 2010, I sued Shepparton Retirement Villages Incorporated. This registered charity effectively determined that I would no longer be able to supply medicines to around 180 clients who were housed at this aged care facility. Since this decision was made via a farce competitive tender process and since it triggered the destruction of my two site pharmacy business, I sued SRV in the VCAT (Civil list).
Gerard Butcher was the VCAT (Civil list) member who presided over the seven day fully contested hearing. SRV was represented by a barrister and solicitor. They had met with Butcher before the hearing and it was decided that Kevin Bertram would be allowed to be present in the room while I cross examined the four other defense witnesses. Normally in a VCAT (Civil list) hearing, all witnesses are removed from the room during the testimony of other witnesses. Why did Gerard Butcher not do this?
Kevin Bertram hates me with passion. During cross examination, he could not control his overly inflated ego and he said that he could not stand the sound of my voice. The tone of voice that he adopted insinuated that the sound of my voice was a valid reason for trashing my business.
Mrs Jan Nankervis was another defence witness. She said something very similar to “Because it was supposed to be for Barry Campbell’s pharmacy.” She said it quietly but audibly and Gerard Butcher and the two qualified lawyers probably heard it as well. Judging from the general lack of integrity of the VCAT(Civil list) hearing, it is probable the the audio CD was destroyed. Despite the fact that Mrs Nankervis virtually said that the tender “process” had a predetermined outcome, this was not good enough for Mr Butcher.
At the end of the seven day fully contested hearing, Mr Butcher said that the tender process was at the heart of my dispute with SRV. He had five tender documents from five different pharmacies submitted as evidence at this hearing. Why did he not compare each document side by side? He gave a farce reason for this – something like, “I cannot compare the documents side by side because I do not know about the conditions surrounding the tender documents”. Mr Butcher had me as the sole applicant and witness. If he had really wanted to know more about the “conditions” surrounding the tender document, then surely he could have asked me.
Gerard Butcher determined that SRV was liable for nothing. He even said that he could not see anything at all wrong or corrupt with the way SRV behaved despite what I have written above, despite “document loss” (or more probably deliberate document destruction) or despite the inappropriate meeting that he probably had with lawyers engaged by SRV.
Gerard Butcher made few or no notes during the seven day fully contested hearing. Despite the fact that Gerard Butcher knew that I was not a lawyer and was diagnosed with bipolar-1 disorder severe enough to render me permanently unemployable as a pharmacy proprietor, Gerard Butcher than ordered that I pay $122,000 in legal expenses incurred by SRV to engage its highly paid legal personnel. If SRV really had such an open or shut case, maybe Kevin Bertram should have defended SRV on his own. Kevin Bertram was a dental science dropout who probably begrudged anyone of academic or intellectual calibre.
Normally, a VCAT (Civil list) member would be willing to write written reasons for making a determination. Gerard Butcher did not do this. He only gave oral reasons.
Gerard Butcher is corrupt scrum. He should be made personally liable for his corruption. I would personally let him rot in a little jail cell if I could.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt that there is a quasi-judge in any of the kangaroo tribunals who wasn’t specially selected because they were known to be compliant with the intent of the relevant state government to create a Star Chamber. A colleague in Victoria relates an experience with a member who was apparently human, however that member mysteriously ‘disappeared’ after a single decent decision and has never been heard of since. Queenslanders have seen the same thing with the controversial ex Chief Justice Tim Carmody who was supposed to replace David Thomas as president of the kangaroo tribunal. After Carmody made it clear he was there to reform QCAT, his agreed appointment was revoked and he has never been permitted to hear any significant matter. Circumstances surrounding David Thomas are interesting. He was previously a corporate lawyer, then appointed a Supreme Court judge one day, and a couple of days later the presidency of QCAT. To the best of my knowledge, Thomas has never heard a single matter. Currently he is the chief of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
LikeLike
There needs to be another forum to hear disputes independently. VCAT is a sister to all other government departments.
VCAT is very sneaky. If a matter is against a government department, VCAT is very selective when appointing certain members to hear the matter.
Shame on some of the legal profession who are members at VCAT by putting the interests of VCAT before justice.
LikeLike
QCAT plays that exact same game. A certain QCAT adjudicator was appointed as independent representative for a victim with impaired capacity (despite no legal justification, but that isn’t unusual). The member involved went to great lengths to assure the victim and support network that the appointee was genuinely ‘independent’. in this case the primary ‘enemy’ is the Office of the Public Trustee which is intent on plundering the victim’s very significant estate. Two minutes googling revealed the clown was anything but ‘independent’. More recently it has been found that he regularly represents the criminally abusive and inept Office of the Public Trustee against QCAT victims.
LikeLike
Remember Tony Abbott’s daughter’s case at VCAT? Her landlord took her to VCAT for breaking her residential rental lease. VCAT made an order against the landlord. Very unusual as similar cases at VCAT go the other way.
The ‘ordinary’ VCAT member who heard the above case was promoted to deputy head of the Residential Tenancy List at VCAT within 2 months.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the very insightful comments. You are spot on. Very unusual indeed. This had caused a bit of a storm at the time. Especially the “I’m the Prime Minister’s daughter” argument by Frances Abbott.
The only sympathy I could have had for Frances Abbott is if she genuinely wanted to be independent. We don’t know if this was her first rental property. there is no indication of this in the newspapers, and there is no AUSTLII (http://www.austlii.edu.au) record for this case, so we cannot look this up. Unless we visit VCAT, fill out the form to look at the case file. I had problems accessing VCAT case files – so will they allow us to look at the PM’s daughter’s case file?.
About VCAT decision: If VCAT bought her argument about ‘being independent’ – it cannot possibly expect a member of the public to bear the cost of her negligence in not checking the security of the apartment before signing the contract.
At the VCAT hearing, Frances seemed to have relied on the “being independent…” argument and I am like no other person my father is the PM argument. Surely VCAT should have recognised that “YOU CAN’t HAVE IT BOTH WAYS”
If you’re adament on being Independent, you must take on the responsibility.
Here are some other websites and blogs where this is reported.
http://theaimn.com/dad-pm/
https://noplaceforsheep.com/2014/06/16/when-your-dad-is-not-the-pm/
The Frances Abbott case has even been quoted in an anti-discrimination case against the attorney-general. See:
http://documentslide.com/documents/aboriginal-man-names-tony-abbott-daughter-frances-in-discrimination-interference.html
Direct Download copy of the above letter to Attorney General and VCAT Application:
http://bit.ly/frances-abbott-named-in-anti-discrim
LikeLike
As a result of a farce tender process conducted by Shepparton Retirement Villages, I was caused to work 120 hours per week and after 8 months, suffered a nervous breakdown and now cannot work as a pharmacist. Gerard Butcher obviously spent no time looking at the competing gender documents .
I ultimately became involved in a farce VCAT hearing about a farce tender process. Butcher also had no conscience when it came to ordering me to past cost of $122,000 and despite the seven day fully contested hearing, Butcher gave no written reasons. He did.nit want to put anything in writing that would recluse him as corrupt.
Gerard Butcher deserves [snipped – comment advocates violence]. Since he thinks it appropriate for lawless ness to prevail, I may circulate word on VCAT lleyterhes that he is a [snipped – probable libelous comment]. [snipped – cannot advocate violence on a public forum].
LikeLike
Dear Matthew Webb: I had to snip some of your comments. I’m not going to pretend to understand the magnitude of the frustration and anger you must be feeling. It must be immense.
nevertheless, I cannot allow postings promoting the spreading of libelous content or advocating violence. Hope you understand.
LikeLike
The above comment should read ‘Deputy Head’ – Please amend.
LikeLike
Amended. Actually, I was just about to reply to your excellent post before, and saw this, so took the time to look at the VCAT member who heard Frances Abbott’s case:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/readers-divided-over-tony-abbotts-daughter-frances-legal-stoush-relating-to-a-rental-property/news-story/7f366de0e29198e12aace60df663b2ef
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/readers-divided-over-tony-abbotts-daughter-frances-legal-stoush-relating-to-a-rental-property/news-story/7f366de0e29198e12aace60df663b2ef
She’s had an amazingly quick step-up the career ladder. Joining VCAT only in 2012-13, becoming deputy head soon after the Abbott case in 2015. Looks like she’s skipped the normal progression of Member, Senior Member, Deputy Head.
For example, Heather Barker went from Member, Senior Member to Deputy Head. Not the same for
Kylea Campana.
BTW: Here is an extract from a newspaper report about a case heard by Ms Campana: (http://www.domain.com.au/news/man-tries-to-evict-mum-siblings-after-verbal-property-agreement-20150929-gjx3p0/)
“Irrespective of the label you might place on an agreement – the reality is that any dispute that sees a mother and son on opposite sides of a Tribunal bar table – is a tragedy,” Ms Campana said in her decision, handed down last week.”
This is completely opposite to what happened with my case. The member hearing my case, Jackie Kefford, just read the heading of my agreement, it said “licence agreement”. She did not bother, reading the content, or check if I signed it (I had not). She read out the heading loudly for the audio recording, then handed the agreement back to me. Soon afterwards she was ready to give her decision.
LikeLike
The Abbott case was in 2014.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My post above has a mistake. Kylea Campana was appointed deputy head of the residential tenancies list (RTL) in 2014. This is my new source:
http://lawnewsroom.deakin.edu.au/articles/the-deakin-law-degree-which-helped-kylea-go-beyond-the-law
This makes sense because as you point out, the Abbott case was also in 2014.
Earlier I was looking at the VCAT 2013/14 Annual report. Kylea Campana is listed a Full-time member. Fast forward to the 2014/15 annual report, and she is Deputy Head of Residential Tenancies List. No specific dates or congratulations are mentioned. Seems the annual report is reporting up to 30 June 2015 (starting 01 July 2014 presumably?).
When Heather Barker was promoted to senior member during 2012-13 she got a specific mention :
“Congratulations to Heather Barker who was promoted to the position of Senior Member,…”
When Kylea Campana was promoted to deputy head of RTL during 2014-15, she received no mention.
More inconsistencies. In fact, inconsistencies galore. Actually, VCAT should add “inconsistencies” to their core values of fairness, professionalism, integrity, impartiality, efficiency……
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is no consistency in VCAT decisions. It’s a circus.
The few and decent Senior and ordinary Members at VCAT are astute to the internal corruption at VCAT. They are powerless to afford any change. They await their contract periods to expire. Explains the haphazard decision making (they just want out).
LikeLiked by 1 person
A with all kangaroo tribunals, the only thing consistent is the inconsistency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like one of the earlier posts, I’ve made a number of applications to VCAT against my landlord (Director of Housing aka Department of Housing / Housing Commission / DHHS)
I have experienced Heather Barker and Kylea Campana (Head and Deputy Head of the Residential Tenancurd List respectively) as the residing members for two separate cases.
Heather Barker: I took her decision on appeal to the Supreme Court. I was appointed a pro bono Barrister to represent me. Just before the final hearing he was offered a position at VCAT as a sessional member and was not able to represent me any longer. Smell a rat?
Kylea Campana: My application was for an urgent repair and was heard by this member over an eight month period. Yes, it took that long despite it being an urgent repair. I was not afforded natural justice a number of times in this proceeding. On a professional level, this member is lacking and is fooling herself if she believes she obtained her promotion at VCAT on merit.
How can you be afforded a fair hearing at VCAT (a government body) when the other party to the dispute is also a government body?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally get what you say about the Barrister “suddenly” been offered a position as a member. As if, these sorta positions are offered on a whim!. Even the appointment of members to particular cases is very dubious. My case (on 08 July 2014) at VCAT was a threshold question case (at least that was what it was made out to be). VCAT ensured that it could only be decided in favour of the landlord by appointing a member that will undoubtedly side with the landlord. I noticed this from the start. The banding together with the landlord’s solicitor (not only that; allowing him to appear for the landlord in the first place), cutting me off when I was speaking, allowing the Landlord solicitor to be fully elaborate in his replies (allowing more time for him to put his arguments), not going through the tenancy agreement..etc.etc..
I reckon member Jackie Kefford would side with the landlord at least 7/10 times. Not only her, other members are also notorious for handing down decisions in favour of particular groups. e.g. developers. One of the links on my blog http://malverneastgroup.freehostia.com/vcat/MEG_VCAT_Exposed_presentation_final.pdf
has studied the bias displayed by VCAT as a whole and by particular members. They’ve found that particular members. e.g. Richard Walter (ex Town Planner) to hand down decisions in favour of the developer 91% of the time. VCAT as a whole (hell hole?) decided in favour of the developer 63% of the time. Mind you this is using data from 2005. The 63% figure could well have increased by now.
bTW: I also applied for a barrister through Victoria Bar Association. However, I found the guy assigned next to useless even before meeting with him. Had contact with him through email and sms, but he kept getting dates/times of the Supreme Court hearings mixed-up. So I asked Vicbar for a replacement, which never did materialise.
The duty barrister scheme run by the Supreme Court is a joke. I made a request well in advance of each hearing..filled out the form in elaborate detail to say why I needed a duty solicitor. Not a single contact. In fact I never did see a duty solicitor appear for anyone. Maybe the whole scheme is a charade.
Legal aid was also a no-go. So, had to self-represent myself in COurt. Of course, without VCAT releasing all the documents I had requested, supreme court not releasing some previous case files (yep!, some docs are only released if a solicitor/barrister have applied for them – something to do with solicitors/barristers having taken an oath, whereas I haven’t) I had about as much chance as a VCAT member standing down from a case due to bias.
In the circumstances I did fight the two supreme court cases to the best of my abilities. However, anyone contemplating this, be warned, lawyers/solicitors/barristers and judges are very cliquee. Not surprising I suppose, they see each other day in day out. probably attend the same functions and get-togethers. So, even before you’ve started, you’re behind. Sure, some supreme court judges will give you hints/tips during the hearing, but only up to a point. Some will blatantly refuse to assist with anything and everything, as I found out when I asked a judge to clarify a procedure.
p.s.I’ve asked/complained about VCAT residential tenenacy list delays. For example, to arrange file access they would take weeks. With every complaint, they came back to me with the same reply. Residential tenancies list IS THE BUSIEST LIST OF THEM ALL. They would quote this like a mantra. i would be left wondering “Gee, thanks for that. if you didn’t tell me, I would be none the wiser”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
During the 2012 VCAT legislative reform project, the The Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic (HPLC) and Seniors Rights Victoria (SRV) made several recommendations (I’ve made available their full submissions at: https://dl.orangedox.com/l5BaaatchwWeKCqwLA ). One of the recommendations was:
* that VCAT install and operate recording facilities at all hearing venues.
Even if audio recording facilities are now available at all venues (https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/steps-to-resolve-your-case/what-to-expect-after-the-final-hearing/recordings-and-transcripts-of) VCAT certainly know how to get round them. Once the hearing is over, Members (and VCAT generally) have unfettered access to the audio and what is released. Any incriminating evidence on the audio will be tampered with/edited out. It’s happened on many occasions.
Leave you with a quote:
“Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.” — John Jay (One of the founding fathers of the United States of America)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am aware that when the current President at VCAT was appointed, he took almost immediate steps to remove the ability for audio recordings of VCAT hearings to be made available. The only option available after this banning was to request a transcript of the hearing instead. Transcripts were available from an external source costing thousands of dollars depending on the length of the hearing.
Only with the Tenants Union of Victoria advocating for the return of the availability of audio recordings did the President change his policy.
When I googled ‘VCAT Corruption’ this time, I noticed that IBAC Victoria has a paid ad link (encouraging people to report corruption to them) above any other search results.
Is someone getting cold feet? I don’t trust any government department. Report any corruption to IBAC and watch your advice being swept under the carpet instead of being out in the open.
LikeLike
Notice IBAC has stopped ‘advertising’ as reported in my last post.
After scanning through the above posts it is obvious to me that in the year 2014 there was a number of questionable actions undertaken by VCAT. Given the seriousness of those matters I wonder if IBAC will conduct an investigation and report on its findings in a transparent manner.
LikeLike
Very interesting reading. Thank you to the person who has developed this forum.
Here is my story about VCAT, the Victorian Building Commission and the Director of Housing The Department). This is in light of the recent London public housing tower fire.
I live in an older persons estate consisting of 14 units managed by the Director of Housing (Percy Street, St Albans). It was discovered that our housing estate did not have the required fire separation material in the roof and wall cavity between each unit. This was backed up by a Building Commission report obtained under Freedom of Information.
A VCAT application was made against the Director of Housing to address the above. Instead of taking immediate action to rectify the serious defects the Department instead engaged a Barrister to defend the claim.
The Department later instalked the missing fire separation material in the roof space only. The Department engaged a “private” building surveyor to write a report on this which was presented to VCAT. I raised to VCAT that the report clearly did not confirm that fire separation material had been installed in the vertical wall space separating each of the units. The VCAT said it had. The Department did not present any arguments (they were relying on the report). It was clear to me that the VCAT Member had been prepped for his decision before the hearing. I am educated and intelligent and I do know how to read a report.
If the above raises serious questions then the Victorian Building Commission needs to be exposed too. At a subsequent inspection of the property in question, they went back on their initial report claiming that fire separation material had been installed in the vertical wall space separating each of the units. This is despite no work whatsoever being carried out on the property in question to install such material. Carrying this work out would have been a major job (costing a considerable amount of money).
I wonder if IBAC will investigate the above given the seriousness of the issues. At least all are on Notice now in the event we suffer loss, injury or death due to fire spread in our units. There is no need for IBAC to advertise it’s services as there is sufficient information for it to commence an immediate investigation.
LikeLike
Try the Guardianship area of VCAT and see how bad it is. The seasoned player just lie and families who go there to address serious issues are ultimately fighting the Office of the Public Advocate and Trustee who are making billions by taking over the Estates of loved ones. It’s a scam and theft. Powers of Attorney means nothing to this mob and rip them up to suit the State Governments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
VCAT is not the only kangaroo tribunal which has turned guardianship into a racket, in fact QCAT and NCAT have gone even further and transformed guardianship into an art-form. In Queensland, every single guardianship matter in which the victim has appreciable assets results in the official criminals the Office of the Public Guardian and Office of the Public Trustee being awarded ham-fisted control. Only three victims have ever regained control of their lives before their estate was completely plundered, and after the most recent landmark case in May 2017, the state government is attempting to amend the Guardianship and Administration Act to remove the common law presumption of capacity, and to provide that once determined incompetent it is impossible to regain competence regardless of any amount of positive evidence. To add insult to injury, the Queensland government has introduced a deceptive and duplicitous Human Rights Bill which gives the kangaroo tribunal (easily the worst offender of human rights in the state) native jurisdiction over human rights matters. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chook shed !!!! About the only area in which QCAT has done better than other kangaroo tribunals is in covering up its brutality. Only 5% of matters are recorded on the Supreme Court caselaw website and those are carefully cherry-picked to create the impression that nobody ever beats the scum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To all who intending to go to VCAT:
I would recommend that they read up on the VCAT Act (section 108).
There is something you can do if you feel the Vcat Member is conducting the hearing in a biased manner.
LikeLike
To assert your claim under section 108. The test for apprehended bias:
“whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”.
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 at [11]
affirmed in:
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000)
Separate to the above, why did Mr Ian Lulham make a decision that was materially different to the application’s subject matter and then sign the Order as an ordinary VCAT Member only to be promoted to the position of Deputy President four months later? The decision favoured a State Government Department.
I thought the legal profession made oaths to act truthfully.
LikeLike
There was a landmark Court of Appeal decision in Queensland regarding bias in the Queensland kangaroo tribunal. See Maher QCA11-225. The matter involved the long-term Queen of QCAT Clare Endicott making the original decision that Rodney Maher lacked capacity, and Endicott also chaired the internal appeal. In making its finding of bias against Endicott, the Court of Appeal judges remarked ‘the quality of decision-making in QCAT is deplorable’. Mind you Endicott remained in the same position until 2017 when she was demoted from senior member to also-ran, and her protege Peta Stilgoe was banished to the Land Court. It is alleged that Endicott made virtually all guardianship-related decisions prior to hearings (ergo the ‘kangaroo’ tribunal), and that almost all internal appeals were heard by either Endicott or Stilgoe. The purpose of this was to prevent the victim from escalating their appeal to a proper court since internal appeals heard by a non-judicial member are non-appealable. Another dirty trick used to block appeals is fabrication of evidence which is then claimed to be a matter of fact. In any case, there is no known instance where an appeal has reached the Court of Appeal since Maher.
LikeLike
I’ve never had personal experience with VCAT although I’ve heard plenty of scathing reports from colleagues. My experience with the Queensland equivalent QCAT has been even worse than those who did business with VCAT. All these kangaroo tribunals were conceived to be totally unaccountable, and in all cases they are protected by the media which rarely if ever publishes the truth about the shenanigans of kangaroo tribunals. Whilst there have been no known challenges to the constitutional legitimacy in the High Court, I’ve had advice from a highly experienced QC and a professor or law that there is no way an honorable High Court judge could rule in favour of kangaroo tribunals complying with Chapter 3 of the Australian Constitution. The lack of regard for rules of evidence alone means that kangaroo tribunals are NOT courts. Then there is the matter of decisions being made before hearings (ergo ‘kangaroo’ tribunals) and the inherent bias toward official entities / the big end of town. I’m not certain about the arrangement in other states, but in Queensland the Office of the Public Guardian and the Office of the Public Trustee are legislatively joined to QCAT in all guardianship matters, a blatant and deliberate breach of separation of powers. When combined with the immunities conferred on quasi-judges, we end up with an incestuous relationship between the parties that denies justice to victims. One particular landmark matter that reached the Court of Appeal (Maher QCA11-225) found the then Queen of QCAT Clare Endicott biased and ‘the quality of decision-making in QCAT is deplorable’. Despite this damning record, Endicott remained in the same position for another six years until the rising volume of complaints forced here demotion. Furthermore, the Queensland government ‘edited’ the official record to remove the offending comments although it could of course not get at the original transcript, many copies of which are in the public domain. Bias continues to be part of the culture in QCAT, as does complete disregard for legislation. Tribunal members constantly demonstrate their utter arrogance toward victims knowing that there is no avenue to hold them to account. Two shenanigans used since Maher to prevent victims using the appeal process are fabrication of evidence which is then held to be a matter of fact (not appealable), and scheduling internal appeals to be heard by non-judicial members (also non-appealable). Caselaw records do not show any successful appeal reaching the Court of Appeal since Maher in 2011, although only 5% of QCAT matters are published since the published ones are cherry-picked to create the impression favourable to the powers that be. For example, the third of the three landmark guardianship matters in May 2017 has been carefully hidden and only those with the right connections can access transcripts. Since then, the Queensland government has introduced the Guardianship and Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill in an attempt to disable the precedent set in May 2017. Basically the Bill removes the common law presumption that a person has capacity, removes any recourse to common law and international law, and provides that once a victim has been declared incompetent, no amount of professional medical evidence of capacity is sufficient for the victim to regain control of their life. More recently, the Human Rights Bill actually removes ALL rights of the victims and ensures that QCAT and its incestuous cohorts the OPG and PTQ are not required to comply with ANY human rights principles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting reading (above). I see IBAC and VCAT are once again ‘advertising’ the ‘power’ they have to investigate matters of corruption (when googling ‘VCAT Corruption’).
There was a Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal decision that set an early benchmark in which it ruled that VCAT did not have the jurisdiction to consider alleged breaches of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act – 2006 in their decision making. Refer: Director of Housing v Sudi [2011] VSCA 266 (6 September 2011).
Other cases have followed the above precedent giving a different perspective; such as:
Slattery v Manningham City Council (Human Rights) [2013] VCAT 1869 (30 October 2013)
The Director of a real estate agency recently discussed with me about the level of competency in VCAT Members and their whim decision making. He felt that if they were competent legal practitioners, they would have stayed in a legal practice, which would attract better remuneration and advancement opportunities (example: barrister, qc etc).
When I appealed Senior Member Barker’s decision to the Supreme Court, part of my claim related to her decision to dismiss my compensation claim against my ‘government’ landlord. She based that decision on her finding that the Department had taken every step to remedy the subject matter of the claim. However, in the transcript of the proceeding she questioned the Department as to why the subject matter had NOT been remedied. The response from the Department – NO we have NOT done that. No further explanation was offered by the Department. Corruption. Senior Member Barker was promoted shortly thereafter.
LikeLike
Two years at VCAT and one judicial member gains the following promotions:
Member > Deputy Head > Senior Member. All in 2 years.
I believe Senior Member Campana is being groomed to one day replace Heather Barker in her executive role (when the time comes). The government can let it’s corrupt practices continue with such impartial members.
Feel for the former Member Julie Grainger. Thirteen years at VCAT holding only the position of ordinary Member. No wonder she resigned to take up a Magistrates position in Melbourne.
I have had recent success at the Australian Human Rights Commission with a complaint I lodged against a Vic Gov Dept. I was able to show that the VCAT was not an appropriate authority to handle my complaint against a state government department. My submission included examples of being exposed to bias at the VCAT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Victorian legal system (both VCAT and the Supreme Court) certainly used to be corrupt to the core. Don’t know if it’s the same. However, I remember in 2014, the Victorian Supreme Court ‘banned journalists from reporting on a corruption scandal involving its Reserve Bank and high-ranking government officials — including current and former prime ministers — of three leading Asian economies.’
(Source: https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-01/here-s-scandal-australian-court-has-banned-media)
For the state’s highest court to do this – the system must be rotten to the core.
LikeLike
Yes indeed. There is High Court decision that government departments rely on when defending civil actions against them. Basically, the decision was that an adverse finding would embarrass the government department in the eyes of the public. It should be noted that this decision did not negate the standard of proof (balance of probabilities). When I find this case law I will request that this post be updated. The Victorian Government’s represented parties are bound by legislation to be model litigants in any legal action. In reality, this is not the case.
LikeLike
I think the matter you were on about was decided by Kenneth Hayne (Commissioner of the Banking and Financial Services Royal Commission) in 1986. The matter was about whether or not laws enacted since federation were legitimate due to lack of royal assent. Hayne verbally agreed with the applicant but his formal decision went the other way as he claimed that to do otherwise would lead to the breakdown of society. The guts of the matter was that maintaining the establishment was more important than justice for any individual, or indeed for people generally.
LikeLike
Yes Minister, that was not the case in question. I will go through my files in this time of social distancing to find this caselaw precedent to post here. I have the file as it formed part of a Department’s submissian in an action brought against them.
LikeLike
VCAT did not give me the opportunity to present my case. 5 months of compiling, 100’s of hours spent reading the regulations, Acts, Laws etcetera.
My application was for someone who has been affected by a decision S126
Got to VCAT hearing said it was a planning and thus struck out. This is not just. Whom do I contact to reconcile, at least to have a voice as I was completely silenced.
VIcRoads are corrupt and a law but unto themselves even though they did not abide by their own Acts??
Help would be very much appreciated
Kind regards
Andrew b
LikeLike
I remember approaching tenants union. But the lawyer there was appalling. Things may have changed now. I had more success with Justice Connect. Even then, they were unable to represent me as I approached them after my case had started.
In addition, you can approach Victorian Bar Association, for a list of lawyers specific to your needs. If you are on low income, handicapped etc. they can even provide you with a pro bono list of lawyers.
LikeLike
Pro-bono lawyers / barristers are unlikely to deal with kangaroo tribunal matters. All kangaroo tribunals have the ability to cancel a lawyer’s practicing certificate without any evidence of malpractice, consequently only the rare lawyer / barrister is prepared to tackle any kangaroo tribunal. the chance of finding a legal practitioner who will risk their career for no financial return is akin to finding rocking-horse droppings or frogs feathers. This was only one of numerous provisions dreamed up by the politicans who created the kangaroo tribunals to ensure they are unaccountable to anyone or anything. Bottom line … one needs to think well outside the square to have any hope of success in this circus.
LikeLike
Andrew, more details of the case please. Was it a planning issue? What do the Orders state as to the Reason? Which Member?
LikeLike
Andrew, if it is VicRoads and you are claiming they are not following their policies / procedures properly, you can lodge a complaint with Ombudsman Victoria.
LikeLike
Hello Vcatcorruptioncontinued
Yes, I have made a complaint to Ombudsman but I feel they won’t take on a case like mine as their area regarding VicRoads is I believe limited to driving offenders and licensing type issues.
LikeLike
I may have a solution to kangaroo tribunal shenanigans. During the workup to a landmark victory against the Queensland version of the kangaroo tribunal, I discovered a number of hitherto unexplored avenues that eventually led to the third of the the wins in Queensland against the guardianship racket (one of the best implemented official scams in Australia). The principles are adaptable to any kangaroo tribunal matter whether in Australia or any other country, however I will not discuss this in depth in a public forum that is almost certainly monitored by official scum. Anyone with a genuine interest in actually winning a kangaroo tribunal matter (as opposed to bleating plaintively on facebook) is welcome to contact me on 0488531824. Note however that if you lack a pathological obsession with winning, you cannot and will not succeed.
LikeLike
Yes Minister, I have approached you. My guess is you can argue that the Tribunal is engaging in indirect discrimination. Apt for guardianship matters (if the Applicant has a disability).
LikeLike
There is no doubt whatever that ALL kangaroo tribunals practice both direct and indirect discrimination, bias, contempt for legislation, brutality, pre4dation and indeed every offence in the book. That said, the protection and immunity conferred on the psychopaths masquerading as quasi-judges is such that there is little that can be done in Australia to hold them accountable. Don’t even think about approaching a politician of whatever party, the mainstream media, any watchdog, lawyers generally, or even a ‘proper’ court, they simply are not interested in opposing kangaroo tribunals. Mind you there is a way of getting at the scum but only the rare victim is likely to do what it takes. The odds of success based on the history of kangaroo tribunal matters over the past ten years are around one in six thousand (five victories out of thirty thousand cases). By ‘victory’, I mean the victim of the guardianship racket regained complete control of their life with significant assets remaining un-plundered by the financial administrator (almost always the Public Trustee / State Tustees or equivalent. I was responsible for one of those five victories and will add another one in 2020. My goal is to destroy the guardianship racket and kangaroo tribunals completely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mental Health Legal Centre Vic
> Publications
Vic Ombudsman Investigation into Trustees
https://mhlc.org.au/our-publications/
LikeLike
Hello vcatcorruptioncontinued
Apparently a planning issue yet I was informed by vcat pre application of a vcat representative that applying for a S126 was valid.
Technically it wasn’t a planning issue due to the existence of this driveway was well known and in constant use for over 15 years which I proved and also through stat decs. This driveway was not important to myself but all my neighbours along my postal address driveway during bushfires.
My land abuts both a local road and a VIcRoads now regional roads road.
It is well documented by CFA 2019 Pre major bushfires in Vic/Nsw paper that 2 egress / access points, if available are ideal if possible. If my local council road is blocked off by a tree of bushfire (I’m in a high risk area as per zones, and reality) so all my neighbours can access my land and drive through to safe area which is the main VicRoads road.
Order stated that I already have a driveway yet why on earth have a clause where the 15 years or more in use etc etcetera if this holds absolutely no relevance on power to the landowner.
Their latter stated construction of a driveway in which I kept on communicating that this driveway was not constructed by me, not previous owner and so forth.
The senior member was A. Dea.
This member had no knowledge of this area of her (sol called) professional area. She asked to be called Ms. Dea.
All the help I sought, no one was interested, local authorities not interested, CFA not interested although I’ll be driving into a fire to escape, ( my land is 7 acres)
I compiled much information
Even to the point of doing calculations from Austroads and VicRoads literature, as they said the driveway where and access was dangerous, which indeed is not.
The reason why I applied for a “planning permit” was to be a good above board citizen and to my neighbours in times or evens of fire.
When I received a refusal from some so and so VicRoads rep, I, as per the act, requested for further information as to why it was refused. This refusal also stated for the construction of driveway and I tireless kept saying it’s not a construction, and to be very precise it’s actually an old fire trail hence yes it’s a high risk location.
Back than (act and planning and environment etc have changed wording)
But I was meant to receive a reply for my requesting more information and a justifiable response.
I never got that. So they vicroads failed there.
Also the original refusal never stated to cease using driveway so I didn’t. Under older versions (2010) regs states that response must be unambiguous, which it was not. Now they changed the clause to “oh well, that’s what they implied” kind of rubbish.
People need more rights as we are so heavily governed by its like it’s an absolute joke to even say well
What about this or that stated in clause x for example when it means nothing anyway?
I could go on but I’ll leave it there for now.
Thank you so much
Andrew
LikeLike
Hello Andrew. I have read a few transcripts of decisions made by the VCAT Member Dea. Unfortunate that your matter was heard by the same.
It seems to me you have time up your sleeve at the moment. If I was you, I would do s freedom of information request on the decision made by VicRoads. Be careful wording your request because they will use any excuse to stonewall the request. Be very precise in what information you are seeking. Make it clear in your request that ‘personal affairs’ information and ‘internal working documents’ can be excluded. Under the FOI provisions that information is generally exempt. Worth your while to look at the FOI Act for further information. You don’t want a situation which results in a bad FOI outcome. No use relying on the Authority that handles FOI complaints (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner). That Authority is not impartial in my experience.
Once you have gathered information, I would still approach the Victorian Ombudsman. You can show that Office that you have attempted to seek resolution at the VCAT without success. I would also raise with that Office about the CFA’s guidelines and inaction. If you can gather a ‘petitiion’ to show the number of residents negatuvely impacted by this issue too, to give to that Office. That will strengthen your case.
Good luck.
LikeLike
I think this is the case that Gov Depts rely on (consequences of an adverse finding):
– In assessing the nature of the cause of action or defence, the court may take into account the gravity of the consequences which flow from a particular finding (Morley v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331 at [742]).
– Thus, the graver the consequences of a particular finding, the stronger the evidence needs to be in order to conclude that the allegation is established on the balance of probabilities (Morley v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331 at [746]).
LikeLike
This is interesting. On VCAT’s website, it details the following in relation to its current Covid response:
“If you have a hearing listed on or after 18 May 2020
From 18 May, VCAT will expand the types of matters that it hears to include matters already listed for hearing where they can reasonably proceed using telephone or videoconference. It is an offence to record any part of a VCAT hearing without permission (Court Security Act 1980)”.
Clearly VCAT doesn’t mind warning the public about the recording of proceedings. On the other hand, why didn’t VCAT take this opportunity to advise it will record the subject hearings? Are they being recorded by VCAT? In the interest of fair hearing principles, all hearings should be recorded by VCAT. Why not detail that VCAT? Obviously so the public will not consider challenging a VCAT decision.
LikeLike
VCAT says you cannot record hearings due to ‘privacy reasons’. However, the real reason is so that they can edit the audio they keep, if they mess up or something fishy happens. Mine was heavily edited with incriminating parts moved around.
They don’t make it obvious that a copy of this kangaroo audio is available through one of their suppliers. They do have this somewhere on their website, with webpage titled ‘Recordings and transcripts of VCAT hearings’, but, they really ought to have put a link to that webpage on the page you mention.
If VCAT was a genuine outfit, everyone would be made fully aware of the availability of the audio (and transcript) and made aware that requests for written reasons of decisions must be made prior to the conclusion of a hearing (this may only apply to residential tenancies list as far as I recall). O! and do away with editing the audio as it suits them all together.
LikeLike
The Listening Devices Act in Victoria (which seems to have been repealed and been replaced by the Surveillance Devices Act) makes it a lawful activity to record a “private” conversation (in which one is not a party to) if doing so is to protect a persons legal interests. This includes when a listening device is used.
The (former?) Act covered the use and publication of private conversations recorded on a listening device when one was a party to the conversation.
The above Acts do not seem to cover situations in a Tribunal proceeding setting.
In any event, with the above in mind, I doubt VCAT could argue the reason it does not want a party to record a proceeding is for privacy issues.
Also, the Court Security Act does not seem to cover the recording of proceedings outside (or near) a Court setting, (see definitions under ‘Court Premises’).
So record away at home consumers!
LikeLike
Today, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed a case brought against the State Government. The case claimed that the Melbourne curfew in response to the Covid was unlawful.
Justice Tim Ginnane made the decision. He is s former Vice President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
How convenient.
LikeLike
Just been looking to see the period when Justice Tim Ginnane was Vice President at VCAT.
Pretty hard to access this info it seems. The VCAT website only lists current president, Vice Presidents, Deputy Presidents, Senior Members – Non-sessional, Senior Members – Sessional, Members – Non-sessional, Members – Sessional:
https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/about-vcat/our-members
LikeLike
Recent Google search of ‘VCAT Corruption’ has the usual results generated by VCAT and IBAC etc.
Interestingly, the Victorian Ombudsman also has one. Deborah Glass, current Ombudsman in my view is a trail blazer. I hold her in high esteem. She is not reserved in her investigations. So I take this with the view she’s on to something.
Also interesting is an article I found when googling the same search:
https://www.petermericka.com.au/vcat-member-blair-ussher-corruption-allegations/
LikeLike
Further to my last comment:
The Victorian Ombudsman regularly professes to be the place that considers Human Rights issues and complaints.
The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility Act sets out what protections are afforded to the public. This one is pertinent when VCAT is scrutinised:
~ CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006 – SECT 24
Fair hearing
(1) A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing ~
It is my view it is the Victorian Ombudsman’s role to investigate a person’s grievances concerning VCAT if it concerns a Human Rights breach (such as section 24).
The Victorian Ombudsman advises it can refuse to deal with a complaint if there is a more appropriate authority that can deal with that complaint.
The only other authority I am aware of is IBAC. However, it would technically not be IBAC’s role to do so. IBAC can only investigate corruption. Section 24 does not deal with corruption.
LikeLike
Also, good reading here:
After you click on the below link, it opens to a page. At the bottom of the page, click on view in browser (no need to install app) –
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3alcncl65rqvt9s/gl_65_13.9.12_S_Porritt-Paper.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dqbubjpo6dhii42/gl_65_13.9.12_A_Walker.pdf?dl=0
LikeLike
Further to my earlier comment on the Victorian Ombudsman’s role and their apparent obligation to consider matters connected to section 24 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (the CHARTER):
Although I cannot find any reference in the Victorian Ombudsman’s Act, it might be that the Ombudsman holds a view that claims concerning section 24 of the Charter and VCAT might be best dealt with by the Supreme Court.
I do not believe the above would hold much weight as it would not be in keeping with the Charter:
Objects:
~ (2) The main purpose of this Charter is to protect and promote human rights by—
(c) imposing an obligation on all public authorities to act in a way that is compatible with human rights. ~
and
~ SECT 38
Conduct of public authorities
(1) Subject to this section, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right or, in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right. ~
Is VCAT a public authority? In some cases, yes:
https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CHRBB/57269.htm
LikeLike
H I, I’m currently in the middle of a residential tenancies mess, where the landlord (after failing to get us evicted 8 separate times on all sorts of grounds that vcat deemed to not be a breach) has filed an intervention order on me just so that I would be excluded from the property. Up until now we have been doing very well in terms of winning our vcat hearing, magistrate hearing was an utter disgrace where the judge did not even want to listen to me or my wife’s statements and granted in landlords favor and appealed by us in the county court. County court found that no violence of any sort had ever occurred and there was no threatening behaviour as what we say to each other within the confines of our home can not be considered a threat by the landlord if she is using listening devices to spy on us. Anyway, 2 years later we’re still in vcat arguing about 6k of unpaid rent for a Covid reason. That figure went down from 32k after we brought up in vcat that the landlord was double dipping and has already had an insurance payout on the items she is claiming we “damaged.” Long story really, but the question I would really like answered is could somebody please recommend a lawyer that is well versed in residential tenancies? Happy to pay, just need some advice what steps to take as the member is being completely biased against us, failing to consider 3/4 of our submissions, and acting as a lawyer for the landlord, ignoring the fact that the landlord has effectively wasted 2 years of everyone’s time so far and committed fraud. Not only that but member is refusing to grant an anonymity order even though a intervention order was still in place for the majority of the past 2 years. I doubt the member will allow us to have legal representation, so the next best option is advice from a solicitor/barrister. Thank you.
LikeLike
definitely a good idea to get some legal advice on this. Even if member doesn’t allow lawyer to represent you at the hearing, you can discuss the steps with lawyer and also just having a lawyer there on the day would put member on back foot. If other party is being represented, it would be hard for member to refuse you being represented only (and not refuse the other party being represented by a lawyer).
In my experience without a lawyer, member will even try to brush off simple requests like a request for written reasons that you make during the hearing (for residential tenancies matters You MUST request this BEFORE, DURING Or BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. OTherwise you forfeit the right – bizarre as it may be). When I requested Member Kefford tried to brush it off by saying ‘that’s not gonna change my decision’. Then I had to insist. Only then she accepted. Written reasons are important because you can show those reasons to a lawyer at a later date (if member refused you representation during hearing so lawyer wasn’t there to see/hear the proceedings).
As for which lawyers to approach. I remember approaching: https://www.armstronglawyers.com.au/our-lawyers/
I don’t know if they deal with VCAT residential tenancies anymore but you can ask. Also, you can contact someone like: https://www.greenslist.com.au/barrister/James-McKay
Another avenue is to contact vicbar. Their website has a find a barrister feature: https://www.vicbar.com.au/find-barrister
for area of practice type ‘VCAT’ and hit search. Although, they suggest contacting a barristers clerk to find a barrister for the area of expertise we need: https://www.vicbca.org/barristers-clerks
You can also check out the aussielegal forum:
https://www.aussielegal.com.au/legal-forum
and maybe search for recommendations on threads/posts or use the ‘find a lawyer’ feature on there.
LikeLike