An investigation into Victoria’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has accused it of “inept management”.

It said the DHHS’s ineptitude costs some of the most vulnerable Victorians thousands of dollars while also wasting public resources.

The review by Ombudsman Deborah Glass found the department:

  • A default practice of raising maintenance claims against former tenants for almost the entire cost of repairing a vacated property, failing to take into account:
    • special circumstances (such as family violence, mental and physical illness or evidence of third party damage)
    • fair wear and tear and depreciation which can add up to thousands of dollars
                         
  • Sending letters advising former tenants of claims against them to addresses the department knows they have left
  • Failing to negotiate with tenants or their advocates
  • In effect outsourcing its responsibilities to determine a debt to VCAT, wasting public resources and breaching its responsibility as a Model Litigant
  • Withholding future housing from former tenants until a payment plan is agreed to

The ombudsman’s review was triggered by claims that Housing Victoria, a division of the DHHS, was pursuing one former tenant for $20,000 in maintenance and repairs.

The tenant had been fleeing domestic violence

“It's highly likely this damage was caused by an ex-partner, but the situation is that the department simply didn't make any effort to find out,” Ms Glass said.

“[She] finds out over a year later that she'd been charged over $20,000 in damage that she wasn't responsible for.

“Effectively fairness goes out the window at the end of a tenancy.”

The woman ended up paying just over $1,000 for repairs after an appeal.

Ms Glass said the DHHS was also tying up the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) with unnecessary litigation.

“The department is the highest sole litigant in the residential tenancies list at VCAT,” she said.

“They're wasting public resources by proceeding against people who actually aren't in any position to pay a debt anyway.”

The DHHS says it has all 18 of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, committing to many measures including:

  • Removing the requirement for applicants to make a debt repayment plan prior to an offer of public housing where the claim is in dispute
  • Implementing a change management package to equip department staff with the necessary knowledge, skills and resources so they engage with former tenants when determining the cause of any damage and liability for the repair costs
  • Establishing a high-level user group for public housing services to monitor the implementation of new and improved guidance

The full report is accessible here.