I saw this article yesterday and it has been playing on my mind:
Renters face being evicted without notice when owners default on home loans if the National Australia Bank wins a Supreme Court battle against Victoria’s Sheriff. Tenant groups have labelled the bank’s court action as ”ruthless” and ”cold hearted”, particularly after high-profile advertising promoting its customer-friendly face.
In a case that could have far-reaching implications for Victoria’s renters, NAB has taken the Sheriff to court after it failed to evict the tenants of two Ivanhoe East properties.
The mortgagor of the properties defaulted on repayments to NAB after letting them out without the bank’s knowledge, prompting it to seek repossession orders.
NAB wants the Supreme Court to force the Sheriff to evict the tenants without it needing to comply with the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires renters be given 28 days’ notice.
It is well known to MacroBusiness that Victoria has a struggling housing market at present, and I am fully aware that NAB is a private business with responsibilities to share holders, but I can’t for the life of me think how anyone in NAB’s public relations department , who recently produced an entire advertising campaign under the title “more give, less take”, could let this pass at a time like this.
The US “Occupy Wall Street” campaign is driven by the perception of exactly this type of banking behaviour. The belief, rightly or wrongly, that the financial sector has been granted powers and rights that are “above the law” to the detriment of the average citizen. NAB made over $4 billion profit last year while being given the explicit guarantee of the Australian taxpayer, yet has taken court action that could easily be interpreted as complete contempt for the rights of those same taxpayers. I have little doubt that, quite rightly in my opinion, this would lead most rational Australian citizens to question exactly what we are getting out of this deal.
Again I understand that, like any other business, NAB has a right to protect its profit margins, but I also understand that banks are not normal businesses. Australian banks are companies that have been granted the backing of the sovereign and in my opinion that backing should come with a social obligation to act in the interested of the community. To ask a court to overturn a tenants rights to 28 days notice before they have to move their family to another residence certainly does not pass “fair go” test.