Latest news with #InnerWestCouncil
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- General
- Sydney Morning Herald
Ben and Dino's home was ‘pristine'. Then the ceiling tore apart from the wall
The pair questioned whether the excavation had caused a seepage failure, meaning the ground on their side of the building's sheet piles – which provide support and water resistance – had sunk, causing their walls to detach from the ceilings. Compensation claims were lodged with the owner's insurance company, but they were refused on the basis that the gaping cracks were just normal wear and tear. Pierpoint said the 'traumatic' ordeal had forced them to spend thousands of dollars on removalists, storage units and temporary accommodation, and made them take time off work. Both are couch-surfing with friends and have no idea where they could end up next week. The housemates reached out to their landlord, NSW Fair Trading, the Inner West Council and the Building Commission, but they were told the same thing each time: that nobody had any legal responsibility to support or financially compensate them. 'The Residential Tenancies Act governs the relationship between landlords and tenants. It does not cover relationships with third parties,' a NSW Fair Trading spokesperson said in a statement to this masthead. The home owner declined to speak to the Herald. The developer next door declined to answer this masthead's questions. Pierpoint and Dimitriadis are frustrated at the lack of a clear compensation pathway for evicted tenants and said their situation highlights an obvious gap in tenancy laws. Under NSW's Residential Tenancies Act, landlords have a legal duty to provide a safe home. However, if it becomes uninhabitable and unsafe to live in, they can terminate the lease with immediate notice. This means renters such as Pierpoint and Dimitriadis are left bearing the financial burden. They want to be fairly compensated, but their only options involve pursuing a costly and complex legal fight against either their landlord or a third party who may have been responsible for the damages. Another possible pathway is for them to file a dispute at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), which is often a time-consuming and formal process with steep fees. Loading Tenants Union of NSW chief executive Leo Patterson Ross said the costs of pursuing legal action often outstrips the actual amount people seek to be compensated. 'Just a filing fee alone could start at $500, and that's before you hire a solicitor – there might be many people who wouldn't pursue it because of the high costs and risk of not being successful,' he said. Pierpoint and Dimitriadis said situations such as their own would only 'get worse and worse, unless something changes'. They have urged the government to amend tenancy laws so that renters have a safety net if they are evicted for safety reasons in situations out of their control. 'Or, forcing the landlord's insurance to cover those costs – but we all know insurance companies will do anything to not have to pay anything,' Pierpoint said. 'I'll work it out – I'm just taking it day by day. If we didn't have the financial means to move that quickly, our stuff would just be on the street. If we didn't have community and friends around us, we would actually be homeless.'
The Age
2 days ago
- General
- The Age
Ben and Dino's home was ‘pristine'. Then the ceiling tore apart from the wall
The pair questioned whether the excavation had caused a seepage failure, meaning the ground on their side of the building's sheet piles – which provide support and water resistance – had sunk, causing their walls to detach from the ceilings. Compensation claims were lodged with the owner's insurance company, but they were refused on the basis that the gaping cracks were just normal wear and tear. Pierpoint said the 'traumatic' ordeal had forced them to spend thousands of dollars on removalists, storage units and temporary accommodation, and made them take time off work. Both are couch-surfing with friends and have no idea where they could end up next week. The housemates reached out to their landlord, NSW Fair Trading, the Inner West Council and the Building Commission, but they were told the same thing each time: That nobody had any legal responsibility to support or financially compensate them. 'The Residential Tenancies Act governs the relationship between landlords and tenants. It does not cover relationships with third parties,' a NSW Fair Trading spokesperson said in a statement to this masthead. The home owner declined to speak to the Herald. The developer next door declined to answer this masthead's questions. Pierpoint and Dimitriadis are frustrated at the lack of a clear compensation pathway for evicted tenants and said their situation highlights an obvious gap in tenancy laws. Under NSW's Residential Tenancies Act, landlords have a legal duty to provide a safe home. However, if it becomes uninhabitable and unsafe to live in, they can terminate the lease with immediate notice. This means renters such as Pierpoint and Dimitriadis are left bearing the financial burden. They want to be fairly compensated, but their only options involve pursuing a costly and complex legal fight against either their landlord or a third party who may have been responsible for the damages. Another possible pathway is for them to file a dispute at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), which is often a time-consuming and formal process with steep fees. Loading Tenants Union of NSW chief executive Leo Patterson Ross said the costs of pursuing legal action often outstrips the actual amount people seek to be compensated. 'Just a filing fee alone could start at $500, and that's before you hire a solicitor – there might be many people who wouldn't pursue it because of the high costs and risk of not being successful,' he said. Pierpoint and Dimitriadis said situations such as their own would only 'get worse and worse, unless something changes'. They have urged the government to amend tenancy laws so that renters have a safety net if they are evicted for safety reasons in situations out of their control. 'Or, forcing the landlord's insurance to cover those costs – but we all know insurance companies will do anything to not have to pay anything,' Pierpoint said. 'I'll work it out – I'm just taking it day by day. If we didn't have the financial means to move that quickly, our stuff would just be on the street. If we didn't have community and friends around us, we would actually be homeless.'
Sydney Morning Herald
2 days ago
- General
- Sydney Morning Herald
Ben and Dino's Marrickville home was ‘pristine'. Then the ceiling tore apart from the wall
The pair questioned whether the excavation had caused a seepage failure, meaning the ground on their side of the building's sheet piles – which provide support and water resistance – had sunk, causing their walls to detach from the ceilings. Compensation claims were lodged with the owner's insurance company, but they were refused on the basis that the gaping cracks were just normal wear and tear. Pierpoint said the 'traumatic' ordeal had forced them to spend thousands of dollars on removalists, storage units and temporary accommodation, and made them take time off work. Both are couch-surfing with friends and have no idea where they could end up next week. The housemates reached out to their landlord, NSW Fair Trading, the Inner West Council and the Building Commission, but they were told the same thing each time: That nobody had any legal responsibility to support or financially compensate them. 'The Residential Tenancies Act governs the relationship between landlords and tenants. It does not cover relationships with third parties,' a NSW Fair Trading spokesperson said in a statement to this masthead. The home owner declined to speak to the Herald . The developer next door declined to answer this masthead's questions. Pierpoint and Dimitriadis are frustrated at the lack of a clear compensation pathway for evicted tenants and said their situation highlights an obvious gap in tenancy laws. Under NSW's Residential Tenancies Act, landlords have a legal duty to provide a safe home. However, if it becomes uninhabitable and unsafe to live in, they can terminate the lease with immediate notice. This means renters such as Pierpoint and Dimitriadis are left bearing the financial burden. They want to be fairly compensated, but their only options involve pursuing a costly and complex legal fight against either their landlord or a third party who may have been responsible for the damages. Another possible pathway is for them to file a dispute at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), which is often a time-consuming and formal process with steep fees. Loading Tenants Union of NSW chief executive Leo Patterson Ross said the costs of pursuing legal action often outstrips the actual amount people seek to be compensated. 'Just a filing fee alone could start at $500, and that's before you hire a solicitor – there might be many people who wouldn't pursue it because of the high costs and risk of not being successful,' he said. Pierpoint and Dimitriadis said situations such as their own would only 'get worse and worse, unless something changes'. They have urged the government to amend tenancy laws so that renters have a safety net if they are evicted for safety reasons in situations out of their control. 'Or, forcing the landlord's insurance to cover those costs – but we all know insurance companies will do anything to not have to pay anything,' Pierpoint said. 'I'll work it out – I'm just taking it day by day. If we didn't have the financial means to move that quickly, our stuff would just be on the street. If we didn't have community and friends around us, we would actually be homeless.' Start the day with a summary of the day's most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
Sydney Morning Herald
04-08-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
It may be a $380k cash cow. But is Sydney's biggest billboard also an eyesore?
Sydney's biggest billboard could continue to feature on the city skyline for three more years as part of a deal that might earn Inner West Council more than $300,000 in revenue from a major advertising company. Eye Drive Sydney, a subsidiary of outdoor advertiser oOh!media, is seeking approval from the NSW government to extend the life of the 170 metre-long billboard on the Glebe Island silos, overlooking Anzac Bridge. The billboard – which thousands of motorists pass each day – was erected in the 1990s as a temporary structure to promote the Sydney Olympics. However, over the years, rolling extensions have kept it in place. Now Eye Drive Sydney has applied to the Planning Department to continue operating the billboard for another three years, saying an extension will 'reinforce the landmark quality of the silos structure'. The move has sparked resistance among residents, community groups and the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed. If Eye Drive Sydney gains the extension, it has offered to pay Inner West Council $127,000 a year in a 'public benefit' deal that could be used to produce 'socio-economic benefits'. In a submission to the department, Inner West Council has not opposed the extension and said it 'does not anticipate any adverse impacts' if the approval is granted. The council's position puts it at odds with the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed.
The Age
04-08-2025
- Business
- The Age
It may be a $380k cash cow. But is Sydney's biggest billboard also an eyesore?
Sydney's biggest billboard could continue to feature on the city skyline for three more years as part of a deal that might earn Inner West Council more than $300,000 in revenue from a major advertising company. Eye Drive Sydney, a subsidiary of outdoor advertiser oOh!media, is seeking approval from the NSW government to extend the life of the 170 metre-long billboard on the Glebe Island silos, overlooking Anzac Bridge. The billboard – which thousands of motorists pass each day – was erected in the 1990s as a temporary structure to promote the Sydney Olympics. However, over the years, rolling extensions have kept it in place. Now Eye Drive Sydney has applied to the Planning Department to continue operating the billboard for another three years, saying an extension will 'reinforce the landmark quality of the silos structure'. The move has sparked resistance among residents, community groups and the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed. If Eye Drive Sydney gains the extension, it has offered to pay Inner West Council $127,000 a year in a 'public benefit' deal that could be used to produce 'socio-economic benefits'. In a submission to the department, Inner West Council has not opposed the extension and said it 'does not anticipate any adverse impacts' if the approval is granted. The council's position puts it at odds with the City of Sydney Council, which has called for the billboard to be removed.
