The problem of "waste hoarders" - people who collect and accumulate all manner of general rubbish in both the yards and indoor areas of dwelling houses - is one that seems to plague virtually every local council. Not only is such waste hoarding unsightly, but it also carries with it significant public health issues as the waste piles can attract rats and other vermin; are malodorous; and can pose a fire safety risk to neighbouring dwellings.
Councils have authority under section 124 of the Local Government Act to issue orders to require the owners or occupants of residential properties to remove piles of waste material from their land and to refrain from depositing additional waste. Additionally, councils can bring proceedings in the Land and Environment Court to enforce these orders. While it remains an open question as to whether these existing legal remedies are adequate to address the problems posed by waste hoarding, they are presently the only tools that are available.
Perhaps no case epitomises the difficulties that councils encounter when trying to deal with waste hoarding than the matter of Waverley Council v Bobolas (No. 3), 2014 NSWLEC 16. The Land and Environment Court's Website reveals that there have been a lengthy series of proceedings, dating back nearly 10 years, to 2005, in which the Council has sought to enforce orders requiring the owners of a property in Bondi to remove accumulated waste.
The recent developments in this case have been extensively reported in the news media (see for example the articles in the Daily Telegraph at the following links):
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mary-bobolas-arrested-during-bondi-cleanup-after-allegedly-hitting-and-spitting-on-police/story-fni0cx12-1226883441877
and
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bondis-famous-hoarders-the-bobolas-have-started-to-pile-up-rubbish-just-weeks-after-cleanup/story-fni0cx12-1226948403087
These articles report that there has been a seemingly endless cycle of the Council's getting orders from the Court either to require the owners to clean up the property, or to allow the Council to gain access to the property in order to carry out the work required by the clean up orders. The articles indicate that after each round of clean up, the same pattern of renewed accumulation of waste material repeats itself. According to the Telegraph articles, Waverley Council has spent more than $350,000 in legal fees and clean up costs to address the issues at the property.
In these latest proceedings, presided over by Justice Biscoe, the Court made findings that the Council had served notice of the latest clean up order that was given under the Local Government Act on the owner and that notwithstanding that order, the piles of waste had not only remained on the property but had increased in size; and that the waste was putrid and offensive smelling and posed a health risk to the occupants of the dwelling and to residents of neighbouring properties. Consequently, Justice Biscoe saw fit to issue an order under section 678 of the Local Government Act allowing the Council to enter the property and to remove the accumulations of waste.
Justice Biscoe's judgment in the case can be found here:
http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=169981
The Daily Telegraph reports indicate state that shortly after the clean up was completed under the authority of the orders made by Justice Biscoe, the owners had begun yet again to deposit large quantities of waste in the outdoor areas of the property. This saga thus appears to be dragging on ad infinitum (and surely, where the unfortunate neighbours of this property are concerned, ad nauseum!).
As the Bobolas case illustrates, councils that are dealing with people who persist in hoarding waste on residential properties have no alternative save to repeatedly issue clean up orders under the Local Government Act, and to return to the Land and Environment Court with renewed applications to enforce those orders. This process can be protracted and expensive, as it is often difficult for councils to effect service of the original clean up orders that are issued under the Local Government Act or of the papers associated with the proceedings to enforce those orders in the Court. Therefore, numerous appearances may be required in the Court simply in order to obtain leave to effect "substituted service" on the responsible persons (by posting notice of the orders or Court proceedings in a prominent location at the affected property).
In the end, the persons responsible for depositing large waste piles on their own properties often do not have the werewithal, either financially or from a "mental health" standpoint, to undertake a clean up themselves. Thus it is not uncommon for councils finally reach the point (as happened in the Bobolas case) where they have no alternative but to seek orders from the Court allowing them to undertake the necessary clean up work directly.
No comments:
Post a Comment