‘The panel has no qualification to judge tenants’ health, mental or physical,’ evicted grandmother Yvette van Loo tells reporter BELINDA STRAHORN. 

A CANBERRA grandmother has been ordered to leave her home of 41 years after failing in her bid to stay.

Yvette van Loo, 74, appealed to the Tenant Relocation Exemption Panel (TREP) to remain in her Ainslie home, a social-housing property earmarked for sale under ACT Housing’s “Growth and Renewal” program.

But the panel – set up to determine tenants’ eligibility to stay in their homes – rejected her appeal, ordering the pensioner to vacate the home she’s lived in for more than four decades.

“I’m infuriated,” van Loo said. “I’ll rather be dead than transferred to a new location.”

Van Loo is one of 340 Canberra tenants being relocated under the program designed to “grow the public housing portfolio and provide homes for more households in need”.

Following criticism over the scheme’s implementation, tenants were given the opportunity to appear before a government-appointed panel and request an exemption.

Van Loo’s 10-minute hearing – conducted earlier this month at the Housing ACT office – was convened via Zoom with panel members sitting in an adjacent room. 

A fortnight after appearing before the panel, van Loo was told in a letter – viewed by “CityNews” – that her appeal was unsuccessful. 

“Based on the information you provided, unfortunately your application was denied by the TREP,” panel chair Julianne McMaster said in the letter.

The panel – made up of representatives from Housing ACT and community services organisations – claimed they considered the following in making their decision: 

“The impact that relocating may have on you, including on health, mental health, wellbeing, identity, or independence, and how this impact can be minimised,” said McMaster in the letter.

“If relocating may worsen your health circumstances; if relocating will be safe and culturally appropriate for you; the impact based on your age and if the property is underutilised.”

Van Loo is treating the letter with disdain and has questioned the logic behind the panel’s decision.

“The letter said they considered whether relocating would have an impact on my health,” van Loo said.

“How do they know what I need? The panel has no qualification whatsoever to render judgement on tenants’ health, be it mental or physical. 

“They are very ordinary public servants obeying orders, they are neither doctors, psychiatrists, nor mental health specialists.”

The letter stated that van Loo’s Cowper Street home would “remain in the program” and that she would be required to relocate to another housing property.

“The TREP believes your needs can be supported by making every effort to relocate you within a close vicinity to your current community to support your sense of belonging,” Ms McMaster said in the letter.

While the panel acknowledged that van Loo had lived in her home for a long time [actually, 41 years], and that it was “not the outcome you had hoped for,” the letter stated that the panel’s decision was final.

Lashing out at the inhumane treatment handed to her by the panel, van Loo said she feels victimised because of her age and circumstances.

“I feel as if I’ve been treated like an animal,” said van Loo.

“I’m 74 years old, at this stage of life I should be entitled to enjoy it.

“I may only have a few years left and it’s not as if I was going to stay in my property for the next 100 years.”

While bitterly disappointed, she’s not taking the decision lying down and is looking at challenging the outcome through legal action.

The case has sparked the interest of Canberra law firm Ken Cush & Associates who are looking closely at the impact of the program on tenants.

“We are currently investigating the legal intricacies of the ‘Growth and Renewal Program’ in response to the extensive queries we have received,” said Ken Cush & Associates special counsel Sangeeta Sharmin.

ACT Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS) CEO Emma Campbell said she was disappointed by the outcome of van Loo’s appeal given the appeals process had previously overturned decisions by Housing to move tenants in similar circumstances.

“We know there has been a good number of exemptions granted, which demonstrated that the initial program was unfair and incredibly harmful to a significant number of vulnerable people,” said Campbell.

Campbell said it was difficult to comprehend why the panel did not grant van Loo’s request to stay in her home.

“There are cases, and Yvette is one of them, where the individuals wanted to stay in their home and certainly, based on the evidence I have seen, it would have been the best outcome for the individual.”

An ACT government spokesperson told “CityNews” the panel has decided to grant five exemptions to tenants seeking to remain in their homes; while five exemptions have been denied.

Nine tenants were given exemptions before the commencement of the panel process, while 28 applications for exemptions were waiting to be assessed, the spokesperson said.