An elderly social housing tenant in Melbourne has had her eviction notice struck out after she continued paying her previous rent despite a weekly increase of about $65. The dispute began after HousingFirst took over several properties previously run by Glenloch. The tenant challenged whether the higher rent had been properly introduced and kept paying about $234 a week. According to ABC News, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal(VCAT) later found the eviction notice invalid because of confusion over the amount the tenant was said to owe.
Why the elderly Melbourne tenant refused the rent increase
The renter was one of several elderly residents affected after HousingFirst took over a group of inner-east Melbourne properties in 2023. The homes had previously been operated under a private trust known as Glenloch, according to ABC News.HousingFirst later increased the rents for residents of those properties. The organisation said the changes were needed because the homes had previously been subject to low and inconsistent rents. It said the increases were intended to bring the properties into line with the rest of its community housing portfolio while limiting the effect on tenants.For the elderly renter at the centre of the tribunal case, the proposed increase was about $65 each week. Instead of accepting the new amount, she continued paying the roughly $234 weekly rent she had been paying before.The disagreement was not simply about whether she could afford the additional money. It also concerned whether HousingFirst had followed the correct process when increasing the rent.
The rent dispute turned into an eviction case
The situation became more serious in April 2026, when HousingFirst issued the tenant with a notice to vacate. The organisation argued that she owed more than $1,000 in unpaid rent because she had continued paying the old amount.The dispute was then taken to VCAT, where both sides presented their positions. ABC News reported that the parties had attempted to negotiate a payment plan, but the central disagreement remained whether the rent had actually been increased in a legally valid way.The tenant was represented by Shane McGrath from the Housing for the Aged Action Group. He told the tribunal that she believed a formal notice of rent increase was required. Because the elderly tenant did not consider the increase valid, she had continued paying her previous rent. Her representative argued that this meant she was not actually in arrears when the eviction notice was issued.The issue therefore became more complicated than a straightforward case of unpaid rent. It involved the validity of the increase itself and whether the amount claimed from the tenant was accurate.
How did HousingFirst justified the higher rent
HousingFirst took a different position on the matter. Its representative told the tribunal that the particular nature of the rent increase meant that notice periods that would normally apply were not required.The organisation also wanted the tribunal to determine whether the notice it had given was legal and enforceable. If the increase was found to be valid, its representative said HousingFirst wanted to establish a repayment arrangement with the tenant.The wider rent changes were part of an effort to bring the former Glenloch properties into line with HousingFirst’s other community housing homes. ABC News reported that the organisation’s community housing portfolio caps rent at 30% of household income. But the changes placed some elderly residents under greater financial pressure.
HousingFirst says the rent increases brought Glenloch into line with its property portfolio. Image Credit: ABC News
Tribunal’s decision about the eviction notice
Senior VCAT member Vivienne Topp ultimately struck out the eviction notice, but the decision did not settle the underlying disagreement over whether the rent increase itself was valid.Instead, the tribunal focused on the amount stated on the notice to vacate. Topp found there was confusion surrounding how much the tenant was alleged to owe.The renter and her advocate had disputed the figure written on the notice. After hearing the evidence, Topp declared that the notice was not valid and struck out the matter.That distinction is important because the tribunal did not rule that HousingFirst’s rent increase was unlawful. The eviction notice was rejected because of the confusion over the amount claimed as owing.
What could happen next in this rent dispute matter
ABC News reported that it was unclear whether the matter would return to VCAT. The tribunal’s decision dealt with the validity of the particular notice to vacate instead of providing a final ruling on the disputed rent increase.According to ABC News, HousingFirst manages more than 2,000 properties across Melbourne. The organisation began as the Port Phillip Housing Association before growing into a major social housing provider.For the tenant involved, however, the immediate issue was much more personal about whether continuing to pay the rent she believed was valid, would result in her losing the home.
