We got a place that had not been painted prior to our tenancy.  Not been re-painted.  We were told by a Katherine painter that it was the custom for Territory Housing to paint houses before a new tenancy. And they found it surprising that our place was not painted.

But it was not.

And there were various marks on the walls here and there. From  previous tenants. Especially in the 'lounge' room.  (It is a bit difficult to name the rooms, 'loung', 'dining', 'kitchen', etc. as Housing likes to do because in fact there was only one room, an alcove for a stove and sink and fridge and a passage with two bedrooms coming off it and one bedroom at the end and a 'bathroom' without a bath and with a toilet.  That's pretty typical.  Rectangular minimalist places built in order to minimise cost we would normally think.  Having learned what we have about the operations of Housing Katherine we can now opine that perhaps they were built to maximise profits for local contractors.

'No bathroom' of course would be hotly disputed by Housing and it is true there was one of those short 'hip baths' in a corner of this toilet and a shower rose up above it.  I have a four year old boy and he could lay down in this 'bath' - no one bigger than that could.  How it could be referred to as a bathroom in those circumstances beats me. How they could build a thing like that for a family house also beats me.  And was it a family house ? Of course it was, by definition.  A three bedroom house is a family house. You are expected to have children. If you don't have children you don't get that accommodation.

Anyway, that's by-the-by, the point here is the condition of the house when we moved it.

It had marks on it both inside and outside. Even writing "marie was heya" - that kind of thing, and scribbles, obviously from children.

It had the marks of usage. Scuff marks here and there.

It had the marks of age, fading and staining.

Some of these things were mentioned in the condition report when we moved in and some of them we added to the condition report when we moved in - but mainly we ignored them, in the spirit of fair play and not making a bloody nuisance of yourself. Of course the place was faded, marked and stained, it hadn't been painted since the last tenants - but did you want it or not? Beggars can't be choosers? What are you turning your nose up at?

And so on.  To look at every little scratch or stain or scuff or scribble and insist it be noted down seemed nit picking in the extreme and ungateful and even hostile, like starting off on the wrong foot, treating Housing like an enemy, not a friend, when here they are offering a place to live.

BUT THAT"S IT!!!  DON'T RISK TREATING THEM LIKE FRIENDS!  They are not friends.  They will turn on you like a mad dog.

They have now charged us hundred of dollars for 'cleaning' the house.  And hundreds of dollars for the removal of marks and stains.  Most of which were there when we arrived.  Their imposts were supported - that should be in quotation marks "supported" - by over 60 photographs. Yes. 60 photographs. Have you ever heard of anything like it?  60 photographs!  Do you find that normal? Do you find that usual? Do find that to be expected?

I certainly don't and I claim that either (1)  It only happened to us in which case it is clear discrimination and a put-up job  or (2) it happens to everyone in which case Housing Katherine can clearly be seen as totally out of control and totally out of its remit for caring for the people of the Territory and the funds of the taxpayers of the Territory.

Now those 60 photographs are useless. Because they are not titled or indexed or referenced in their bill of charges.  A further example of the professionalism, probity and parsimony of Housing Katherine.  They are uselss, mere curiosities bearing witness to a hostile, an amateurishly hostile attack on the part of Housing Katherine, further squandering money and time.  

But they do show pictures that we can point to of marks and such that existed when we moved in. And we can assume that Housing is charging for those items.  Which is clearly improper.

Note, there should be nothing improper on the part of the department. Nothing at all.  They should be without fault.

   So where are we?  It is clear that Housing Katherine has decided to give a face lift to a house that is well overdue for it.  At least two tenancies overdue.  But they have decided they'll recover the cost of this from myself.  By raising spurious charges. The only thing we're not clear about is:  do they normally do this or what?

     That house had water stains in the ceiling that in the wet showed that water was getting in. That house had the metal door frame of the back door rotted clean through at the bottom.  That house had a rusted 'bath' tub that was promised to be replaced.  That house was dingy worn old place when we first got there.