Applicant complains against Kapitbahayan Cooperative

In a letter sent to Mr. Ian Sinnett, CEO of Common Equity NSW, a tenant applicant alleged that the selection process was flawed and was “conducted in an unprofessional manner.” The applicant further alleged that “tenants have been chosen from their circle of friends, a blatant display of preferential treatment based on ‘who you know’ or friends of friends.”

Mr. Bob Harrison and Mrs. Bernadette Harrison provided a copy of their letter to Philippine Sentinel. Below is the full text of their complaint:

“The Kapitbahayan Cooperative’s awarding of houses just prior to Christmas 2010 may have been a welcome present for some. On the onset, it looks like a generous gesture; a shower of good fortune. However, beneath the motives are bias, preferential treatment, corrupt practices and unprofessional management.

“I therefore lodge my official complaint against the Kapitbahayan Cooperative and its minders, specifically, Mr. Ruben Amores and his wife, Mrs. Cen Amores, on whose shoulders lie solely the decision of being a tenant of Kapitbahayan or not. This is Australia, and practices are done in a fair and just manner. However, it would seem that there are no criteria for the selection of tenants.

“Based on the recent choice of tenants, it would seem that there is no clear definition of who is disadvantaged and who is in need. Here are the facts:

1. The selection process was conducted in an unprofessional manner. We did not receive an official letter advising us, nor have we been provided with the criteria.

2. Exclusivity of this group rather than opening the doors to the community that it was intended to help.
No advice or notice is given to the community at large. Only their close circle of friends are privileged to the information. Tenants have been chosen from their circle of friends a blatant display of preferential treatment based on “who you know” or friends of friends.

3. The tenants vary in income that it makes it difficult to see the criteria, if there is any:
3.1 Tenants have been accepted although gainfully employed.
3.2 Tenants who have declared bankruptcy and yet continue to
have gainful employment.
3.3 A priest. (A priest is either in a congregation’s convent or a
parish.)
3.4 A tenant who already has been previously given a housing
commission house.
3.5 Tenants who have no children but are provided with a two-
bedroom house.
3.6 The years of stay in Australia; one may even wonder if some
are citizens.

4. No proper advice or notification was given to those who did not qualify nor to those who had been rejected – a clear display of unprofessionalism and callousness.

5. Applicants on the housing commission queue wait for over ten years or more and yet these people applied on 19 December and moved on the 24 December. That’s five days approval. This is record-breaking!

“I write this based on my own experience. I was told that Mr. & Mrs. Amores were interviewing prospective tenants and my wife (a Filipina) and I went along for the interview process on the 19 December at Auburn. We were interviewed by Mrs. Cen Amores. We filled in the application and went along for the interview.

“After the interview, Mrs. Amores told us to go to Leumeah to look at the premises as Mr. Amores was still there. On arrival at Leumeah, although Mr. Amores was present and asked us to look around, a Mr. Jimmy Lopez was also there. Mr. Lopez showed us around and asked us whether we needed a two-bedroom or a one bedroom. With a son and a grandson whom we have custody of, we obviously needed two bedrooms. We then were asked if we could move that same night, which we thought was too good to be true. We were also asked if we could have our son, who plays a musical instrument, perform for an evening function. We obliged to their request.

“However, later that evening, as we panicked on what to get ready for the move, Mr. Amores sent us a text to defer the move and it read: “Bob, no need to stay overnight.”There was no call received the following day. I phoned Mr. Amores later that day to confirm when we were to move. His response was negative. The decision had changed from the night before. He stated that the 2-bedroom unit was not sufficient for our needs. After raising our hopes, we were then told verbally that we could not qualify as we needed 3 bedrooms and not two, and only after we rang. Otherwise, no advice would be forthcoming.

“This is a matter of great concern, not only for me, personally, but to an entire community. It makes a mockery of the democratic system. I can only hope that it is investigated thoroughly and given top priority. While it may sound like a complaint from one unsuccessful applicant, it is not. There is a need to redress the obvious bias, so that Mr. Amores and his cohorts are not allowed to continue with their corrupt practices. It is dangerous, that these people think and play Gods in the community. We cannot condone this kind of behaviour and practice. It fails to live by the principles and values of Australia, the country we live in. I also hope that they provide you with a correct tenants list; otherwise we can provide you with one.

“Please be advised that we shall also provide (a copy of) this letter to Messrs. Borger and Ferguson that they may know the truth about these people and see them for who they really are. Likewise, we shall also inform the media to redress this bias and injustice.”

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Bob Harrison
and Mrs. Bernadette Harrison