FOR several years the Chapple family, of Macquarie, has battled ACT Housing without success to have nearby social housing tenants maintain their “unruly” yard.

The tenants of the “rundown” social housing property next door to Alison and Simon’s Liverpool Street home, regularly hurl verbal abuse at each other, don’t mow their lawns and dump rubbish in the front yard, the couple said.

Ms Chapple said the abhorrent behaviour of her neighbours “scares” her.

“I used to drive into my street and look forward to coming home, now my chest tightens and I feel anxious wondering what’s going to happen tonight,” she said. 

“Are we going to be subjected to another screaming match and foul language? And how many cars who visit next door are going to screech around our street tonight? 

“The effect this is having on us is huge and Housing ACT continues to ignore us.”

Ms Chapple said it was frustrating and stressful for her family to have to continually address the problem of the neighbours’ untidy yard.

“Simon has mowed the neighbours’ overgrown lawn on many occasions, trimmed their out-of-control trees, repaired fallen fence palings and fixed a vandalised letterbox, which was run over, just so we can live next door to a dwelling of semi-normal appearance because neither the tenants nor Housing ACT will do anything about it,” Ms Chapple said.

The Chapples aren’t the only ones unhappy about the unkept state of the street.

Six-year resident of Liverpool Street Kimani Chikwendu said he’s fed-up with other “not-so-well-looked-after” Housing ACT properties in his street.

“Yards are unkept and some are overrun with cars,” Mr Chikwendu said.

“But Housing ACT doesn’t care about the impact this has on the street or the rate-paying homeowners.”

The Chapple family has endured a long battle with Housing ACT to have next door’s tenants maintain their yard.

“We received a response from Housing ACT advising us that the issue was now closed because the tenants in their view had not breached the ACT Residential Tenancies Act 1997,” Ms Chapple said. 

“Tenant responsibilities under the ACT Residential Tenancies Act 1997 require tenants to maintain their property under an acceptable community standard as required by their own maintenance policy. This involves grass kept to a reasonable height by periodic mowing, weeds reduced to a bare minimum and grounds and gardens free of litter and debris.”

Housing ACT wouldn’t comment on the individual case at hand, due to privacy reasons, but told “CityNews” that on the issue of anti-social behaviour: “All members of the Canberra community were entitled to quiet enjoyment of their homes.

“Whether public or private, all tenants must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act and their individual tenancy agreements and not cause disruption to others.”

The Chapples bought their Liverpool Street house in 2008, at a time they describe the neighbourhood as being “peaceful”.

“Back then most of the housing tenants cared for their properties but over the last five years things have deteriorated,” Ms Chapple said.

The couple argue the territory’s “salt-and-pepper” approach to public housing clearly is “not working”, instead coining the approach as “set-and-forget” housing.

“We are not against social housing, there is clearly a need for it, but it’s not being managed properly by Housing ACT,” said Mr Chapple.

“Salt-and-pepper allocation should mean placing tenants who show respect for their neighbours and the maintenance of their properties, who won’t vandalise them and who won’t swear and fight loudly.”

Furthermore, the Chapples said they were advised via a “one-line, copy-and-paste email” from Housing ACT that the two properties next door to their home will be demolished to build new social housing units as part of the government’s public-housing renewal program.

It’s understood eight new social housing units are to be built, the Chapples said.

“There has been no consultation with neighbours who will be affected by this,” Ms Chapple said.

“We are so upset and anxious, especially when Housing ACT’s appalling track record in the management of its tenants speaks for itself.”

Housing ACT would not divulge specific information on its plans, but said that under the ACT government’s “Growing and Renewing Public Housing” program, a number of properties are being identified as eligible for inclusion in the program. 

“If and when a proposal for redevelopment is decided, engagement with the community about design aspects of the redevelopment will commence,” the Housing ACT spokesperson said.

“I cannot imagine how the housing department will begin to look after new homes when they completely fail to look after current ones in the street,” Mr Chikwendu said.

“It disgusts me that we pay high rates and get little in return. It doesn’t take much to work out what the state of the houses and the street will be in the future.”

“We don’t want to move but will probably end up selling our lovely home at a diminished price,” Ms Chapple said.

“The ACT government is running like a power unchecked and we, Canberra’s homeowners, continue to pay the ultimate price.”