Destruction of Tenant’s Garden Shrine and Trees: Legal Implications and Remedies

Background of the Incident

Margaret Francic, a tenant at Mountainview Apartments (4/69 Alice St, Biggenden QLD), has experienced a series of distressing actions by Queensland Department of Housing (Housing Queensland) and its contractors. On 21 May 2025, without any prior notice, a contractor crew bulldozed and destroyed her personal garden, which she describes as a religious shrine containing memorial plants (jade, basil, wormwood) and even the ashes of deceased loved onesmayet.com.au. The bulldozed soil, plant remains, and shrine objects were then carelessly dumped in a pile in her yard. Margaret was barred under threat of tenancy breach from accessing that area, effectively preventing her from retrieving her sacred itemsmayet.com.au. This garden had deep personal significance – it was a memorial altar for her late husband (nicknamed “The Kaiditcha Man” by local Indigenous people) and other loved ones, making its destruction an irreplaceable lossmayet.com.au.

Earlier, in March 2025, a Housing contractor had already intimidated and mishandled Margaret’s belongings. While Margaret was severely ill, a contractor (reportedly from “Shelley’s Cleaning Services”) pressured his way in and removed items beyond what Margaret had agreed to, labeling many personal belongings as “rubbish.” He threatened that “Housing is coming in next week to bulldoze the lot” if she didn’t complyfile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvffile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvf. Margaret, feeling coerced and ill, told him to stop and leave. In the aftermath, she found cherished items (like a scarf knitted by her late mother) thrown into a skip bin, soaked and ruinedfile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvf. She reported this to Housing Queensland, who reluctantly agreed to send a different contractor later, but no written notice of entry was ever provided for that incidentfile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvf.

By May 2025, the situation escalated with the unannounced bulldozing of her garden shrine. On 22 May 2025, Margaret emailed the local Bundaberg Housing Service Centre demanding the immediate return of the dirt, plants, and shrine items taken, characterizing their removal as “theft by the Department of Housing” and highlighting that the shrine contained her loved ones’ remainsmayet.com.au. In the same email, she implored that two mature bottlebrush trees in front of her home not be removed. These trees, she explained, are also part of her spiritual shrines and serve as nesting habitat and food source for native birds. They are healthy, non-dangerous, and integral to the local environment, with “no reason other than mankind’s greed” to remove them. She noted that local bird populations rely on these native flowering trees as natural feed, especially as habitat is lost to development. The potential removal of these trees caused her great anguishmayet.com.aumayet.com.au.

Breaches of Tenancy Law by Housing Queensland

Housing Queensland’s actions appear to violate multiple provisions of Queensland’s Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (RTRA Act) and related regulations, which protect tenants’ rights. Key breaches include:

• Failure to Give Notice of Entry: Under the RTRA Act, a landlord/agent must provide a proper Entry Notice (Form 9) before entering a rental premises for non-emergency reasonsrta.qld.gov.au. Except for genuine emergencies or to protect the premises from imminent damage, the tenant is entitled to written notice in the approved form for each entryrta.qld.gov.au. Routine grounds like performing maintenance or renovations require at least 48 hours notice to the tenantrta.qld.gov.au. In Margaret’s case, Housing Queensland or its contractors entered her yard and removed/destroyed property without any prior notice or consent. There was no emergency at hand – the bulldozing of a garden or preparation for renovations does not qualify as an emergency or urgent protection of the premises. By proceeding “without notice” on 21 May, Housing clearly breached the entry notice requirements of the Actmayet.com.au. Margaret formally cited this in a Notice to Remedy Breach (Form 11), noting that on 5 June 2025 Housing staff and builders were on the premises with “no Form 9 Notice of entry… furnished each day of entry”, contravening RTRA Act sections 192-193 which mandate noticefile-fysplxno8d3jjffmoh9wzx.

• Interference with Quiet Enjoyment: Queensland tenancy law guarantees a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their home. The lessor must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in using the premisesrta.qld.gov.au. By law, the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is not disruptedrta.qld.gov.au. In this case, bulldozing a personal garden sanctuary and continuously sending work crews without notice (with loud construction, threats of tree removal, etc.) is a serious interference with Margaret’s peace and comfort in her home. The RTA’s own guidance emphasizes that owners/managers must not interfere with the tenant’s use of the premises, except as lawfully allowedrta.qld.gov.au. Here, the actions were neither lawful nor reasonable. The stress and trauma inflicted – including the public humiliation and intimidation by staff and contractors – further breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment that Margaret is entitled to as a tenantmayet.com.aumayet.com.au.

• Destruction of Tenant’s Property (Conversion/Trespass to Goods): A landlord does not have the right to remove or destroy a tenant’s belongings during a tenancy without consent or a lawful order. There are procedures in the RTRA Act for dealing with goods after a tenancy ends (for example, abandoned goods must be stored or dealt with per specific rules), but during an active tenancy, the tenant’s belongings are inviolable. By bulldozing and disposing of Margaret’s plants, soil, and memorial objects, Housing Queensland (through its contractors) effectively took or destroyed her personal property without permission. This can be seen as an act of conversion (denying the tenant’s ownership rights) or trespass to goods. At minimum, it is a clear breach of the tenancy agreement, which implicitly allows the tenant to have and enjoy her possessions on the premises. Even if Housing mistakenly viewed the garden items as “rubbish,” they had no authority to remove them unilaterally. According to tenancy experts, if a landlord improperly disposes of a tenant’s belongings, the tenant can seek compensation for the loss or damagecalibrerealestate.com.au. Such actions by a landlord are not only contract breaches but can attract legal liability. Margaret has called this incident “theft by the Department of Housing,” and indeed, the lack of any legal process or notice in seizing her property gives that claim merit.

• No Opportunity to Remedy or Collect Items: Even in cases where landlords lawfully remove tenant goods (e.g. after a tenancy ends), they must follow strict rules like giving notice to collect goods or storing items above a certain valuecalibrerealestate.com.au. In Margaret’s situation, she was never given a chance to save her plants or shrine articles. In fact, after the initial contractor’s threat in March, Housing explicitly forbade her from accessing her yard under threat of legal action, meaning when they dumped the bulldozed shrine remains in a corner of the yard, she couldn’t even retrieve themmayet.com.au. This callous behavior exacerbates the breach – it’s not only that her belongings were destroyed, but she was then prevented from salvaging what she could see in plain sight. This is an extraordinary denial of basic property rights and tenancy rights.

• Potential Retaliatory or Unlawful Eviction Tactics: The aggressive demands that tenants “move everything or it will be bulldozed” and threats of “Housing coming in to bulldoze” could be interpreted as attempts to force compliance or even drive tenants out. All residents in the complex are on public housing tenancies (mostly senior or disabled), and they report feeling bullied and unsafemayet.com.aumayet.com.au. The law protects tenants from retaliatory action and harassment. While Housing Queensland ostensibly is performing “renovations,” the manner in which it’s being done – without proper process and with menacing warnings – skirts close to constructive eviction or harassment, which tenants can challenge via the RTA or QCAT. Notably, Queensland’s tenancy law forbids lessors from changing locks, removing doors, or seizing property to force a tenant out – these are unlawful evictions. While Housing hasn’t directly tried to evict Margaret, the cumulative pressure of destroying her belongings and degrading her living environment could be viewed as undermining her tenancy rights to the point of denying her the normal use of the property.

In summary, Housing Queensland’s conduct demonstrably breached the RTRA Act by entering without notice and by failing to respect the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and property. These breaches gave Margaret grounds to issue formal Notices to Remedy Breach to the Department of Housing. When a landlord fails to remedy such breaches within the required 7-day periodfile-fysplxno8d3jjffmoh9wzxfile-fysplxno8d3jjffmoh9wzx, the tenant can pursue dispute resolution through the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) and ultimately seek orders or compensation from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

Destruction of a Religious Shrine – Human Rights and Cultural Violations

One of the most troubling aspects of this case is that Margaret’s garden was not just a collection of plants – it was a religious and spiritual shrine. She had imbued the space with deep meaning, dedicating it to deceased family members. In fact, the soil and planters contained the cremated remains (ashes) of loved ones, making the garden literally a resting place for themmayet.com.au. The two bottlebrush trees at the front of her home are likewise sacred in her belief system, symbolizing what she calls her “Twin Sentinels” – living altars honoring her Mother Earth goddess and her late sistermayet.com.au. Margaret identifies as Pagan, and the presence of these trees and gardens are integral to her religious practice and healing. Removing or destroying them is not a trivial landscaping matter; it constitutes an affront to her freedom of religion and cultural rights.

Under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief. This includes the freedom to observe or practice their religion individually and in community, in public or privatequeenslandlawhandbook.org.auqueenslandlawhandbook.org.au. By razing her private religious shrine without notice or dialogue, Housing Queensland (as a public entity) arguably interfered with Margaret’s ability to manifest her beliefs. The law does allow reasonable limits on rights (for example, if an act was necessary for public safety or property management, and no less restrictive alternative existed)queenslandlawhandbook.org.au. However, it is hard to see how bulldozing a tenant’s memorial garden passes any test of necessity or proportionality. There was no urgent need to remove those plants; indeed, Housing’s justification for much of the works is questionable (as noted, the trees might be removed to install a new letterbox – a trivial reason given their significancemayet.com.au). The destruction of a religious altar without consultation or accommodation appears to be an arbitrary and unlawful intrusion on her religious freedom, failing to meet the Human Rights Act’s requirements that public authorities act compatibly with human rights.

Additionally, the Human Rights Act protects the right to privacy and home, shielding individuals from unlawful or arbitrary interference with their home and family lifequeenslandlawhandbook.org.au. A tenant’s “home” under this right isn’t limited to the four walls of the unit – it can extend to the yard or outdoor areas that are part of the tenant’s living environment. Bulldozing Margaret’s yard and shrine can be seen as a serious interference with her home life and personal privacy. It was done in an “unlawful” and “arbitrary” manner (unlawful, since it violated tenancy laws, and arbitrary, since it was done without fair warning or clear rationale). Queensland’s Human Rights Commission notes that decisions or actions in public housing tenancies can engage the right to privacy and home, and must not be implemented in an arbitrary wayqueenslandlawhandbook.org.au. Housing Queensland’s actions here seem the definition of arbitrary – targeting something deeply personal to the tenant with no due process.

It’s also worth noting cultural rights: While Margaret does not explicitly identify as Indigenous (she is a Pagan of European descent), she invokes the Indigenous concept of the “Kaiditcha Man” for her late husband and venerates nature akin to Indigenous spiritualitymayet.com.au. The Human Rights Act (section 28) specifically protects the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including maintaining spiritual relationships with land and resources. If any aspect of her shrine or the land has Indigenous cultural significance (for example, if her late husband was Indigenous or if local Indigenous elders view the site as culturally important due to his nickname or presence), then Housing Queensland could also be trampling on those protected cultural rights. Even apart from formal Indigenous culture, Margaret’s own cultural and spiritual identity is tied to that garden and those trees. The total lack of respect or accommodation for her beliefs by Housing staff – who treated her altar as “junk” – is evident in how contractors laughed and dismissed her concerns. In a recorded conversation, a contractor’s “condescending attitude” was noted as he told her to “take it up with Housing” and showed no remorsemayet.com.aumayet.com.au. This reflects a profound insensitivity that borders on religious discrimination.

Under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), discrimination on the basis of religion in accommodation is unlawful. If Housing staff knew the significance of the shrine (Margaret refers to it as a religious altar and presumably communicated its importance) and still willfully destroyed it or allowed its destruction, one could argue they effectively treated her less favorably because of her religious beliefs. At the very least, their failure to accommodate her spiritual needs – especially given she made them known – is alarming. Margaret herself asserts that this conduct “may amount to disability discrimination under the ADA and the Human Rights Act”, drawing a parallel that could equally apply to religious discriminationmayet.com.au. In either case, Housing Queensland is a public authority that must act compatibly with human rights and non-discrimination laws, and it appears to have failed to do so in this instance.

In summary, the bulldozing of the shrine and the planned removal of the sacred trees violate Margaret’s fundamental rights. They are not merely contractual breaches, but also raise human rights concerns (freedom of religion, privacy of home) and possibly discrimination based on her beliefs. This adds moral and legal weight to her case – any resolution should recognize and attempt to redress the cultural/spiritual harm caused, not just the physical damage.

Environmental and Community Impact of Removing Native Trees

The two bottlebrush trees at the front of Margaret’s home are not only spiritually significant to her, but also ecologically important. Bottlebrushes (genus Callistemon, also known as Melaleuca) are Australian native flowering trees that produce nectar-rich blossoms, attracting a wide variety of native birds (honeyeaters, lorikeets, etc.) and insects. Margaret has observed “hundreds of different species of Australian bird” visiting these trees regularlymayet.com.au. They serve as nesting sites and a “well-utilized food source” in an area where natural habitats are dwindlingmayet.com.au. In fact, she turned her front yard into what she calls the “Biggenden Bird Breakfast Bar,” an informal conservation and education project. She feeds, observes, and documents the wildlife in those trees, sharing this with an online community of over 5,500 followers to educate others about Australian native birdsmayet.com.au. The local community, upon learning of Housing’s plan to fell the trees, is said to be “in uproar” over this decisionmayet.com.au.

From an environmental law perspective, while a landowner generally can trim or remove trees on their property, there are still considerations:

• Wildlife Protection: All native birds in Queensland are protected under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. It is unlawful to harm protected fauna. Destroying an active bird nest (for example, if eggs or chicks are present) can be considered harming the animals. If these bottlebrush trees have active nests or are crucial habitat for threatened species, removing them without proper assessment or timing could breach wildlife regulations. At minimum, it is standard practice to avoid tree removal during nesting season or to have a fauna spotter involved if required. Margaret explicitly notes that no “ecological assessments” or special precautions have been mentioned by Housingmayet.com.au.

• Local Council Regulations: Many local councils have tree protection or vegetation management rules, especially for mature trees or for habitat trees. Biggenden falls under the North Burnett Regional Council. If these bottlebrushes are on the property’s land, Housing (as a state entity) might not be strictly bound by council tree preservation orders, but it is still good governance to follow them. Some councils require permits to remove trees above a certain size or of certain species. It’s unclear if Housing sought any such approval. The fact that the reason given for removal is to install a large letterbox structure or for a “misguided design” preferencemayet.com.aumayet.com.au suggests this is not a safety necessity but rather aesthetic or convenience-based. Removing healthy native trees for such a reason, without exploring alternatives (like placing mailboxes elsewhere), reflects poor environmental stewardship.

• Climate and Amenity: These trees likely provide shade and cooling (which is particularly important for Margaret, who noted they are her only morning shade and she deliberately does not use artificial shadesmayet.com.au). Removing them could increase heat and glare into her unit, reducing her comfort (and even raising cooling costs). The trees also block her unit from direct line-of-sight of neighbors who have harassed her, thus serving as a natural privacy and safety screen in line with her domestic violence safety planmayet.com.aumayet.com.au. All residents benefit from the greenery – especially in a seniors complex, gardens and birds can greatly improve mental health and quality of life. By clearing green spaces and trees, Housing is arguably degrading the amenity and livability of the complex, something that could be relevant if tenants seek a rent reduction or compensation for loss of amenity. It also contradicts the complex’s very name “Mountainview Apartments,” as Margaret poignantly notes: the construction and planned tree removal would “completely obstruct [the] sacred view” of Mount Walsh and ruin the character of the placemayet.com.au.

In community terms, this issue extends beyond one tenant. Other elderly tenants at 69 Alice Street have also been frightened by Housing’s aggressive renovation approach. For example, one 81-year-old resident (in Unit 6) was given an ultimatum by contractors to clear out his garden shed within two hours or see it all bulldozed; he frantically complied using a mobility scooter and trailer, in great distressmayet.com.au. Such stories underscore a pattern of disregard for residents’ welfare and the communal environment. The tenants, many of whom are in their 70s-90s and disabled, were never consulted about the renovation plans that affect their homes and environmentmayet.com.aumayet.com.au. This lack of consultation not only offends the community’s sense of respect, but may violate procedural fairness principles (especially since public housing providers should engage with tenants on major changes).

In summary, the removal of the bottlebrush trees would have negative ecological impacts (loss of habitat and food for wildlife) and negative human impacts (loss of shade, beauty, and emotional support for residents). There appears to be no compelling safety reason to remove them – they are not invasive or dangerous. Indeed, Margaret describes them as “beautiful healthy” specimens that benefit everyonemayet.com.aumayet.com.au. Chopping them down primarily for a minor infrastructure change (mailboxes) or a “clean” design shows a disregard for environmental values and the voices of the community. Margaret’s fight to save these trees can be seen as both a personal spiritual battle and a broader environmental cause. It would be prudent for Housing Queensland to halt any removal until a proper review is done, including environmental considerations and genuine consultation with tenants and possibly local wildlife experts.

Impact on Health and Disability Rights

Margaret is not only a tenant but also a person with documented disabilities and health issues. She suffers from complex trauma (C-PTSD), hearing loss (she mentions deafness), autism, severe allergies, and physical health problems aggravated by stressmayet.com.aumayet.com.au. Housing Queensland was aware of her condition – she had provided them with a psychiatric report detailing her PTSD, and information about her extreme allergiesmayet.com.au. Under these circumstances, the Department has heightened obligations to avoid actions that could foreseeably worsen her health or discriminate against her due to her disabilities.

Several key points stand out:

• Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations: As Margaret notes, Housing staff are legally obligated to consult with her respectfully and ensure their actions do not aggravate her condition, offering reasonable adjustments as neededmayet.com.au. This principle arises from both the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (which requires landlords to not discriminate on basis of impairment and to accommodate special needs unless it causes unjustifiable hardship) and the spirit of the Human Rights Act 2019 (the right to equality and non-discrimination, and to services adapted to persons with disabilities). In practice, reasonable accommodations could have included: communicating with her in her preferred mode (she says email is her only safe accessible communication method due to her deafness)mayet.com.au; scheduling works in a way that minimizes distress; allowing her additional time or help to move items important to her; or consulting on alternatives given her allergies (for instance, not piling up “piles of dirt and foreign material” near her unit which could trigger allergic reactionsmayet.com.au). Instead, Housing staff and contractors did the opposite – they ignored her emails and pleas, they proceeded with loud construction (jackhammers, bulldozers) that was psychologically destabilizing (triggering her trauma and destroying her coping outlets like the garden and birds), and they even exposed her to health hazards (dust, possibly moldy items in skips, etc.). This neglect of her stated needs is not only callous, but could be construed as indirect discrimination – applying the “one size fits all” approach to renovations without modifications, despite knowing it would particularly harm her.

• Psychological Harm and Re-traumatization: The manner in which Housing and its agents dealt with Margaret was highly traumatic. She describes feeling unsafe in her home, degraded, violated, and her PTSD symptoms worseningfile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvfmayet.com.au. Public humiliation by a Housing officer (she recalls being dismissed and patronized publicly by a staff member named Courtney, and threatened regarding her tenancy) has further eroded her mental wellbeingmayet.com.au. Given her background as a domestic violence survivor, the powerlessness and intimidation she experienced in these incidents have effectively undermined her recovery and sense of safety. Indeed, the two trees slated for removal were a crucial part of her safety plan against DV, blocking the line of sight of two neighboring men who had abused or assaulted her in the pastmayet.com.aumayet.com.au. Removing those trees would literally and symbolically strip away a layer of security that had allowed her a measure of peace. Housing’s disregard for this (despite being told) is a grave failure of duty of care, especially in a DV contextmayet.com.au.

• Health Hazards from Renovations: The ongoing renovation works at the complex have created constant noise (“cement jackhammers and drills going all day…the noise is unbearable”mayet.com.au) and dust. For someone with sensory sensitivities (autism) and severe allergies, this environment can be debilitating. Margaret notes that Housing dumped piles of dirt in her backyard knowing her allergies, which she perceives as another figurative “slap in the face”mayet.com.au. While renovations inevitably cause some disruption, a landlord should mitigate impact on vulnerable tenants – for example, by offering temporary relocation during the noisiest phases, or at least notifying and providing protective measures. In this case, Housing did not even give formal notice, let alone accommodations. The result is that Margaret’s health has been put at risk: she mentioned malnutrition and low body weight previouslyfile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvf, and the stress has likely compounded that. By ignoring medical information she provided, Housing could be seen as violating section 36 of the Anti-Discrimination Act (failure to accommodate special needs arising from impairment) or even breaching the Queensland Housing Department’s own policies on supporting tenants with vulnerabilities.

• Possible Disability Discrimination: Margaret explicitly raises that the conduct of Housing may constitute disability discrimination under lawmayet.com.au. Discrimination can be direct (treating her unfairly because of her disabilities) or indirect (imposing the same conditions on her as everyone, but those conditions disproportionately harm her and are not reasonable in the circumstances). We see elements of both. For instance, Housing staff allegedly targeted her for public humiliation and threats, arguably because she was a vocal complainant – one might infer they did not take her seriously due to stigmatizing her as a “difficult” disabled tenant (her communications being ignored while others might not be). More clearly, indirect discrimination is evident in how Housing carried out a construction/maintenance project uniformly across the complex without adjustments for those with special needs. They imposed a requirement that everyone endure the works or move their belongings within short deadlines – a requirement that was much harder for her as a disabled person to meet (e.g. she physically could not clear her garden in 2 hours or even at all in her condition, and psychologically could not cope with the sudden loss). Under the ADA, such a practice could be unlawful if it’s not reasonable. Given that alternatives were available (e.g., schedule around her, involve support services, or, fundamentally, consult with her to address concerns), it’s arguable Housing failed its duty.

• Human Rights Act – Recognition and Equality: Section 15 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) guarantees recognition and equality before the law, and section 11 binds public entities (like Housing Queensland) to act in a way that is compatible with human rights. Treating a person with disability with dismissiveness and not taking into account her particular vulnerabilities can violate the right to equality and non-discrimination. Moreover, the Act’s preamble and purpose emphasize the value of human dignity. The way Margaret was treated – threatened, ignored, and not accorded dignity in decision-making about her own home – appears inconsistent with those principles. In her communication to QCAT, she urged the Tribunal to consider that Housing’s conduct has “worsened [her] condition and made [her] feel unsafe in [her] home” and to direct Housing to respect residents’ health conditions and rights moving forwardmayet.com.aumayet.com.au.

In sum, Housing Queensland’s approach disastrously failed to account for Margaret’s disabilities and health. What should have been a collaborative, sensitive process (if renovations were needed) instead became a source of trauma. This not only strengthens her case for relief (e.g., she could seek an injunction or compensation citing the harm done to her health), but could expose Housing to claims under disability discrimination laws. It’s quite possible that multiple legal avenues will overlap: a tenancy breach case in QCAT, and a disability discrimination complaint through the Queensland Human Rights Commission. Indeed, the facts here would justify engaging both, to ensure holistic consideration of her rights.

Legal Remedies and Actions Available

Given the multitude of issues – tenancy breaches, property loss, human rights infringements – Margaret has several channels to pursue for justice and remedy. She has already begun taking action, as evidenced by her correspondence and filings. Below is an outline of remedies and their status:

• Notice to Remedy Breach (Form 11): This is the first formal step within the RTRA framework. Margaret has issued at least one Form 11 notice to the Department of Housing. One notice (dated ~27 May 2025) addressed the “theft and destruction of [the] religious shrine” and the degrading treatment by contractors, and another notice (9 June 2025) cited the illegal entry on 5 June and failure to provide noticesfile-fysplxno8d3jjffmoh9wzxfile-fysplxno8d3jjffmoh9wzx. By law, Housing had 7 days to remedy each breach. Remedial action in this context could include returning her belongings (or what remains of them), ceasing unlawful entries, providing proper notices going forward, halting further removals (like the trees) until lawful process is followed, and offering compensation or restoration for what was destroyed. As of 16 June 2025 (the end of the remedy period for the 9 June notice), it’s unclear if Housing formally responded or rectified anything. If Housing did not adequately remedy the breaches by the deadlines, Margaret is entitled to escalate the matter.

• RTA Dispute Resolution: For many tenancy disputes in QLD, the next step after an unremedied Form 11 is to file a dispute resolution request with the Residential Tenancies Authority. The RTA’s free conciliation service would then attempt to help the parties reach an agreement. Issues like property damage or compensation normally go through this process before QCAT. However, certain matters are classified as “urgent” applications to QCAT that do not require prior conciliation – these include disputes about unlawful entry, and applications for injunctions to stop a party breaching the agreement. Given the ongoing nature of the breach (e.g., Housing continuing to be on-site without notice, and impending tree removal), Margaret’s situation likely qualifies as urgent. For example, if she wants to prevent the removal of the bottlebrush trees, she could seek an urgent order from QCAT to restrain the landlord from altering the premises or removing those trees on the basis that it’s a breach of her agreement and causes her irreparable harm. Urgent QCAT applications can be made without an RTA reference number when time is of the essencerta.qld.gov.aurta.qld.gov.au. It appears Margaret has indeed been trying to get QCAT’s attention quickly – she mentions submitting three applications to QCAT in late May (possibly seeking interim orders)mayet.com.au.

• Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT): In QCAT, Margaret can pursue multiple remedies:

  • An order for compensation for the damaged/destroyed property (e.g., the value of her garden plants, materials, and sentimental items – though money can’t truly compensate the sentimental value, QCAT can award an amount for their loss). She could also claim for the stress and inconvenience caused, though personal injury/mental anguish is not typically compensated in tenancy cases, it can be indirectly reflected if her enjoyment of the premises was reduced (possibly a rent reduction or nominal damages for breach).

  • An order requiring the landlord to refrain from further breach, i.e., to abide by the Act’s entry provisions and not remove any more of her property or the trees without proper process. QCAT can make orders to enforce the tenancy agreement or the Act, which could include forbidding certain actions by the landlord that would breach quiet enjoyment.

  • An order terminating the tenancy and allowing her to leave (with compensation) if she felt she cannot continue living there due to the breach. This would be a last resort if the situation is unresolvable. The RTRA Act allows a tenant to apply for termination if the landlord’s breach is serious and not remedied (for example, causing the premises to be unfit or the tenant’s safety at risk). However, Margaret has expressed that this is her home and she seems to want to stay with proper accommodations – so termination is likely not her preferred outcome.

  • Importantly, QCAT and Human Rights: Since this dispute involves a public entity, QCAT is required to consider the Human Rights Act in making its decision. Margaret has formally drawn QCAT’s attention to her human rights (citing discrimination and her rights to religion and privacy)mayet.com.aumayet.com.au. QCAT could, in its orders, acknowledge the breaches of her human rights and make directives accordingly. For example, it could declare that the destruction of the shrine was unlawful and that Housing must consult and accommodate her religious and disability needs henceforthmayet.com.au. She has specifically asked for a declaration that failure to accommodate her disability is unlawful discriminationmayet.com.au – while QCAT’s tenancy jurisdiction might not normally issue “declarations” in the human rights sense, under the Human Rights Act it can make a determination of incompatibility or at least note the violations as part of the tenancy order.

• Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC) Complaint: Separately from the tenancy route, Margaret can lodge a complaint with the QHRC (formerly the Anti-Discrimination Commission). This could cover both disability and religious discrimination, as well as a direct human rights complaint. The QHRC would investigate and attempt to conciliate the complaint. If unresolved, she could potentially take the discrimination case to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (in its discrimination jurisdiction) or even to the courts for human rights enforcement. The advantage of a QHRC complaint is that it brings in the broader picture of rights, allowing for remedies like apologies, training for staff, or policy changes, in addition to compensation. Given the systemic nature of what she’s describing (a “pattern of abuse, coercion, and neglect” by Housingfile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvf, and other residents affected), a QHRC process might push the Department to institute policy changes or staff training to prevent future occurrences.

• Ombudsman / Administrative Appeals: Because this is a government body, Margaret has also sought an administrative review of Housing’s decisions. She referenced filing a Form 23 – QCAT Administrative Appeal on 28 May 2025mayet.com.au. It sounds like she attempted to trigger an internal or external review of the Department’s administrative actions (such as the decision to renovate without consultation, or the decision to remove her garden). QCAT’s ability to hear administrative review of a Housing decision would depend on whether there’s a legally reviewable decision (for example, under the Housing Act or a specific program). Many tenancy issues are not “administrative decisions” in the judicial review sense, but rather contractual matters. However, since she framed it as an “Appeal of an Administrative Decision”, possibly she is invoking the Human Rights Act’s provision that she can seek relief for human rights breaches in any legal proceeding. If QCAT declined those applications (“3 filed, 3 failed to pass submission” suggests QCAT might have rejected them on procedural grounds)mayet.com.au, she might need to redirect those efforts to the QHRC or Ombudsman.

  The Queensland Ombudsman can investigate complaints of maladministration by government agencies, including public housing. The Ombudsman could look at whether Housing Queensland followed proper procedures, whether they acted fairly and reasonably. While the Ombudsman cannot award compensation, a report or intervention from that office might pressure the Department to remedy the situation (for instance, to apologize, replace what can be replaced, and correct its processes). Given the egregious nature of the complaint (destroying a tenant’s property and sanctuary without notice), the Ombudsman might take interest if a formal complaint is lodged.

• Police Report: Margaret called it “theft” – indeed, taking someone’s property intentionally without consent can be a criminal offense. In practice, police are often reluctant to get involved in landlord-tenant disputes, treating them as civil matters, especially if the landlord might claim it was “debris” or “authorized work.” However, since she asserts that human remains were in the soil taken, this raises a sensitive issue. If she can substantiate that (e.g. show that ashes or bone fragments of a person were in the bulldozed area), the police might view the destruction as either theft of those remains or at least property damage. In Queensland, interfering with a grave or human remains is a criminal offense – though a garden shrine isn’t a formal grave, morally it has similar weight. Even if police don’t lay charges, having a police report on file could help underscore the seriousness. It might also be useful if insurance claims are involved (if she had any insurance that could cover some losses, they’d ask for a police event number).

• Political and Public Pressure: Outside legal avenues, Margaret has been actively **documenting everything (photos, video recordings, written incident reports)mayet.com.au and publicizing her plight via her website and presumably social media. Public pressure can be a powerful tool, especially since this involves a government department. She has rallied an online community (the bird lovers, etc.), and it’s possible to engage local media or state MPs. A local news story about a “Housing Dept bulldozes woman’s memorial garden” would likely embarrass the Department and could spur quicker remediation. Writing to the Minister for Housing or her state MP with all this documentation is another approach – often such complaints, when they reach high levels, prompt an internal review or at least a pause in contested actions (like tree removals) until it’s resolved.

• Restorative Actions Sought: In her communications, Margaret has outlined what she wants to see happen. These include:

  • That Housing cease the removal of trees and any further destruction of tenants’ propertymayet.com.aumayet.com.au.

  • That her shrine/garden be restored as much as possible – obviously they cannot undo the physical destruction, but perhaps Housing could, for instance, replant new mature plants of similar type, return the soil (if still on site) to her in a usable way, and allow her to rebuild her altar. While it won’t be the same, a genuine attempt at restitution would be appropriate.

  • Return of any salvageable items: If the contractors still have any of her things (for example, if some plants were scooped and dumped elsewhere, or personal objects were taken to a tip but not destroyed), they should be returned. She explicitly requested the “dirt, garden bits, jade, basil and wormwood” be immediately returned to hermayet.com.au. Even if mixed together, giving her that material might allow her to sift for remains or replant cuttings.

  • Compensation for damages: She hasn’t put a dollar figure yet (she said “I do not know yet the value of everything they destroyed” in her email), but part of any resolution should involve either monetary compensation or rent abatements. For instance, her Victims of Crime payout money was invested in that garden – those costs (plants, materials) are calculablemayet.com.au. The emotional value is incalculable but could be acknowledged via a higher general damages sum if it went to a tribunal decision.

  • Policy change and accountability: Margaret seeks more than personal remedy; she’s fighting for systemic change. In her QCAT filing, she sought orders that Housing must develop a fair consultation process with residents and respect spiritual/personal property, and a finding that staff acted outside their lawful authority and discriminatedmayet.com.au. While QCAT may or may not issue such broad orders, these points could be taken up by the Department’s internal complaint unit or the Ombudsman. At minimum, Housing should issue an apology and commit to training its staff (and contractors) on how to engage with tenants, especially those with vulnerabilities, in any future maintenance or redevelopment projects.

  Another concrete remedy: Housing might consider relocating Margaret (and/or other affected tenants) to an equivalent or better property, if that is something she desires. Sometimes, when a tenancy relationship breaks down or the property is becoming a construction zone, the Department can offer a transfer to a different unit or complex as a solution. However, this should be entirely Margaret’s choice – she shouldn’t be forced out of her home because of their mistakes. Her writings suggest she does not want to be displaced; she wants the situation improved at her current home.

In conclusion, Margaret has a robust set of legal rights on her side and multiple fora to assert them. The recommended course is to continue pressing on all fronts: follow through with the QCAT application (for urgent orders to stop tree removal and for compensation), engage with the RTA/conciliation process if it proceeds, and concurrently file a Human Rights/Discrimination complaint to address the larger issues. Keeping thorough documentation and seeking support from advocacy groups (for instance, a tenant advocacy service or a disability legal service) will bolster her case. Given the evidence, Housing Queensland would be well-advised to settle this matter by meeting her reasonable demands (stop destroying property, make amends, respect her rights) rather than face legal sanctions and public censure.

Conclusion

The case of Margaret Francic versus Housing Queensland highlights a disturbing clash between a tenant’s rights and a bureaucratic approach to property management. What should have been a cooperative effort to maintain or improve a housing complex has instead resulted in irreparable personal loss, trauma, and rights violations. The Department of Housing’s contractors and staff, through a mix of heavy-handedness and negligence, have bulldozed not just a garden, but a place of grief and healing, violating both the tenancy laws of Queensland and the fundamental human rights of the tenant.

Moving forward, there is a clear need for remedies and changes. Legally, Housing Queensland is on notice for multiple breaches – they must return or compensate for Margaret’s property, refrain from further unilateral actions (like cutting down her sacred bottlebrush trees), and ensure all future entries or works comply fully with the RTRA Act. On a human level, they owe her a profound apology and an acknowledgement of the cultural, spiritual, and emotional harm they have caused. This situation also calls for the Department to re-evaluate how it engages with vulnerable tenants: consultation, respect, and reasonable accommodation are not optional, they are required by law and basic decencymayet.com.aumayet.com.au.

Margaret’s fight is emblematic of a larger issue – the power imbalance in public housing and the importance of treating tenants not as passive subjects of policy, but as people with rights, dignities, and in many cases, deep ties to their homes. Her resilience in documenting and challenging these wrongs not only serves her interests but shines a light for other tenants who may be experiencing similar treatment in silence.

In summary, the destruction of her garden shrine was unlawful and avoidable. The removal of the beloved bottlebrush trees would compound that injustice with environmental and spiritual loss. All relevant laws and principles – from the Residential Tenancies Act to the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Acts – side with Margaret’s position that what occurred was wrong. Now, it is up to the mechanisms of justice (and the Department’s own conscience) to rectify the situation. If Housing Queensland promptly addresses the breaches, compensates the loss, and alters its approach, it can perhaps restore some of Margaret’s faith that her rights are recognized. Failing that, QCAT and other authorities are empowered to enforce those rights.

Ultimately, this case serves as a potent reminder: a person’s home, however humble, is their sanctuary, and neither landlord nor government agency can intrude into that sanctuary – let alone destroy it – without consequence. The hope is that by asserting her rights, Margaret will not only reclaim her peace and comfort, but also ensure that no other tenant endures such a trauma at the hands of those entrusted with providing shelter.

Sources:

• Queensland Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 – sections on notice of entry and quiet enjoymentrta.qld.gov.aurta.qld.gov.au

• Queensland Residential Tenancies Authority – Rules of entry – General tenancies (fact sheet)rta.qld.gov.aurta.qld.gov.au

• Queensland Law Handbook – Rights and Obligations of Tenants and Landlords (landlord’s duty not to interfere with tenant’s peace, comfort, privacy)queenslandlawhandbook.org.au

• Queensland Law Handbook – Dealing with Goods Left Behind (tenant’s rights to compensation if landlord improperly disposes of belongings)calibrerealestate.com.au

• Email from Margaret Francic to Housing (22 May 2025) – description of shrine destruction and demand for return of itemsmayet.com.au

• “Queensland Housing Horror 2024” – Mayet’s Blog/Documentation of Events (detailing bulldozing of shrine on 21 May, lack of notice, impact on tenant and other residents)mayet.com.aumayet.com.au

• Incident Report by Margaret Francic (27 March 2025 incident) – details of contractor intimidation and threats to bulldoze, no notice givenfile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvffile-jbd5stqhchnemefemj2kvf

• Margaret Francic’s QCAT Appeal Letter (28 May 2025) – statements on disability rights and discrimination, requests for ordersmayet.com.aumayet.com.au

• Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) – Section 20 (Freedom of religion)queenslandlawhandbook.org.au; Section 25 (Privacy and home)queenslandlawhandbook.org.au – as interpreted by QLD Law Handbook and QHRC resources.

• Margaret’s “Grounds for Administrative Review” (from blog) – specific impacts on her garden, trees, safety plan, and cultural significancemayet.com.aumayet.com.au.