Post

Join the Call for Changes to the RTA Application Form

Join me as I call upon the Residential Tenancy Authority - by Direction of the Housing Minister if needed - to remove the Form 22 Application Form from public view to allow for several flaws to be corrected before it's start date on 1st May 2025. Whilst I believe there are several flaws in the limits to the questions we can and can't ask (which we do need to continue the fight against) - in this letter I am particularly focused on getting the form taken off the RTA public website so it can be reviewed and fixed. 

The RTA published the form last week link here - Rental application (Form 22) | Residential Tenancies Authority. 

Below is my correspondence to my Local State Member of Parliament. I encourage you to use my correspondence as a framework to send to your own QLD State Member of Parliament. Contact your local Member of Parliament | About Queensland and its government | Queensland Government

If you prefer - you can email the Housing Minister the Hon Samuel O'Connor directly at housing@ministerial.qld.gov.au. 

"I am writing to formally express my deep concerns regarding the newly published Rental Application Form 22, which has been released by the Residential Tenancy Authority (RTA) in preparation for the May 1, 2025 implementation of rental application legislation changes. While I acknowledge the legal framework under which these changes have been made, I must strongly urge a review of the form itself due to several critical issues that impact clarity, privacy, and practical usability.

1. Confusing Information and Poor Wording Choices

Page One:

• The section detailing submission methods (email, in-person, postal, or other) contains blank spaces with no clear indication of what information should be provided. Should property managers pre-fill these fields, or is it the tenant’s responsibility to verify how they submitted the application?
• Lack of instruction creates unnecessary confusion and inconsistency in the application process.

2. Significant Omissions in Occupant Information

Page Two:

• The form provides space to list the number of intended occupants and the number of those under 18 years of age. However, it does not allow for even the names of additional occupants who are not leaseholders.
• Industry best practice has always been to require full details of all approved occupants to minimize risk to property owners and have them complete an application form. It is entirely reasonable for an investor to be informed of who will be residing in their property and that they are suitable persons to occupy the home.

3. Privacy and Data Security Concerns

• The form allows up to three tenants to share a single application, which means that sensitive personal information, including employment history and financial details, will be shared between multiple applicants. It is important to remember that not all applicants are members of the same family.
• Historically, the industry standard has been one application per tenant to protect privacy and adhere to best practice data security principles. This new format actively promotes the sharing of private information between applicants.

4. Lack of Consistency in Rental History Verification

• The form requests an applicant’s current address but does not clarify whether it is a rental property, nor does it ask for the current property manager or owner’s contact details or the length of the tenancy.
• Further down, in the rental history section, applicants are asked to provide contact information for previous property managers or owners, but the terminology used (“property manager/owner name”) is misleading. Many tenants may incorrectly list the individual owner's name or a personal property manager rather than the managing agency, which will hinder proper verification.

5. Unclear Instructions Regarding Additional Documents

• The RTA website states that a third category of documents—assessing a prospective tenant’s suitability—may be provided, yet this section is not referenced at all in the application form.
• Without clear mention of this in the form itself, applicants may be unaware of their ability to provide additional information to support their application.

6. Serious Issues with Identity Verification Section

Page Seven:

• The form suddenly shifts from allowing multiple applicants per form to phrasing questions as if only one tenant is applying.
• The question, “Property Manager/Owner requests to verify identity – Yes/No”, is problematic. A prospective tenant has no way of knowing whether the property manager will require identity verification before submitting their application. This should not be a question for applicants; instead, the process should be standardized.
• Additionally, tenants are given the option to allow identity documents to be kept or just viewed, but this only accommodates one applicant. If multiple tenants are applying on the same form, there is no way for each applicant to make an individual choice on how their identity documents are handled.

7. Inability to Share Verification Data with Property Managers

• The form requires applicants to consent to their information being collected and used to assess suitability.
• However, there is no mechanism for sharing this consent with other agencies for rental history verification purposes. This means that, in practice, the only way to verify past tenancies would be to share the entire form, which is neither practical nor appropriate.
• The current structure implicitly assumes that all provided information is truthful, without allowing property managers to properly verify details through prior agencies.

8. Request for Immediate Withdrawal and Revision of Form 22

Given these major flaws, I strongly recommend that Form 22 be withdrawn from circulation immediately and that an urgent review be conducted. This review must involve consultation with key industry stakeholders before any revised form is finalized.

Stakeholder input would have easily identified these issues before the form’s publication. Without revision, this form risks complicating rental application processes, reducing transparency, and potentially undermining the privacy protections it aims to uphold.

I respectfully request that you forward my concerns to the Housing ask for a response that  outlines the steps that will be taken to address these concerns. Immediate amendments are needed ensure this application process is practical, fair, and functional for both tenants and property owners.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response."

Bronwyn Evans