230
X.
A J BRADBROOK
HKLJ (1977)
the Authority he can sue in court for the full return of his . However, this protection is illusory as the time and expense involved in prosecuting a claim would in most instances not be worthwhile in view of the fact that most disputes involve only small sums of money.42 The tenant also has the right to appeal informally to the relevant Estate Manager.43 While this may lead to a further inspection of the damage and a possible reassessment of any deduction made to the deposit, it has already been shown that a system of external administrative review is necessary to guarantee justice to a tenant.
It is submitted that although it is reasonable for a deposit to be paid at the commencement of a tenancy as at present, there should be some increase in the protection accorded to the tenant against the possibility of the Authority making a frivolous deduction. If the Authority wishes to withhold the deposit, it would seem appropriate that it should assume the burden of first proving its entitlement. Thus, it is suggested that the proposed Tribunal should be given jurisdiction over the return of security deposits and that the Authority should be prohibited from making a deduction to the deposit without first obtaining the written consent of the tenant or filing a claim before the Tribunal within ten days of the termination of the tenancy agreement.
Objection may be made that this reform is inappropriate and unnecessary in view of the smallness of the sums of money usually involved in the disputes. Although this argument may have been sound in the days when the deposit charged never exceeded $50, now that the deposit is one month's rent and the rents of some of the larger public housing flats exceed $500 a month, it will be seen that in certain cases a tenant could be financially seriously disadvantaged if he has no effective right to challenge any deduction.
(6) Discretionary power to refuse to grant a tenant a yearly tenancy after the proposed six-month probationary period
42
If the earlier suggestion for the creation of a yearly tenancy for public housing tenants after an initial six-month probationary Following the recent introduction of a Small Claims Tribunal with jurisdiction over claims not exceeding $3,000 founded in contract, quasi-contract or tort, this objection may be weaker (see Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance (cap 338, LHK 1975 ed)). However, it is submitted that it would still be preferable to vest jurisdiction over public housing security deposits in the proposed appeals tribunal as, unlike the Small Claims Tribunal, the proposed appeals tribunal would specialise in the problems of public housing tenants. See note 20, above.
43