The LRC made representations on behalf of several residents of Mngadi Ext 2 to the bank at which they had a mortgage loan. These clients had fallen into arrears, and the LRC appealed to the bank not to foreclose on the loans as they had threatened in summonses which had been issued to many of the clients. The appeal rested on humanitarian grounds, as well as the fact that the clients had been persuaded by the builders into committing themselves to repayments they could not afford. The bank failed to respond. No further documentation exists to show what transpired further.

Material included affidavits by tenants and letters by attornies informing landlords of the illegality of evicting people from their properties without a hearing. There are also copies of notices sent to tenants, lease agreements between tenants and landlords as supporting evidence, questionnaires by the Rent Board investigating rent increases, Argyle Court's fmancial statements and letters from the LRC warning tenants about their rent arrears.

The LRC represented 24 residents of a building called Camelot who were in dispute with their landlord. All 24 resided in the building in contravention of the Group Areas Act. The clients paid reduced rentals due to reduced usage and poor conditions. The landlord, L Kovacs, instituted legal proceedings against them. LRC managed to get leave to defend the matter, after filing affidavits resisting summary judgements. The parties then entered into negotiations, and the matter was resolved whereby the landlord undertook to effect repairs, while the tenants agreed to payment terms.

The LRC represented numerous clients who occupied flats in Darwin Mansions. The owner of the building, Darwin Mansions (Pty) Ltd, had applied for eviction orders against the occupants, for among other reasons unsanitary conditions (too many occupants) and arrears on rental. The occupants were given notice to show cause why they should not be evicted. The occupants argued that the building had for a period of their tenancy been rent controlled, and they had not been aware of this fact, and had thus paid more rent than they should have. They also tried to argue that they should be given three months notice and not one month, as was the case. The Court found that in terms of the existing Act, the landlord was entitled to evict them and that one month's notice was legal. He also ordered the occupants to pay costs.