Landlord’s claim against his property manager dismissed: agent reported each leak, owner used his brother (VCAT, 2026)

What happened

The owner of an investment property in West Footscray signed a property management agreement with Jas H. Stephens (Vic) Pty Ltd, trading as Jas Stephens Real Estate, in March 2016. The agreement included a printed note that the agent is not qualified or able to check that plumbing operates in line with applicable codes or regulations, and recommended that the owner have those checks done by an appropriate contractor. The standard terms also contained an optional service, selected by ticking a box, for the agent to arrange periodic inspections of plumbing fixtures and fittings by a contractor. That box was not ticked, and both sides accepted the agreement did not cover that service.

In April 2019 the tenant reported a leak in the upstairs ensuite. The agency promptly arranged a plumber, and the owner met the plumber at the property and discussed the work to be done. Work orders and invoices supported this. The leak was not fixed, and on 16 April 2019 the tenant emailed the agency saying a wet patch was appearing on the carpet in the bedroom doorway after showering, that water was being absorbed at the bottom of the bathroom cabinet, and that the timber door frame had gone soft and damp. The property manager replied the same day, said the same plumber would return the next afternoon, and asked for more detail and a photo. The plumber advised that the ensuite tiles needed re-grouting, and a contractor invoice dated 29 April 2019 for $275.00 for grouting and caulking the shower was paid by the owner, who knew the repairs were being done.

In June 2020 the agency sent the owner a job request asking for instructions about a leaking shower hose in the ensuite and cracked tiling with missing grout that was allowing moisture in. The message expressly recommended having the area looked at and re-grouted to stop further water getting in. It was not disputed that the owner chose to have his brother attend the property instead of a qualified tradesperson. The property manager followed up with the tenants, who confirmed the brother had attended.

On inspections, the agency gave oral and documentary evidence of inspections on six occasions between 13 June 2019 and 4 August 2022, plus an attempted virtual inspection on 19 January 2022 during COVID restrictions that was abandoned because the tenant would not take part. It was not disputed that on at least two occasions the agent did not inspect the ensuite because a tenant was asleep in the bedroom it opened off. The owner filed more than 500 pages of submissions and evidence, which the member described as repetitive and, in many places, irrelevant to the issues to be decided.

What each side wanted

The owner claimed damages, arguing the agency had breached the statutory guarantee to supply services with due care and skill. He put his case two ways: first, that the agency did not adequately tell him about the tenant's 16 April 2019 report of continuing water leaking after the plumber's visit, and that he expected to be given the tenant's own wording so he could judge how bad the problem was; and second, that the agency did not carry out adequate inspections in line with the agreement, which he said mattered because of the reported leak and water damage, and that those gaps let the bathroom deteriorate over years. The agency denied this, saying it had told him of all maintenance issues the tenants raised and had promptly sought his instructions to organise trades. It relied on the 2016 agreement's plumbing note and the unticked periodic plumbing inspection option, and gave evidence that it did not usually pass on tenants' emails to landlords because that was neither necessary nor appropriate for privacy reasons.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal dismissed the proceeding. No money was ordered to be paid by either side, and the published orders record no other directions.

Member C Frew gave the decision and reasons orally at the hearing on 18 August 2026, after hearing the matter on 5 and 18 August 2026. The owner asked for written reasons, which were published on 5 October 2026 and reflect the oral reasons, edited for clarity and publication.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Tribunal first confirmed it could hear the case. The subject matter fell within the definition of a 'consumer and trader dispute' in section 182(1) of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), and that Act gives VCAT power to hear claims under the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria). Section 60 of that law imposed a guarantee on the agency that its property management services would be rendered with due care and skill. A statutory guarantee is a promise the law attaches to the service automatically, whatever the contract says.

Because he was the applicant, the owner carried the onus of proof. That means it was his job to establish the facts that would amount to a failure by the agency to comply with the guarantee; it was not for the agency to prove that it had complied. After considering what the member described as extensive evidence, the Tribunal found the owner had not proven any failure to provide the services with due care and skill.

On the detail, the member found the agency had notified the owner of the maintenance issues as they arose. The tenant's first leak report in April 2019 led to a plumber being sent promptly, and the owner met that plumber on site. When the tenant reported continuing water on 16 April 2019, the property manager replied the same day and arranged the plumber's return, and the owner paid the $275.00 grouting and caulking invoice knowing the repairs were being done. In June 2020 the agency expressly recommended re-grouting to stop further water getting in.

The member went further and said the evidence in effect showed the agency had complied with its guarantee, while the owner had ignored its advice, had not taken up the option of having periodic plumbing checks arranged under the agreement, and chose to have a plumbing issue repaired by his brother rather than a qualified plumber. The unticked periodic plumbing inspection box mattered: the service the owner said should have caught the problem was never part of what he had engaged the agency to do.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position as a landlord unhappy with an agent, this decision shows how section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law is applied to property management. The guarantee is that the service is carried out with due care and skill, judged against what the agency actually agreed to do. Here the Tribunal looked closely at the management agreement, including a box that was never ticked, and at what the agency did each time a tenant reported a problem.

It also shows who has to prove what. The person who brings the claim has to establish the facts that make out the breach, and volume is not the same as proof: more than 500 pages of material did not establish the case, and the member found much of it repetitive and often beside the point. Dated emails, work orders and invoices showing what was reported and when carried the weight. The decision also shows that a landlord's own choices, such as declining optional plumbing checks or having an unqualified person do a repair, can be weighed against the claim.

If you are in a similar dispute with an agent, the step most people take first is to put the complaint in writing to the agency, setting out each incident, what the management agreement required and what you want done, and keeping copies of the agreement, inspection reports, job requests and invoices. A tribunal application usually comes only after that written complaint has not resolved things.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a VCAT application. More decisions: VCAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: Calafati v Jas H. Stephens (Vic) Pty. Ltd. [2026] VCAT 813 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.