.png)
Real Talk For Property Investors
Real Talk for Property Investors by EXCLUSIVELY MANAGED; the podcast that pulls back the curtain on the real world of managing investment properties in Brisbane.
I’m Samantha Eason; Principal and Licensee of Exclusively Managed, Property Management agency located in Brisbane. Each episode, I share the untold stories, hard lessons, and everyday realities that come with property management, from difficult tenants and dodgy maintenance to untrained managers and costly mistakes that could’ve been avoided.
This isn’t a sugar coated industry podcast. It’s honest, practical, and straight to the point, with a few laughs along the way. Whether you’re a property investor, landlord, or simply curious about what really goes on behind the scenes, Talking Property Management gives you the insight you didn’t know you needed.
I’ll be sharing real life experiences, expert advice, and proven strategies to help you avoid pitfalls, protect your assets, and get the most out of your investment.
And who knows… I might just be talking about your property manager in the next episode.
Real Talk For Property Investors
QCAT Decisions Unpacked: Real Cases, Real Lessons
The decisions I’ll be reading from today are public rulings published by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Everything I share is my own commentary and my opinion only. It should not be taken as legal advice. If you’re facing a similar issue, please seek independent legal advice or guidance specific to your situation.
Ever wondered what happens when a $2,000 water bill lands after tenants move out? Dive into the fascinating world of rental disputes as I dissect a real QCAT case that exposes critical gaps in property management practices.
While the property managers claimed no maintenance was ever reported, the tenants insisted they'd flagged the problem multiple times. With no written documentation to support either side, the tribunal had to determine who should bear the cost of the excessive water charges. The outcome reveals how crucial proper documentation and proactive management truly are.
What makes this case particularly compelling is how it highlights everyday vulnerabilities in rental management. When the adjudicator ruled the tenants should only pay $200 of the nearly $1,900 claimed, it wasn't just about a leaky toilet - it was about who carries the burden of proof in these disputes.
As property managers, we must learn from these lessons. Are your maintenance reporting processes robust enough to withstand tribunal scrutiny? Do you follow up routine inspections with written confirmation of what was or wasn't reported? These simple steps could save thousands in disputed charges and protect your relationship with both landlords and tenants.
Listen now to gain valuable insights that could transform your approach to property management and dispute resolution. How would your processes hold up if challenged in QCAT tomorrow?
If you have any questions or scenarios you would like us to discuss on an upcoming episode, please email samantha.eason@exclusivelymanaged.com.au or visit https://www.exclusivelymanaged.com.au/
Donate to the sleepbus foundation here.
https://www.sleepbus.org/services/sleepbusfund
Hello, it's Samantha Eason here and I am going to try something new. So you may not know this, but there are various QCAT cases available online for you to read through, where it will outline the decision and the court's findings. Some parts of the court transcript can be, you know, mentioned throughout those findings. So I thought, for our listeners, I'm going to read through a case and throw in my five cents, and the reason why I say five is because it's a bigger number than two and I like going above and beyond. I unfortunately do have a sick kid with me today, so we will do our very best.
Speaker 1:This case that we're reading today is between Ray White Paddington versus Fairburn. It was a case in December 2010, and it was actually appealed, which means that one of the parties and we can take a guess who appealed to the original decision. The decision was made by Richard Oliver. He's a senior member of QCAT and the orders made were that the application for leave to appeal refused, which means that they don't believe there was any mistakes made in the original case, and findings. Catchwords for this case is minor civil debt, excessive water use claim, where the adjudicator made findings of fact in accordance with evidence, whether error or fact of law. Reasons for the decision. The respondents, mr Fairbairn and Marie Cassam and Matthew Neville were tenants of a house managed by the applicant at 561 Boundary Street, spring Hill. The tenancy agreement was for a period of 12 months, commencing on the 1st of March 2009 and concluding on 28th of February 2010. The tenants vacated the premises on the 28th of February 2010. The tenants vacated the premises on the 28th of February 2010.
Speaker 1:On 24th of April 2010, the landlord received an account from Urban Utilities for $2,172.23 for water usage at the premises between the period of 13th of November 2009 to the 22nd of February 2010. The total water usage charge was $2,025.43. My very big question here is was there not an exit reading done? Because you can read the water bill and the water reading at the end of a tenancy. You can then calculate the water usage during that period of time. Why they waited for the water bill beyond me. However, maybe things were different in 2010 with Ray White Paddington. I'm not too sure. An application was then brought in QCAP by the managing agent seeking recovery of $1,883.85 for excess water usage. The application was defended.
Speaker 1:When the matter came on for hearing, the loan adjudicator heard evidence from the managing agent's representative, ms Butterworth, as well as from two of the tenants, ms Cassam and Mr Fairbair. The transcript of evidence reveals that the point of contention in respect of the excess water charge related to a leaking toilet. That is, the toilet system continued to run and the fact that this had been an ongoing problem was not contentious. In fact, the tenants contend that complaints were made to the property managers about the leaking toilet well before the premises were vacated and ultimately, the whole system was replaced in or about March 2010. So what that means is the tenants reported the fault, the owner or the managing agent didn't act on it. Then they tried to pin the tenants for the water usage and they had to replace the toilet anywhere. Can you understand what I'm reading here? There was an issue of fact as to whether or not the running toilet had been reported to the property agent. The tenant's evidence was that it had, whereas the evidence from Ms Butterworth indicated there was no record on their file of any report. She also said that all reports of maintenance issues had to be in writing. Again, this was a contested issue which was addressed in the learned adjudicators reasons.
Speaker 1:And this is the thing. You have these processes where you do routines and you ask the tenants on the day is there any maintenance? There is very likely that they reported that at the routine and the agency Ray White Paddington didn't act on that. Nine times out of 10, most maintenance is reported at the routine. If you have your processes set and followed, you would, as a good agent, want to back all decisions as much as possible so that if this did happen which it did, but if this did come up because you do have to think forward you do have to think there is this possibility that this could go to QCAT. You can go hi, I know the toilet's running. I heavily recommend that we get this attended to by a plumber. Given the age of the toilet might need repair, might need replacement. There is a possibility that it's been running for quite some time and it does come down to when did you notice this running?
Speaker 1:So, like those are questions you're able to ask tenants, especially when it very likely will come to a dispute, and I believe in the original case it would have been fair and reasonable for the adjudicator to ask when did you do routines? Because that's what the adjudicator would have asked and they would have said we did routines at this time and this time and in that moment the adjudicator would have asked and they would have said we did routines at this time and this time and in that moment. The adjudicator would have then asked did the tenants report a maintenance? According to the routines, no maintenance was reported. Did you go to these routines or did a different staff member? If that property manager answers with a different staff member or company or whatever did the routine, your case is thrown out of the water. There's no evidence. You can't conclude that that's the routine, especially since the reports are editable after they've been completed. So the adjudicator further goes.
Speaker 1:The fact of the matter is that the property agent knew there was excessive water charges as there had been excess water in the previous account which had been compromised by the tenants. However, the most recent account was well in excess of what had been used in the past. That means that the previous tenants went well. In our first three months we paid this much, and then in the further three months we paid this much, and then in the further three months we paid this much and then we were invoiced another three months and it was higher again, and over this period of time we reported that there was a running toilet. A good property manager if seen the bills, which you would go hi. We've noticed that there's an excess usage amount. It seems a lot higher than your previous quarter bills or your previous two quarters. Can you please confirm if there's any leaks in the property? That is what a good property manager does because at the end of the day, they are working in the fair and best interest of their client and that person has to pay the bills if there's an excess water that is outside of the tenant's control.
Speaker 1:Faced with the known fact that there was a running toilet, which was a reasonable explanation for the excess water charges, the loan adjudicator had to decide the question of fact as to whether or not the tenants were responsible. The loan adjudicator quite rightly pointed out that the evidentiary burden of establishing the entitlement to the claim was on the applicant and, although she did not entirely accept all of the evidence of the tenants, she was required to make a judgment on the evidence before her, as she did in a well-reasoned decision decision. The application or the decision further goes. My sole duty is to determine whether there is an error in the primary decision. It is not my task to decide whether where the truth lay, as between the competing versions given by the parties, the question whether or not leave to appeal should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles. Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision? Is there a reasonably prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief? Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error? Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal would be able would be to the public advantage? The grounds of appeal and the submissions and support simply seek to re-evaluate I iterate the evidence that was before the learned adjudicator. Her reasons make it clear that she considered all of the evidence and made a judgment on facts as presented to her. She determined that the tenant should pay part of the claim for excess water in the sum of $200. No error on the part of the learned adjudicator has been demonstrated and none is apparent. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused.
Speaker 1:And it's that simple Like. You can go to court and try your hardest, but in these situations they rely on the evidence and the evidence is normally written or recorded or photographed. That is the evidence and it is incredibly simple to say. We reached out to the tenants following the routine and wrote an email that said thank you for looking after your house so well. We confirm that you did not report any maintenance at this routine inspection or you were not home or anything like that. If you do have maintenance to report, please respond to this email. If they had done that, that is a very simple process to add, which we do in-house. It is simple to say that the owner would have had a chance and the owner got $2,000, no $200 out of a $1,800 claim, and the toilet was later replaced.
Speaker 1:Do you believe that this agency worked in favour of the owner? And I will be honest, there is a part of it where I do believe they did, and that is by going to QCAT Further these Matters, compiling evidence. There is also very much the possibility that the tenant didn't report it at the routine. But what are your processes in place where you require the evidence? What are your processes following from routines where tenants are or are not home, where maintenance is or is not recorded and reported? You can't just rely on tenants reporting maintenance in writing. You need to be ahead of them, be ahead of the game, and that is my five cents. What do you guys think? And do I need to do another episode just like this?
.png)
