Application for possession by renter for compensation; a failure to afford quiet enjoyment; compensation allowed in part; allegation of doctored documents being produced to the Tribunal, notice of intention to sell, notice of entry not served properly, invalid terms.

Sections 26A, 27, 27B, 30D, 67, 85, 86, 89A, 211, 452, 472(1(f), of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic), regulation 12 of the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 (Vic).

Wenger v Suwignjo (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 996

1. This is a claim by Mr Liu, who is a renter, against Mr Ngov, who is his residential rental provider under the residential rental agreement entered into between the parties for a fixed term running from 8 March 2025 to 7 March 2026. The tenancy was still on foot at the time that I reserved my decision.
2. Mr Liu has many complaints about the conduct of Mr Ngov and/or the real estate agent Mr Be Tran who represented Mr Ngov,[1] and who appeared on his behalf at the hearings. I accept that Mr Tran is authorised to represent Mr Ngov in the proceeding. Mr Liu's unhappiness stems from Mr Ngov's decision to sell the rented premises only one month into their twelve month fixed term residential rental agreement but, as will be seen, his complaints include other issues as well.
3. Mr Liu seeks an order that Mr Ngov pay him compensation under sections 452 and 472(1)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ('RTA'). I heard Mr Liu's claim based on the most recent Summary of Proofs filed.[2] Mr Tran was on notice of the amount sought and ready to answer the claim at the hearing.
4. While the precise legal grounds of the amounts claimed are at times unclear and the factual circumstances for individual monetary awards claimed are largely overlapping, I consider they can be grouped into three broad categories as follows:

(a) $8,900.00 for conduct prior to or in connection with the commencement of the rental agreement and the terms of the rental agreement; and

(b) $11,000.00 for conduct in relation to entries onto the rented premises; and

(c) $7,000.00 for time spent by Mr Liu finding information about the law and preparing his case.

1. At the conclusion of the hearing on 29 October 2025 I reserved my decision as time did not permit me to decide the matter on the spot, having regard to the number of findings required to be made and the volume of material before me.[3]
2. Both parties filed copious materials prior to the hearing on 29 October 2025, with each filing by one party invariably provoking a written reply by the other. In reaching my decision I have had regard to the documents filed by the parties to which they drew my attention at the hearing, and to the oral evidence given at hearing. I have also had regard to the correspondence filed by the parties between 29 October 2025 and 7 November 2025.

Mr Liu's claims for compensation in relation to entries onto the rented premises

1. Mr Liu claims a total of $11,000.00 in compensation for Mr Tran's conduct in respect to 14 entries to the rented premises between 7 April 2025 and 5 July 2025. The majority of Mr Liu's complaints, as described by him in the Summary of Proofs, relate to these entries.
2. The parties agree that there were entries onto the rented premises to conduct open for inspections in connection with a proposed sale of the rented premises on 26 April 2025; 3, 10, 17, 24, and 31 May 2025; 7, 14, 21, and 28 June 2025; and 5 July 2025 (Open for Inspection Entries), as well as an entry on 15 April 2025 to take pictures of the rented premises (Photoshoot Entry).
3. The parties agree that there was an entry on 7 April 2025 when Mr Tran attended to discuss the sale process with Mr Liu, but disagree about the scope of entry. The parties disagree about whether Mr Tran visited the property at all on 14 April 2025.
4. Before making any findings about whether Mr Ngov (including through the actions of Mr Tran) has breached his obligations under the RTA in respect of any of these entries, it is convenient to explain some basic principles about how the Tribunal deals with claims for compensation.
5. Mr Liu seems to expect that he should receive compensation simply because there have been breaches of the RTA, and that compensation has a punitive element. Mr Liu is mistaken. The Tribunal only awards compensation for loss which the party claiming the loss has actually suffered. I respectfully adopt the following statement of then Senior Member Campana in Wenger v Suwignjo (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 996 at paragraphs [9]-[10]:

Compensation is just that - a monetary award to a party to a contract to compensate that person for loss suffered as a result of the other party to the contract not complying with the terms of that agreement.

Compensation is not designed to penalise a party or unjustly enrich another. Making an example of a party or wanting to take action for a wrong that is designed to benefit others is misconceived. The enforcement of obligations or the imposition of penalty provisions is a matter for the consumer watchdog - in Victoria - the Director of Consumer Affairs.

1. In addition to compensation being awarded only for actual loss, it is noteworthy that the same conduct cannot form the basis of more than one award of compensation. Put simply, the Tribunal does not allow 'double recovery'.
2. The Tribunal can only award compensation for breaches of the RTA or the rental agreement. Mr Liu's allegations that Mr Tran or Mr Ngov have committed a 'failure to act reasonably', 'failure to negotiate in good faith', and 'bad faith conduct' are not claims arising under the RTA and cannot be the subject of compensation in the Residential Tenancies List of VCAT. That being said, I will consider the conduct of Mr Tran as agent of Mr Ngov in fixing any amount of compensation payable to Mr Liu.[4]
3. Rather than deal with each category of alleged wrongdoing as Mr Liu has formulated his claim for compensation, I will deal with Mr Liu's complaints about Mr Tran's behaviour on individual days as individual claims.[5]
4. I take Mr Liu's claims in relation to alleged unauthorised entries, to be claims for breach of section 91A of the RTA which states:

A residential rental provider or that person's agent must not, without reasonable excuse, enter rented premises otherwise than in accordance with this Division.

1. Section 91A of the RTA is what is referred to as a 'penalty provision' and when a penalty provision is breached, a fine may be imposed by Consumer Affairs Victoria. VCAT does not have the power to impose these fines. Mr Liu may make a complaint to Consumer Affairs Victoria if he wishes and Consumer Affairs Victoria may choose to investigate whether it is appropriate to issue a fine.
2. When an entry onto the rented premises does not meet each of the criteria listed in Division 8 of the RTA it is not a lawful entry. It is open to the Tribunal to find that such an entry constitutes a breach of the rental provider's obligation set out at section 67 of the RTA to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the renter has quiet enjoyment of the rented premises during the residential rental agreement, and to award compensation for that breach.[6] Mr Liu claims that Mr Ngov has breached his obligation to provide quiet enjoyment as a result of the entries, and also because Mr Tran sent him many text messages and made many calls to him in a short space of time on 14 April 2025.
3. As a starting point for the calculation of compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment, I consider that the appropriate remedy is a refund of part of the rent paid for that day proportionate to the loss of amenity for that day, which includes consideration of any 'distress' or 'disappointment' experienced.[7] The daily rent paid by Mr Liu is $78.54.
4. On the basis that Mr Liu says there were 14 entries onto the rented premises between 7 April 2025 and 5 July 2025 in connection with the sale of the rented premises, and that it is not possible to lose more than 100% of amenity in any given day, the most I would award to Mr Liu is $1,099.56.
5. I reject Mr Liu's claims for additional compensation above this amount, which are in many cases overlapping, not connected to behaviour regulated by the RTA, or not an actual breach of a duty under the RTA. To take one example of the many available in order to demonstrate my point, Mr Liu is not entitled to $1,000.00 for 'quiet enjoyment: one visit per 8 days in average since I moved in' as well as $1,000.00 for 'unlawful entry: For 7 times, I didn't reply to agent's invalid notice of entry, however the agent proceeded open inspection without my consent'. In this example, there being one entry per eight days is not of itself a breach of the RTA,[8] and the same entries form the basis of both claims for compensation.

In what circumstances does the RTA permit rental providers or their agents to enter onto rented premises?

1. The RTA sets out circumstances in which rental providers or people acting on their behalf may enter rented premises, and the steps they must take before entering the rented premises. Renters are required to allow entry to rental providers if the correct procedure under the RTA is followed.[9]
2. The legislation is unfortunately, but perhaps necessarily, complicated. In essence, an entry onto the rented premises will be lawful if the entry is for a permitted purpose under section 86, the entry is carried out in the manner set out in sections 85 and 87, and the entry is preceded by a notice of entry which meets the requirements of section 88.
3. Relevantly for the purposes of this application section 85(1) states that

A residential rental provider or that person's agent has a right to enter rented premises together with any persons who are necessary to achieve the purpose of the entry -

(a) at any time agreed with the renter if the renter has consented within 7 days before the entry; or

(b) at any time between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on any day (except a public holiday) -

(i) for a purpose set out in section 86(1)(a) or (b), if at least 48 hours notice has been given to the renter in accordance with section 88; or

(ii) for a purpose set out in section 86(1)(ab), if at least 7 days notice has been given to the renter in accordance with section 88;

1. Section 88 states relevantly that

(b) state why the residential rental provider or that person's agent wishes to enter; and

(ii) by delivering it personally to the renter between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.;

1. In summary, Mr Ngov or his agent can lawfully enter the rented premises to conduct an open for inspection[10] if he gives a notice of entry at least 48 hours prior to the inspection time,[11] and that notice of entry was given in writing stating the reason for the entry and the notice was given to Mr Liu either by post or by delivering it to him personally.
2. Mr Ngov or his agent can enter the rented premises to take advertising images[12] if he gives a notice of entry at least 7 days before the entry time and that notice of entry was given in writing stating the reason for the entry and the notice was given to Mr Liu either by post or by delivering it to him personally.
3. More generally, Mr Ngov or his agent can enter the rented premises at any time for any reason if Mr Liu has consented to that entry within 7 days before that entry.
4. Mr Tran says that in each instance of entry, other than the entry on 7 April 2025 (to the extent that such entry is admitted), a notice of entry was given to Mr Liu by email with more than 48 hours' notice. Mr Liu says that he was not provided with 48 hours' notice for the open for inspection entries between 26 April 2025 and 7 June 2025, and only received around 30 hours' notice.
5. Section 88 does not allow rental providers to give a notice of entry electronically, that is to say by email. This is so regardless of whether Mr Liu consented to service of documents electronically in the rental agreement. As a consequence, an effective notice of entry has not been given to Mr Liu in respect of any of the entries, and unless Mr Liu consented to entry, none of the entries were lawful.
6. Mr Tran did not make any submissions to the effect that he relied on Mr Tran's consent to the entries other than that which occurred on 7 April 2025; he stated that he relied on the emailed notices of entry. On the evidence before me, the only occasion on which Mr Liu responded to Mr Tran's emailed notice of entry with a positive agreement to the entry, was with respect to the open for inspection to take place on 28 June 2025. While I was not informed about what exactly transpired on any of the occasions of entry, I understand that Mr Liu allowed Mr Tran to enter the premises, without taking issue, on these occasions.
7. I wish to emphasise that simply because a notice of entry is given by email, does not mean that any renter will be entitled to any compensation in respect of an entry onto the rented premises. Whether or not compensation is payable will depend on the individual circumstances of each entry.
8. It is generally the case that most parties will prefer to receive such notices by email, this being the most efficient way of communicating. In many cases, parties will effectively consent to an entry when a notice is given by email by responding to that email, or by permitting entry on the date of entry. I note that Mr Liu did not raise any objection to notices of entry being emailed in either his written or his oral submissions.

The parties' claims that fraudulent documents have been submitted to the Tribunal

1. Central to Mr Liu's claims about unlawful entries is his claim that Mr Tran submitted documents which are 'unverified' and 'unreliable'.
2. I note that Mr Liu sent correspondence to the Tribunal several times requesting interim orders with respect to the validity of these documents. Mr Liu did not press this at hearing, and the Tribunal appropriately did not consider this request on the papers. Mr Liu's claims are addressed in these reasons.
3. Mr Liu also made various demands in pre-hearing and post-hearing correspondence that the rental provider produce further documents to support the validity of the documents he refers to and relies upon. In Mr Liu's submissions about Mr Tran's documents Mr Liu drew particular attention to discrepancies in the email dated 2 June 2025 and the email dated 7 April 2025 regarding the Photoshoot Entry, which documents are discussed further below.
4. Mr Tran stated at hearing on 29 October 2025 that the only documents he relies upon to support the validity of the documents pertaining to notices of entry, are in the bundle handed up and titled 'All Notices sent to tenant to inform'. Mr Tran confirmed at the directions hearing on 6 November 2025[13] that there was nothing else he wanted to add to support his contention that all documents relied upon were genuine records.
5. In short, Mr Liu says that he has never received, other than in the course of the proceeding, the following documents submitted to the Tribunal and relied upon by Mr Ngov:
   • Notice of Intention to Sell dated 8 April 2025;
   • Email dated 7 April 2025 regarding photoshoot on 15 April 2025;
   • Email dated 22 April 2025 regarding an entry to the rented premises for an open for inspection on 26 April 2025;
   • Email dated 28 April 2025 regarding an entry to the rented premises for an open for inspection on 3 May 2025;
   • Email dated 5 May 2025 regarding an entry to the rented premises for an open for inspection on 10 May 2025;
   • Email dated 12 May 2025 regarding an entry to the rented premises for an open for inspection on 17 May 2025;
   • Email dated 19 May 2025 regarding an entry to the rented premises for an open for inspection on 24 May 2025;
   • Email dated 26 May 2025 regarding an entry to the rented premises for an open for inspection on 31 May 2025; and
   • Email dated 2 June 2025 regarding an entry to the rented premises for an open for inspection on 7 June 2025.
6. Mr Liu alleges that Mr Tran has created these documents after Mr Liu commenced this proceeding on 31 May 2025, for the purpose of defending Mr Liu's claim.
7. Mr Liu also challenges the validity of the Exclusive Sale Authority dated 7 April 2025. I will address this document later in these reasons.
8. Mr Liu also says that he challenges the validity of '6 PDFs claimed by the agent to be CAV-compliant inspection notices'. Mr Liu says that Mr Tran claims that such notices were attached to the emails referred to above, which relate to the open for inspections on various dates in May 2025, and on 2 June 2025. Having reviewed the emails relied upon by Mr Tran, I find that Mr Tran is not claiming that those emails had any attachments, so I do not need to comment any further on this allegation. Mr Liu seems to be of the view that the notices developed by Consumer Affairs Victoria are required to be given but that is not a requirement under section 88 of the RTA.
9. Mr Liu further says that Mr Tran has presented misleading information to the Tribunal by referring in correspondence to the Tribunal to documents which he says were sent to him or his manager by Mr Liu, which Mr Liu says he never sent. As any such correspondence is not central to the issues I am required to determine in this proceeding, I will not address those claims.
10. Mr Tran in turn says that the emails relating to entry onto the rented premises to conduct open for inspections which have been produced by Mr Liu and are dated 2 May 2025, 9 May 2025, 16 May 2025, 23 May 2025, 30 May 2025, and 6 June 2025, are falsified because their dates have been changed. Mr Tran says variously that he did not send emails on those dates or that they are reminder emails rather than first notifications.
11. A technical point to note is that the email correspondence relied upon by Mr Tran is in the form of extracts from Property Me, a software program frequently used by real estate agencies. When these email extracts are reproduced they are visually similar to PDF documents. In contrast, the email correspondence relied upon by Mr Liu is from an email server and appears in the standard email format.
12. It is a serious thing to accuse a party to proceedings of submitting fraudulent documents and it is a matter which the person making the accusation must prove. It is not the case, as Mr Liu believes, that Mr Tran must produce evidence that his documents are authentic. The applicable standard of proof at the Tribunal is on the balance of probabilities.

When was a Notice of Intention to Sell given to Mr Liu?

1. When a rental provider decides to sell a rented premises it is important that they provide renters with a Notice of Intention to Sell ('NIS'), because rights for both parties flow from this notice being given. Relevantly, section 86(2A)(i) of the RTA refers to rental providers having a right of entry to conduct an open inspection of the premises for prospective buyers 'if the residential rental provider has given the renter notice of intention to sell in the form approved by the Director at least 14 days before entry is proposed' [emphasis added].
2. The parties agree that Mr Tran sent a copy of a letter with the attachment title 'Letter to Tenant to notify of selling property' by email on 7 April 2025. The letter is dated 7 April 2025. This letter was produced to the Tribunal and it is not in the form approved by the Director of Consumer Affairs, so is not a NIS for the purposes of the RTA.
3. Mr Tran produced two NIS's in the approved form at the hearing, dated 8 and 14 April 2025. Mr Liu says that the version dated 8 April 2025 is manufactured and it was not given to him by hand or by email.
4. Mr Tran said he gave Mr Liu a copy of the NIS dated 8 April 2025 by hand when he visited the rented premises on 7 April 2025. Mr Tran stated that he also sent the NIS dated 8 April 2025 to Mr Liu by email on 7 April 2025 and that it was dated 8 April 2025 because he signed it after 5:00pm on 7 April 2025.
5. At the hearing I asked Mr Tran to produce a copy of the email by which he sent the NIS dated 8 April 2025 to Mr Liu. Mr Tran was not able to produce a copy of an email by which he sent Mr Liu a copy of the NIS dated 8 April 2025. Mr Tran said he sent this email through an Outlook email account, and he lost access to all its records before 10 April 2025. Mr Tran produced a copy of an invoice for IT support which he says proves that this is the case. I note that all other records of correspondence relied upon by Mr Tran were sent through Property Me and Mr Tran offered no explanation as to why this one email was sent through Outlook.
6. I was clear with the parties at the end of the hearing on 29 October 2025 that I would not have regard to any further documents after the close of the hearing. Nevertheless, Mr Tran emailed the Tribunal after the hearing stating that I had 'demanded for the actual email that I sent to the tenant on the 14 April 2025 with the NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL attached'. This is not correct. I asked to see evidence of having served the NIS dated 8 April 2025.
7. In his email Mr Tran again provided a copy of an email under which the letter was sent on 7 April 2025 but did not provide any evidence that the NIS dated 8 April 2025 was sent to Mr Liu on 7 April 2025, or otherwise. Mr Tran provided a copy of the email dated 14 April 2025 by which he sent the NIS to Mr Liu. Mr Liu agrees he received this email and I accept that this is the case.
8. Mr Liu says he also received a copy of the NIS dated 14 April 2025 by hand. At the hearing Mr Tran denied giving Mr Liu a copy of the NIS dated 14 April 2025 by hand because he says he did not attend the rented premises that day. I will return to the alleged entry on 14 April 2025 later in my reasons.
9. At the hearing, I found Mr Liu to be a credible witness who is fastidious in his attention to factual, if not legal, detail. In contrast, I found Mr Tran's evidence to be at times inconsistent and illogical. This, in combination with the fact that I find (as discussed further below) that Mr Tran has filed fabricated documents with the Tribunal, leads me to form the conclusion that Mr Liu is a more reliable witness that Mr Tran.
10. I find that Mr Tran did not provide Mr Liu with a copy of a NIS in the approved form until 14 April 2025. It follows that there was no right under the RTA to give a notice of entry for an open for inspection to take place earlier than 29 April 2025.
11. Mr Liu will be awarded below a full day of rent for the unlawful entry on 26 April 2025. No further compensation is awardable to Mr Liu as a result of him not receiving a NITS until 24 April 2025.
12. I do not make any finding that the NIS dated 8 April 2025 was fraudulent. I am satisfied that it was not sent to Mr Liu, but it does not necessarily follow that it was not created on that date.

Were the notices of entry for the Open for Inspection Entries genuine documents?

1. With respect to the documents of which Mr Liu disputes the validity, the ones relevant to the Open for Inspection Entries are dated 22 April 2025, 28 April 2025, 5 May 2025, 12 May 2025, 19 May 2025, 26 May 2025, and 2 June 2025.
2. I find that the email relied upon and produced by Mr Tran dated 2 June 2025 for the open for inspection on 7 June 2025 is not an authentic record from Property Me. In the document produced, the 'Sent on' date is stated to be '02/062025' and the 'Created on' date is stated to be '02/06/2025'.
3. The most glaring problem with this document is that the 'Created on' date is stated to be '02/062025' with no slash between the month and year. This is not consistent with a record being produced by a software system and there are no other such instances in the documents produced.
4. Upon my review of the documents following the hearing, I found that the inclusion of the 0 in front of the 2 in the 'Created on' and 'Sent on' dates is also irregular. Other extracts produced use a different format, for example the email dated 7 April 2025 which Mr Liu agrees he received with the Letter to Tenant to notify of selling property attachment, states that the 'Created on' and 'Sent on' date is '7/04/2025', with no 0 preceding the 7. That format is used in all other emails produced and relied upon apart from the email dated 7 April 2025 regarding the Photoshoot Entry, which is discussed in more detail below. I find it unlikely that software would produce different numbering conventions on different days.
5. I have reviewed the emails dated 28 April 2025, 5 May 2025, 12 May 2025, 19 May 2025, and 26 May 2025, produced by Mr Tran and I see no irregularities in the documents. I have not seen a copy of the email dated 22 April 2025. Mr Liu makes no specific allegations about that document in his written submissions.
6. I am not satisfied to the requisite standard that the emails produced by Mr Tran in respect to the notices of entry for Open for Inspection Entries have been falsified, other than the email dated 2 June 2025 for the open for inspection on 7 June 2025. I certainly consider it possible that all of the documents have been manufactured, but I am not comfortably satisfied to the standard required.
7. In the absence of sufficient evidence from Mr Tran, I do not accept that the emails produced by Mr Liu dated 2 May 2025, 9 May 2025, 16 May 2025, 23 May 2025, 31 May 2025, and 6 June 2025, were falsified as alleged.

What compensation is Mr Liu entitled to for the Open for Inspection Entries?

1. Parliament has determined that the appropriate compensation payable to renters for lawful entries for open for inspections is $30.00 or a half day's rent, whichever is greater.[14] In Mr Liu's case, the daily rent is $78.54, so appropriate baseline award for open for inspection entries is $39.27. Presumably, this compensation is thought to be sufficient for time spent out of the premises during the inspection, and for time needed to tidy up or clean prior to the open for inspection. Whether Mr Liu should receive more than the baseline compensation, will depend on the circumstances.
2. Mr Ngov has technically not satisfied the requirements of the RTA for giving notice of entry for any of the Open for Inspection Entries because the notices were given to Mr Liu by email, which is not an authorised means of service for a notice of entry. As I have already stated, this alone does not mean that any additional compensation should be awarded.
3. Mr Liu does not allege that he was provided with less than 48 hours' notice of entry for the entries which took place on 14 June 2025, 21 June 2025, 28 June 2025, or 5 July 2025. I find that Mr Liu is entitled to compensation equivalent to half a day of rent (being $39.27) for each of these entries. I do not consider those entries to have been a breach of section 67 and no additional compensation shall be awarded for the notices of entry having been given by email.
4. I am comfortably satisfied that the rental provider did not give at least 48 hours' notice for the open for inspection entry which took place on 7 June 2025 and that this entry constitutes a breach of section 67 of the RTA. I find that Mr Liu is entitled to compensation equivalent to a full day of rent for this entry in the sum of $78.54. I consider that a full day's rent is warranted in circumstances where sufficient notice was not given, and in accordance with my finding that Mr Tran has submitted manufactured evidence to the Tribunal about this.
5. As already stated, Mr Ngov had no right to give a notice of entry for the open for inspection on 26 April 2025 because Mr Liu had not received a NIS at least 14 days prior to that date. This entry constitutes a breach of section 67. I find that Mr Liu is entitled to compensation equivalent to a full day of rent for this entry in the sum of $78.54. I consider that a full day's rent is warranted in circumstances where there was, unequivocally, no right under the RTA to enter the rented premises.
6. I make no finding as to whether Mr Ngov gave Mr Liu at least 48 hours' notice for the entries on 3 May 2025, 10 May 2025, 17 May 2025, 24 May 2025, 31 May 2025. I believe that Mr Liu did not receive emails from Mr Tran on the dates Mr Tran says those emails were sent, but that is not the same as being satisfied that all of those emails have been manufactured by Mr Tran. Regardless of the date on which the emails were sent, all of the requirements for lawful entry under the RTA have not been satisfied.
7. I find that Mr Liu is entitled to a full day of compensation in respect to each of the entries on 3 May 2025, 10 May 2025, 17 May 2025, 24 May 2025, 31 May 2025 because those entries constitute a breach of section 67 of the RTA, a total amount of $392.70.
8. In fixing this amount of compensation I take into consideration that the entries occurred following other unlawful entries on 14 and 15 April 2025 to which Mr Liu objected, as will be discussed further below, and on 26 April 2025. I also give weight to the fact that Mr Tran made assertions to Mr Liu by text on 14 April 2025 and by email on 19 May 2025 that Mr Liu was entitled to $35.00 compensation for each open for inspection and stated that payment would be made after the property was sold. This shows a failure to compensate Mr Liu in circumstances where there is no possible argument he should not have been compensated, and no effort to comply with the obligations under the RTA.[15]
9. In total, I award Mr Liu $471.24 for breach of section 67 of the RTA in respect to the Open for Inspection Entries. I also award Mr Liu $157.08 in respect to the Open for Inspection Entries which is compensation to which he is entitled under Section 86(2A)(c) of the RTA.

Is Mr Liu entitled to compensation for the Photoshoot Entry?

1. Entry onto the rented premises for the purpose of producing advertising images and video is permitted by section 89A(1).[16]
2. The parties agree that the RTA requires a rental provider to provide 7 days' notice of entry prior to entering the rented premises to take pictures for the purposes of advertising it for sale.[17]
3. Mr Tran and a photographer entered the rented premises on 15 April 2025 for a 'photoshoot'. Mr Tran produced a copy of an email dated 7 April 2025 which states 'I would like to inform you that we have booked for the photos shoot on 15/04/2025 at 11:00am.' Mr Liu says that he never received that email and that the document produced to the Tribunal was manufactured by Mr Tran after Mr Liu started this proceeding.
4. I find that the email relied upon and produced by Mr Tran is not an authentic record from Property Me. In the document produced, the 'Sent on' date is stated to be '07/04//2025' and the 'Created on' date is stated to be '07/04/2025'. The most obvious problem is the inclusion of the double slash in the 'Sent on' date. This is not consistent with a record being produced by a software system and there are no other such instances of this occurring in the documents produced.
5. The inclusion of the 0 in front of the 7 in the 'Created on' and 'Sent on' dates is also irregular because other extracts produced use a different format as discussed above. Notably, the same irregular format was used in this email, as in the email dated 2 June 2025 which I have also found to not be an authentic business record.
6. I find it most likely that the parties discussed the attendance on 15 April 2025 via telephone on 10 April 2025, as stated by Mr Liu. As I have stated, I find Mr Liu to be a more reliable witness than Mr Tran, and this timeline is also consistent with texts produced by the parties which show that on 10 April 2025 Mr Liu texted Mr Tran and stated 'Sorry, Saturday is not ok, I have guests at home, please change the photoing date out of school holiday'.
7. I find that the rental provider did not give 7 days notice of the entry for the photoshoot, and therefore the entry onto the rented premises on 15 April 2025 was not in accordance with the RTA, and comprised a breach of section 67.
8. I also note that subsection (2) of section 89A of the RTA states that:

The residential rental provider or that person's agent must make a reasonable attempt to agree with the renter on a suitable time for entry to the rented premises for the purposes referred to in subsection (1).

1. I find that Mr Tran did not make a reasonable attempt to agree about a suitable time for entry. Mr Tran responded to Mr Liu's statement that 'On Tuesday 15/4/25 next week not Saturday ricky' and 'Sorry i can not because we need photo taken and out the property on the market asap for the owner'. Further texts by Mr Tran to Mr Liu followed on 14 April 2025 when Mr Liu again stated his objection to the photoshoot taking place on 15 April 2025, notably 'if you are not corporate with the selling process. the owner will sew you for the financial al cost'.
2. I award Mr Liu $78.54 for the entry to the rented premises on 15 April 2025, being 100% of the rent paid for that day for breach of sections 67 and 91A of the RTA.

Were there other entries onto the rented premises?

1. The parties agree that Mr Tran visited the rented premises on 7 April 2025 but disagree about whether he went inside or only onto the driveway. Mr Tran says he spoke only to Mr Liu and only in the driveway. Mr Liu states that there was an unpleasant scene which took place in front of his children, inside the rented premises.
2. I think it is likely that there was a heated disagreement between Mr Liu and Mr Tran and that Mr Liu's children may have been exposed to this. Given the tenor of written communications between the parties I have read in the evidence, and the conduct of the parties at hearing, if a heated disagreement took place then I consider it most likely that both parties contributed to this occurring.
3. A review of the text messages between the parties shows that Mr Liu consented to the agent attending the rented premises on 7 April 2025. Mr Tran stated 'Hi Liu i will drop in to see you at about 6:00pm today see you soon be tran' and Mr Liu responded 'Ok'. In all the circumstances, I consider that no compensation is payable for this entry, whether Mr Tran entered the home or went only onto the driveway.
4. The parties also disagree about whether Mr Tran visited the property at all on 14 April 2025. Mr Liu stated that an entry occurred without prior notice or consent, and was preceded by several calls and texts in quick succession. Mr Tran stated that he did not attend the rented premises on that date and that he was forced to text Mr Liu about the photoshoot at the rented premises the next day because Mr Tran was not answering his calls.
5. I find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Tran did attend the property on 14 April 2025. The email to Mr Liu with the NIS attached dated 14 April 2025 states that 'I will also drop in to give you the hard copy tonight at 6.00PM' which is more consistent with the version of events recounted by Mr Liu at hearing than the version given by Mr Tran.
6. I find that that the entry to the rented premises on 14 April 2025 was not for an authorised purpose and was without consent, and that it occurred in breach of section 67. Taking into account the repeated calls and texts from Mr Tran which preceded the entry I consider Mr Liu should be awarded 100% of the rent for 14 April 2025 and award Mr Liu $78.54 for breach of section 67.
7. I note that Mr Liu has made a claim for $2,000.00 in respect to Mr Tran sending texts and making calls on 14 April 2025. For the sake of completeness I confirm that $78.54 represents the total compensation to be awarded with respect to any conduct occurring on 14 April 2025.

Mr Liu's claims in connection with Mr Ngov's decision to sell the rented premises

1. Mr Liu says the following, which is not disputed by Mr Tran, and which I accept on the basis that it is uncontested:
   • he visited the rented premises to inspect it on 1 March 2025 at which time he introduced himself to Mr Tran and expressed his desire for a long term lease;
   • this desire was re-iterated in the application for the rented premises Mr Liu submitted on 2 March 2025;
   • Mr Liu was approved as a renter and paid the bond and first month's rent on 4 March 2025;
   • Mr Liu sent Mr Tran an SMS on 6 March 2025 asking him about longer term plans for the rented premises on 6 March 2025, and Mr Tran did not respond to this SMS;
   • Mr Liu signed the lease on 7 March 2025 when he collected the keys for the rented premises.
2. As discussed above, on 7 April 2025 Mr Tran advised Mr Liu by email that Mr Ngov had decided to sell the rented premises and provided a letter explaining this.
3. This being only one month into a tenancy which had been agreed to be for an initial fixed term of twelve months, it is understandable that Mr Liu was very upset by this.
4. Mr Liu says that Mr Ngov planned to sell the rented premises before he entered into the rental agreement with him, that Mr Tran was aware of this and should have told him, and that Mr Ngov has breached section 30D of the RTA. Mr Liu says that he clearly stated he wants a long term rental and he would not have entered into the rental agreement if he had known that Mr Ngov planned to list the property for sale.
5. Section 30D states relevantly to this proceeding:

Before entering into a residential rental agreement, a residential rental provider must disclose the following information to the renter -

(a) if the residential rental provider has engaged an agent to sell the rented premises or prepared a contract of sale, that there is a proposal to sell the rented premises;

1. At hearing, Mr Tran produced the original copy of a hand signed Exclusive Sale Authority entered into between Mr Ngov and Mr Tran's agency dated 6 April 2025. Mr Tran stated at the hearing that the document was signed on 6 April 2025 and he had no knowledge of Mr Ngov having an intention to sell the property until the day before the Exclusive Sale Authority was signed.
2. Mr Liu submits that this is an unverified document which could be dated any time and has been 'backdated'. Mr Liu stated that Mr Tran must prove that the document is legitimate and was signed by the parties on 6 April 2025 and not some other day. Mr Liu is mistaken about this. Mr Liu has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that Ms Ngov engaged an agent to sell the rented premises or prepared a contract of sale prior to 7 March 2025, being the date the rental agreement was signed.
3. On the evidence before me I accept that the Exclusive Sale Authority was entered into on 6 April 2025 and I therefore find that there has not been a breach of section 30D of the RTA.
4. Given how soon the decision was made to list the property for sale after the rental agreement was entered into, I think it is likely that Mr Ngov was considering selling the property before he entered into the rental agreement. I think that the courteous thing for Mr Ngov to have done is to tell Mr Tran to pass along this information to any potential renters. A lack of courtesy does not breach the RTA or a term of the rental agreement. It is not relevant that Mr Liu made known his dislike of moving and his desire to stay in rented premises for a long period.
5. The claim for compensation contained in the Summary of Proofs for $2,000.00 for 'RRP failed to disclose intention to sell before lease commencement' is dismissed.
6. The claim for compensation for '$5000 Avoidable relocation cost should the intention of sell was disclosed before the lease commenced' is dismissed. Even if a breach had been established on the facts, no costs have yet been incurred and the Tribunal does not award compensation for speculative costs. Further, removalist costs are costs which are incurred (if they are incurred) as a normal part of the ending of a tenancy and other than in truly exceptional circumstances, do not arise as a result of a breach by the rental provider.
7. The claim for compensation of $1,000.00 contained in the Summary of Proofs for 'failure to act reasonably' by not responding to Mr Liu's proposal to either extend the rental agreement or compensate Mr Liu for 10 weeks' rent, is dismissed. Mr Ngov has not breached any term of the RTA in deciding to sell the property, or not entering into a longer term agreement with Mr Liu.
8. For the sake of completeness I also address Mr Liu's request in the original application for 'An order allowing me to remain in the property until at least September 2027, with no rent increase during this period, to provide stability for my family and continuity for my children's education.' The Tribunal has no power to make such orders in the circumstances before the Tribunal and this element of the claim is dismissed.
9. I also dismiss Mr Liu's request for compensation of $7,167.00 set out in the original application for compensation in the event that the Tribunal would not extend the rental agreement as follows:

for the loss of stability $7,167 - equivalent to three months' rent ($550/week) to compensate for the inconvenience, stress, and financial burden caused by an avoidable relocation. This disruption arose because the rental provider failed to disclose their intention to sell prior to the lease agreement, despite clear indications that such plans were known or foreseeable.

1. Mr Liu has also sought interim orders in his written materials that the Tribunal 'suspend all sale-related activities in respect of the property' and make orders that 'the rental provider and any appointed representatives...be prohibited from attending at or arranging entry to the property'. The Tribunal appropriately did not make such orders on the papers. Mr Liu did not press for such orders at the hearing and I will not make any such orders now because Mr Liu indicated that more recent entries had been compliant with obligations under the RTA.

Does the residential rental agreement contain invalid terms?

1. The residential rental agreement the parties entered into contains the standard terms contained in the Consumer Affairs Victoria approved residential rental agreement, and then in Part E Additional Terms it states 'REFER TO RENTAL DOCUMENTS SIGNED ON 7TH MARCH 2025'.
2. This is a reference to a separate document titled SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO FORM PART OF THE TENANCY AGREEMENT which lists 27 clauses and is then signed. The document goes on to include separately signed pages titled 'Tenants acknowledge the Residential Tenancy Act 1997', 'Tenant's acknowledgement of Arrears Policy', and 'Tenant acknowledge and Special agreement'.
3. Mr Liu says terms 1 of 4 and 4 of 4 of the terms listed under 'Tenant acknowledge and Special agreement' are unfair or unreasonable. I have taken Mr Liu to also effectively be saying that the terms are invalid.
4. Section 26A(1) of the RTA states:

(1) A residential rental provider or renter must not prepare or authorise the preparation of a residential rental agreement that contains -

(a) a prescribed prohibited term for a residential rental agreement; or

(2) If a residential rental agreement contains a prohibited term, that term is void and unenforceable.

1. The definition of 'prohibited term' at section 3 of the RTA includes a term referred to at section 27B of the RTA. Section 27B(1)(d) of the RTA refers to a term that requires all or part of the rented premises to be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, unless that term is contained in the standard form.[18]
2. Section 26A(2) of the Act states that if a residential rental agreement contains a prohibited term, that term is void and unenforceable.
3. The first term complained of by Mr Liu is a term which requires professional cleaning which is not in the standard form and says as follows:

The Renter agrees to appoint the nominated cleaner and gardener from the Real Estate Agent for cleaning the premises and maintaining gardens before vacating the property. The Renter was informed that professional cleaning or cleaning to a professional standard had been performed on this premises immediately prior to the start of the tenancy.

1. The standard form does not allow rental providers to tell renters who to use to carry out cleaning or gardening and therefore this is a prohibited term within the meaning of the RTA, and is void and unenforceable.
2. At the hearing Mr Liu stated he has not suffered any loss as a result of this term being included. Consequently, Mr Liu's claim for compensation of $400.00 for this term being included in the rental agreement is dismissed.
3. Section 26A of the RTA is a 'penalty provision' and Mr Liu may choose to make a complaint to Consumer Affairs Victoria, who may choose to prosecute the matter and issue a fine. That is not a matter for VCAT.
4. The second term complained of states:

The Renter acknowledges that they have the duty to maintain the garden, including mowing, pruning, and hedge cutting, both in front and back.

1. Mr Liu states in the application that he seeks 'clarification that renters can only be expected to perform routine maintenance, and that any professional or hazardous garden work should be the responsibility of the rental provider.'
2. I confirm that this is the case. The term should be understood by reference to the duties of both rental providers and renters set out in the Consumer Affairs Victoria Guideline 1- Maintenance. This document states at section 5.1.3 that it is the rental provider's obligation to undertake 'Major pruning and removal of trees, shrubs, and plants'. Mr Tran in his submissions confirms that Mr Liu is not required to do major pruning.
3. The second term complained of is not a prohibited term and is also not an invalid term for the purposes of section 27 of the RTA.[19] The second term states Mr Liu's responsibility for maintaining the garden in terms that are consistent with his obligation under the RTA.

Mr Liu's claim that he was not provided sufficient time to view the residential rental agreement before signing it

1. Mr Liu says that he was not provided with a copy of the residential rental agreement until 7 March 2025 when he picked up the keys to the rented premises. Mr Liu states that he should have been provided with a copy of the rental agreement before that time, and that he was not given enough time to read it when he did receive it. Mr Tran does not agree that Mr Liu was not given enough to read the agreement.
2. There is nothing in the RTA which states that renters must be given a copy of a rental agreement for any specific time before the start date. Mr Liu's claim for compensation of $500.00 for not being provided with a copy of the residential rental agreement until collecting the keys for the rented premises is accordingly dismissed.

1. The Tribunal dismisses the following claims for compensation made by Mr Liu:
   • '$1000 The time I had to take off to enable photographing, mediation and hearing';
   • '$2000 The time I had to spend to find legal resources about my rights and rental provider's obligations';
   • '$4000 The time I had spent to document evidences and breaches and escalate to VCAT'.
2. Insofar as these costs may be characterised as costs in the proceeding for the time spent at mediation and hearing and escalating the matter to hearing, no award is available to Mr Liu as a self-represented litigant.
3. Insofar as these costs represent alleged inconvenience to Mr Liu, I have awarded compensation for loss which arises from a reasonable expectation that Mr Ngov will comply with his obligations under the RTA. In calculating Mr Liu's loss and compensation I have taken into account what the duties of the parties were and any reasonable expectation about compliance with that obligation. There is no additional amount awardable for inconvenience.

1. I award Mr Liu a total amount of $863.94.
2. The balance of the claim is dismissed.

[1] Many of Mr Liu's grievances are expressed as being against Mr Tran. Mr Liu has no ability to make a claim against Mr Tran under the RTA. However, Mr Tran stands in the shoes of Mr Ngov when he acts as his real estate agent, making Mr Ngov liable for Mr Tran's actions.

[2] Mr Liu's claim was originally for an amount of $9,992.00, which grew to $25,000.00 in the first Summary of Proofs filed with the Tribunal, and grew again to $40,000.00, being the limit of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, in the second Summary of Proofs filed. This amount does not correlate to the breakdown of the claim within the body of that document.

1. [3] At the hearing I expressed reservations about whether sufficient time was allowed to get through all elements of the claim. Both parties expressed that they did not want to come back another day and it was agreed that I would hear all oral evidence then deliver an oral decision at a further brief telephone hearing on 6 November 2025. That hearing was converted to a directions hearing because I considered that, because I will be making findings about the authenticity of documents filed and relied upon by the parties, I ought to confirm with the parties whether they would like a further hearing to provide additional oral evidence about those documents. Further, I considered that in all the circumstances it would be more appropriate to provide written reasons than oral reasons.

[4] Section 211 of the RTA states that, in hearing a claim for compensation, the Tribunal may take into account (a) whether or not the person from whom compensation is claimed has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the duties under this Act or under the residential rental agreement or site agreement in respect of which the claim is made; and (b) in the case of a breach of a residential rental agreement, whether or not the applicant has consented to the failure to comply with the duties in respect of which the claim is made.

[5] As Mr Liu is a self represented party, it is appropriate to interpret his claim within the applicable legal framework, although he has for the most part not done so.

[6] See eg Paul v Carr (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 153.

[7] See for example Anderson v Sharpe (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 415 at [250] to [251].

[8] Section 86(2A)(a)(ii) of the RTA allows entries up to twice per week for open for inspection entries.

[10] This being a purpose of entry under section 86(1)(b) of the RTA.

[11] If the inspection is scheduled at least 14 days after a Notice of Intention to Sell in the approved form has been given to the renter, as discussed later in these reasons.

[12] This being a purpose of entry under section 86(1)(ab) of the RTA.

1. [13] I conducted a directions hearing on 6 November 2025 to hear from the parties about whether they require a further hearing specifically to provide further oral evidence about Mr Liu's challenge to the validity of the rental provider's documents. Mr Liu was unable to join the directions hearing for technical reasons but stated in correspondence on 7 November 2025 that he did not want a further hearing of the type being offered.

[14] Section 86(2A)(c) of the RTA states that a renter at the premises is entitled to the prescribed compensation for sales inspections. Regulation 35 of the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 (Vic) states that the prescribed compensation is the higher amount of (a) one half of the daily amount of rent payable under the residential rental agreement per inspection; or (b) $30.00.

[15] Section 211 of the RTA states that, in hearing a claim for compensation, the Tribunal may take into account (c) whether or not money has been paid to or recovered by the applicant by way of compensation, including money recovered or entitled to be recovered from the bond; and (d) whether any reduction or refund of rent or other allowance has been made to the applicant; and (f) any offer of compensation.

[16] This section states that a residential rental provider or that person's agent may enter rented premises to produce advertising images and video of the property after providing notice under section 85(b)(ii).

[17] Section 85(b)(ii) provides that at least 7 days notice of entry meeting the requirements of section 88 of the RTA must have been given to the renter.

1. [18] The standard form is contained at regulation 12 of the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 (Vic).

[19] Section 27 of the RTA states relevantly that:

(1) A term of a residential rental agreement that is additional to the terms contained in the standard form is invalid if -

(a) it purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or purports to have the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying -

(i) the application to that residential rental agreement of all or any of the provisions of this Act; or

(ii) the exercise of a right conferred by this Act; or

(b) it is a prohibited term or a term that this Act provides must not be included in a residential rental agreement.