In Hogan v Joshi [2025] VCAT 548, a RRP tried to claim rent, letting fees, and advertising costs after a tenant broke their fixed-term lease early. But VCAT took a hard look at what compensation really means under the Residential Tenancies Act. The Tribunal found that routine vacancy days between tenancies aren’t compensable and that advertising and letting costs must be tied to the lease that was broken — and pro-rated accordingly. The case is a must-read for property managers who regularly file break lease claims.

A renter ignored multiple breach notices and failed to comply with a VCAT order to clean — leading to a property so unclean that the Member personally inspected it. The Tribunal found eviction reasonable and proportionate, reinforcing the importance of compliance and thorough evidence.

Can a renter get their money back after paying under an invalid rent increase notice? In Janover v Liberman [2025] VCAT 264, the Tribunal said no — despite the notice being technically non-compliant. This case dives into the difference between invalidity and actual loss, and why VCAT refused to order a refund. Castellan unpacks the ruling and explains why property managers shouldn’t get complacent.

In Chan v OCN [2025] VCAT 472, the Tribunal dismissed a possession application brought under section 91ZK of the Residential Tenancies Act — despite shouting, swearing, and a baseball bat. Why?