Section 91ZK - Threat and Intimidation Notices: Chan v OCN [2025] VCAT 472

Written By Andrew Nguyen

Decision Date: 26 May 2025
Application: Possession resulting from a Notice to Vacate - Section 91ZK – Serious Threats or Intimidation
Outcome: Possession application struck out

Full Case: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2025/472.html

In a recent decision that underscores just how high the bar is for issuing Notices to Vacate under section 91ZK of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (VIC), VCAT has dismissed an application for possession based on allegations of serious threats and intimidation.

📌 The Background

The case involved a rented property in Mount Waverley. The rental provider’s agent had issued a Notice to Vacate after a tense confrontation on 18 January 2025, during a scheduled sales inspection.

According to the agent, the renter (referred to as OCN) and her teenage son:

  • Refused entry to the property

  • Shouted at the agents

  • Made derogatory remarks

  • The son held a bat during the exchange

The rental provider argued this amounted to “serious threats or intimidation” under section 91ZK. They supported their claim with phone footage and agent statements.

🧾 VCAT’s Findings

While the Tribunal acknowledged that the incident was regrettable and inappropriate, Member Cohen found the threshold required by section 91ZK had not been met, and the possession application was struck out.

Key findings included:

  • The son never raised the bat or moved toward the agents.

  • The renter and her son remained behind the boundary of the property.

  • While there was yelling and some offensive language, no objectively serious threats were made.

  • VCAT reiterated that section 91ZK requires conduct that is objectively grave, frightening, and of a nature that would make a reasonable person fear for their safety.

📚 Legal Context: Section 91ZK

Section 91ZK allows a notice to be served if a renter or other occupant has “seriously threatened or intimidated” a rental provider, agent, or contractor. However, VCAT has repeatedly confirmed:

  • Not all abusive or rude behaviour meets this threshold.

  • Swearing, yelling, or refusal of entry, even if disruptive, is not in itself enough.

  • The conduct must be “serious” in nature and assessed objectively (not merely from the perspective of how the agent felt).

As noted in previous decisions, the intention behind section 91ZK is to prevent clear and substantial risk to safety, not to penalise renters for inappropriate or disrespectful conduct that falls short of that mark.

💬 Final Thoughts

The decision in Chan v OCN reminds us that section 91ZK is not a catch-all for difficult interactions. It is a targeted provision designed to protect against serious safety concerns, not uncomfortable or challenging tenancies.

Andrew Nguyen