- Banksia Grove agent and agency penalised for misconduct to property owner
- Paid himself bond money for cleaning, neglected inspections, ignored instructions
- Banned for two years, reprimanded and ordered to pay $10,000 in penalties
A Banksia Grove real estate agent and his agency have been penalised by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for serious misconduct that included the unlawful handling of a tenancy bond, the misuse of trust funds and consistent failure to act in the best interests of their landlord client.
On 19 May 2025, Phillip Andrew Shanks and his agency Sanz Property Solutions Pty Ltd were banned from holding a real estate licence for two years, fined $4,000, ordered to pay $6,000 in costs and reprimanded. The penalties were primarily for breaching a key trust account provision, not exercising due care and skill, failing to follow instructions and the late lodgement of a tenancy bond, under the governing legislation and Code for real estate agents.
Over the course of a full contested hearing in July 2024, the SAT heard that despite holding a valid licence, Mr Shanks demonstrated a continued “fundamental misunderstanding” of trust account procedures and his professional obligations during his management of an Edgewater property between November 2016 and March 2022.
Evidence accepted during the hearing before the SAT revolved around a $2,140 tenancy bond which was released back to the agency’s trust account in March 2022 following the tenant’s departure. Mr Shanks then debited the full amount to his personal bank account.
During the SAT hearing, Mr Shanks openly admitted to unlawfully transferring the bond into his personal account, claiming the outgoing tenant had directed it to be used for cleaning costs to pass final inspection. He informed the Tribunal that the transfer was for “convenience”, enabling him to access cash, including payments to himself for cleaning. No receipts were provided for any of the alleged expenses. The only documentation he was able to produce was a self-issued invoice from his agency to the landlord for cleaning that matched the exact total bond amount of $2,140. His submission to the SAT that the invoice he made up was proof in and of itself, while also admitting he could not account for over $900, was rejected.
The Tribunal accepted that although Mr Shanks used some of the bond for cleaning costs for the final inspection, the landlord still had to spend over $8,000 of her own money – plus additional costs covered by insurance – to restore the property to a habitable condition.
The SAT also found that the agency had failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Administrator within 14 days of receiving it, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, resulting in an additional penalty.
A common feature to all the mismanagement by Mr Shanks was his “fundamental misunderstanding” of his client relationship, as the Tribunal found that he held an erroneous belief that his client was the tenant rather than the property owner – a position he held throughout the tenancy and maintained during the hearing.
In addition, over the course of the management period, Mr Shanks consistently failed to meet routine obligations to the landlord, including:
- Frequently failing to respond to instructions within a reasonable time, often not responding at all;
- Failing to keep or provide any inspection reports, making it impossible to compare the property’s condition from the start to the end of the tenancy, or identify any issues during the term;
- Neglecting to carry out any inspections during the final year, later dismissing serious issues as ‘fair wear and tear’ at a final inspection he arranged – and claimed to have performed – without the landlord present, despite her explicit request to attend.
- Failing to serve a notice to vacate in a timely manner, causing significant disruptions to the landlord’s plan to move into the property;
- Failing to organise pest control;
- Failing to inform the owner of maintenance and repair requests by the tenants;
- Acting under a fundamental misapprehension that the tenant – not the landlord – was his client, leading him to follow the tenants’ instructions regarding bond use, despite the landlord clearly stating she would manage cleaning and gardening quotes. He claimed he could disregard this instruction as it was the “tenants’ money.”
When the landlord tried to lodge an insurance claim for property damage, Mr Shanks not only refused to follow instructions to provide the basic required documents – including inspection reports – but also maintained during the Hearing that his refusal was justified, clinging to his baseless accusation that the landlord was involved in committing insurance fraud. The Tribunal found this claim was likely fabricated to cover up the fact that, due to his mismanagement, no documentation existed.
In finding that Mr Shanks had very limited insight into his misconduct due to his continued belief that none of his unlawful actions were improper, the Tribunal described his behaviour as “indicative of incompetence”. In personally observing him over two days before the Tribunal, they commented that his demeanour was “rude, aggressive and belligerent” as he “continuously spoke over the top of staff and frequently interrupted in an argumentative manner” and “directed inappropriate and unwarranted comments to [all SAT staff and Commissioner’s legal counsel].”
Commissioner for Consumer Protection Trish Blake said this conduct fell far short of the professional standards expected of licensed practitioners in Western Australia.
“Real estate agents are in a position of trust – to the community and to their clients who hand them the keys to their most valuable assets,” Ms Blake said.
“Mr Shanks didn’t just break that trust, he shattered it on multiple fronts. His blatant, unlawful diversion of trust funds exposed a shocking ignorance of trust account regulations and a complete dereliction of duty to his landlord. The fact he still believes that the tenant was his primary client is bewildering.
“This gross incompetence, combined with his consistent failure to act with basic care and diligence for his client, is a grave betrayal that erodes public confidence in the entire real estate industry.”
Further details on the SAT decision is available on the Department of Justice’s website.
For more information on the obligations of real estate agents, visit the Consumer Protection website or enquiries can be made by email consumer@lgirs.wa.gov.au or by calling 1300 30 40 54.
Media Contact: cpmedia@lgirs.wa.gov.au