section 60 ACL: services rendered with due care and skill

You paid a professional to do a job. A mechanic, a builder, a hairdresser, a plumber, a personal trainer. The work is done — or at least, they say it is — but the result is shoddy, incomplete, or has caused damage it shouldn't have. Now the business is telling you that you got what you paid for, or that the problem is yours to fix. In Australia, the law says otherwise. Section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) imposes a guarantee that every service supplied to a consumer must be performed with due care and skill. That guarantee is automatic, statutory, and cannot be signed away.

Quick answer

Whether section 60 gives you a remedy — and what kind — depends on a few key variables: whether you acquired the services as a consumer within the meaning of the ACL, whether the service was performed without due care and skill, and whether the resulting failure is major or non-major. Where the ACL applies and a failure is established, you generally have rights to a remedy against the supplier. For a non-major failure, the supplier is typically entitled to fix the problem first, though if they fail to do so within a reasonable time, further options may open up. For a major failure — where a reasonable consumer, fully aware of the nature and extent of the failure, would not have acquired the service, or where the service cannot be fixed within a reasonable time — you may be entitled to cancel the contract and recover money paid for the unsupplied or unconsumed portion of the services, or keep the contract and seek compensation or a reduction in price. The specific outcome in any individual case depends on the facts.

What the law actually says

Section 60 of the ACL is one of the consumer guarantees that apply automatically to services. It reads, in substance, that if a person supplies services to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.

"Due care and skill" is not defined in the ACL, but its meaning is well established. It means the standard of a reasonably competent person in that trade or profession. A plumber must work to the standard of a reasonably competent plumber. A hairdresser must work to the standard of a reasonably competent hairdresser. The test is objective — it is not enough for the supplier to say they tried their best. If the outcome falls below what a competent professional in that field would have produced, the guarantee can be breached.

Section 60 sits alongside two other services guarantees that often arise in the same dispute:

• Section 61 — Fitness for a particular purpose. If you made known to the supplier the specific result you needed, and it was reasonable for you to rely on their skill and judgment in achieving it, the service must be reasonably fit for that purpose. The reliance element matters: you need to have communicated the purpose, and the circumstances must have made it reasonable to rely on the supplier's expertise.
• Section 62 — Reasonable time. If no time was agreed, the service must be completed within a reasonable time.

These three guarantees often overlap. A builder who takes twice as long as any competent builder would, and produces work that leaks, may be in breach of all three.

What counts as a major failure for services?

The remedies available to you depend on whether the failure is major or non-major. For services, a major failure is one where:

• a reasonable consumer, fully aware of the nature and extent of the failure, would not have acquired the service;
• the service is so substantially unfit for its purpose that it cannot be made fit within a reasonable time;
• the service does not achieve the specific result you made known to the supplier, and cannot be made to do so within a reasonable time; or
• the service creates an unsafe situation.

This is distinct from the goods-focused major failure test in section 260 of the ACL. For services, the question is whether the failure is serious enough that a reasonable consumer would not have engaged the supplier at all had they known — or whether it simply cannot be fixed in a reasonable time.

Remedies under sections 267 and 268

Where a services guarantee is breached, section 267 gives the consumer the right to require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time. If the supplier refuses, or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the consumer may:

• have the failure remedied elsewhere and recover reasonable costs from the supplier; or
• cancel the contract for the service and recover money paid for the unsupplied or unconsumed portion, if the failure is major.

For a major failure, section 268 gives the consumer the choice: cancel the contract and recover money paid for the unsupplied or unconsumed portion of the services, or keep the contract and seek compensation for the difference in value between what was supplied and what was promised. Compensation for consequential loss may also be available under section 267(4) where the loss was reasonably foreseeable and not too remote.

Section 64 — disclaimers are void

A clause in a contract that purports to exclude or limit the section 60 guarantee is void and ineffective under section 64 of the ACL. It does not matter whether the clause is in fine print, a terms-and-conditions page, or a document you signed. The guarantee cannot be contracted away. For more on how disclaimers interact with consumer guarantees, see our article on section 64 and ACL disclaimers.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

When section 60 applies

The ACL's consumer guarantees for services apply where you acquired the services as a consumer within the meaning of the ACL. That definition covers services acquired for personal, domestic or household use, as well as services costing up to $100,000 — provided the services are not acquired for re-supply or for use in a manufacturing or repair process. So a homeowner hiring a plumber, a person booking a haircut, or a small business owner engaging an IT consultant for their own office systems can all potentially rely on section 60.

The supplier must be acting in trade or commerce. The ACL applies to businesses — including sole traders such as individual mechanics, personal trainers, and freelance tradespeople — where they are supplying services in the course of a business. The relevant question is whether the person is acting in trade or commerce, not whether they are incorporated or employ staff.

When it doesn't apply (or is harder to use)

• Private arrangements. If a friend or neighbour fixes your roof as a favour, with no commercial relationship, the ACL does not apply. But most sole traders operating commercially will qualify as businesses even if they are individuals.
• Overseas suppliers. Whether the ACL applies to an overseas supplier depends on the circumstances — it can still apply where the supplier supplied directly to an Australian consumer — but enforcement across borders may be more difficult in practice.
• Professional services with a separate regulatory regime. Legal and medical services are not excluded from the ACL, but their professional standards are also governed by separate regulatory frameworks. Section 60 still applies, but the standard of "due care and skill" will be assessed against the relevant professional standard.
• The failure was caused by you. If the damage or poor outcome resulted from your own instructions, your interference with the work, or conditions outside the supplier's control that you created, the section 60 guarantee may not be breached.

What to do today

If you believe a service was not performed with due care and skill, here is a practical sequence that tends to produce results:

1. Document everything before it's repaired or altered. Photographs, video, written notes with dates. If a tradesperson's work has caused damage, document the damage in detail before anyone touches it. This evidence is the foundation of any claim.

2. Get an independent assessment if you can. A written quote or report from another qualified tradesperson identifying what was done incorrectly and what it will cost to fix carries significant weight — both in a demand letter and before a tribunal.

3. Write to the supplier in writing. Email is fine. Set out the date of the service, what was done, what the problem is, and why you say it falls below the standard of due care and skill. Reference section 60 of the ACL. State what you want: rectification within a specific timeframe, a reduction in the price, or a refund for the unconsumed portion if the failure is major.

4. Give a reasonable deadline. Fourteen to twenty-one days is usually appropriate for a response, depending on the complexity of the work. State clearly what you will do if they do not respond — escalate to Fair Trading or file a tribunal claim.

5. Do not pay the outstanding invoice under protest without noting the dispute. If you pay in full without recording that you dispute the quality, it can be harder to argue later. If you must pay to avoid a debt dispute, pay under written protest and note that payment does not constitute acceptance of the quality of the work.

If drafting the letter feels daunting, you can generate a free demand letter in under two minutes using fairgo. The tool identifies the relevant ACL sections for your situation and produces a letter you send under your own name.

For more on what happens when a service goes wrong more broadly, see our guide on services that go wrong under the ACL.

What if the business refuses

If the supplier ignores your letter, disputes liability, or refuses to remedy the problem, you have several escalation paths:

Your state or territory Fair Trading body

Each state and territory operates a free conciliation service. A Fair Trading officer will contact the business on your behalf and attempt to broker a resolution. It is worth noting that the Fair Trading body does not itself make binding orders in ordinary consumer disputes and cannot compel the business to participate — but many businesses respond to contact from a government body when they ignored a consumer's letter. Full contact details for every state and territory are at /agencies.

State consumer tribunals and courts

If conciliation does not resolve the dispute, a binding decision may be available through a tribunal or court. The correct forum depends on the nature of the dispute and the amount claimed. Tribunals such as NCAT (NSW), VCAT (Victoria), QCAT (Queensland), SACAT (South Australia), and their equivalents in other states can often hear ACL disputes — typically under the state-applied version of the Australian Consumer Law or related state consumer legislation — though their jurisdiction depends on what the enabling legislation confers, and for many ordinary ACL disputes the Magistrates Court or equivalent may be the correct binding forum instead. You can usually use these forums without a lawyer in many cases, though you may bring one. For a comparison of tribunal options, see our guide on which tribunal handles your dispute.

The correct forum, and its current claim thresholds, should be confirmed on the official site for your state before you file. See our article on demand letter vs tribunal — which path to take for help thinking through the decision.

Consequential loss

One aspect of section 60 claims that is often overlooked: if the poor workmanship caused you further loss — a burst pipe that damaged your flooring, a mechanic's error that caused a breakdown on a highway, a builder's defective waterproofing that led to mould — you may be able to claim compensation for that consequential loss, not just the cost of the original service. Document all downstream losses carefully.

For specific industry examples, see our articles on what to do if a mechanic overcharged or did poor work and what to do if a builder didn't finish or did defective work.

Common mistakes

Assuming the guarantee only covers the cost of the service

Section 60 claims can extend to consequential loss caused by the poor workmanship, not just a refund of the service fee. If the bad work caused damage, document and claim for it.

Accepting a verbal promise to fix it without a written record

If the supplier agrees to come back and rectify the work, get that agreement in writing — even a text message or email confirmation. Verbal promises are difficult to enforce, and if the rectification is also poor, you want a clear record of what was agreed.

Confusing section 60 with a warranty

The section 60 guarantee is a statutory right against the supplier, not a manufacturer's warranty. It arises automatically from the supply of the service. A supplier cannot point to the absence of a written warranty as a reason the guarantee does not apply.

Waiting too long

The ACL does not set a single fixed warranty-style expiry for consumer guarantee claims on services. But timing matters. The longer you wait to raise a defect, the easier it becomes for the supplier to argue the problem arose from something other than their workmanship — ordinary wear, your own use, or a subsequent event. Raise the problem in writing as soon as you identify it, and keep a dated record of when you first noticed it.

Paying the full invoice before raising the dispute

Once you have paid in full without noting a dispute, the supplier may argue you accepted the work. If you have concerns about quality, raise them before final payment where possible — or at minimum, note in writing at the time of payment that you are paying under protest pending resolution of the quality dispute.

Going straight to the ACCC

The ACCC investigates systemic conduct and industry-wide issues. It does not resolve individual consumer disputes. For your specific dispute, Fair Trading and your state tribunal or Magistrates Court are the right forums.

Related reading

• Services that go wrong under the ACL — your rights explained
• Mechanic overcharged or did poor work? What the ACL says
• Builder didn't finish or did defective work — your options

This article is general information about Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. The ACL is complex and your situation may have details that change the analysis. For advice on your specific case, see your state's Fair Trading body — full list at /agencies.