# Issue with creating property owner in site contacts **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [June 18, 2026, 3:24am UTC](https://community.servicem8.com/t/issue-with-creating-property-owner-in-site-contacts/1127 "2026-06-18T03:24:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![michael\_knight](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/community.servicem8.com/michael_knight/32/54_2.png) [@michael\_knight](https://community.servicem8.com/u/michael_knight)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2026, 3:24am UTC](https://community.servicem8.com/t/issue-with-creating-property-owner-in-site-contacts/1127/1 "2026-06-18T03:24:44Z")
We integrate with ServiceM8 via OAuth (`manage_customer_contacts` scope) to auto-create **site** companies (Use Sites / `parent_company_uuid`) and add a **Property Owner** contact from work-order data when a new site is created. This has recently changed **Expected behaviour** When we `POST` to `companycontact.json` with: ```json { "company_uuid": "", "first": "Owner Test", "type": "Property Owner", "is_primary_contact": "0" } ``` …we expect the stored contact to have `type: "Property Owner"` and `is_primary_contact: "0"`. **Actual behaviour** On a **newly created site with no existing company contacts** , ServiceM8 stores the contact as: ```json { "type": "BILLING", "is_primary_contact": "1", "first": "Owner Test", "last": "" } ``` This happens even when we explicitly send `type: "Property Owner"` and `is_primary_contact: "0"`. The API returns `200` / `{ "errorCode": 0, "message": "OK" }`, but the created record is coerced to primary **BILLING**. **Reproduction (confirmed 18 Jun 2026)** 1. Create a new site company: POST /api\_1.0/company.json ```json { "active": 1, "name": "Test Site Address", "address": "123 Test St", "parent_company_uuid": "" } POST Property Owner as the first contact on that site: POST /api_1.0/companycontact.json { "company_uuid": "", "first": "Owner Test 2", "type": "Property Owner", "is_primary_contact": "0" } ``` 1. GET contacts: GET /api\_1.0/companycontact.json?$filter=company\_uuid eq ‘\`): sent `type: "Property Owner"` only → stored as `BILLING` + `is_primary_contact: "1"`. **When it does work** If the site **already has other contacts** , a Property Owner POST with `is_primary_contact: "0"` is stored correctly as `type: "Property Owner"`. **What we ruled out on our side** - We are **not** sending `type: "BILLING"` for the owner — only `"Property Owner"`. - Our template does **not** map owner name into job billing contact fields (`billingContactFirstName` is empty). - Job contacts (`jobcontact.json`) are separate; on our test job only JOB + Property Manager were created — the owner does **not** appear on `jobcontact.json`. - The incorrect `BILLING` row appears on `companycontact.json` for the **site** `company_uuid`, timestamped at site-creation time (before job contacts). **Impact** Client look for **Property Owner** on site contacts in the ServiceM8 UI. The owner name appears under **BILLING** instead, so it looks like the Property Owner was never created. c the When the Client billing attention is set to “Property Owner, C/- Company Name” it causes it t So not have the company name **Questions for ServiceM8** 1. Is it **by design** that the first `companycontact` on a new site is always forced to `type: "BILLING"` and `is_primary_contact: "1"`, regardless of the `type` and `is_primary_contact` values in the POST body? And did logic change recently 2. What is the **supported API pattern** to create a **Property Owner** contact as the first (or only) contact on a newly created site company? 3. Should we use a different `type` value, a two-step create-then-update (`PUT`), or always seed another contact first? 4. Is this behaviour documented anywhere in the API reference for `companycontact.json`? **Environment** - API: `https://api.servicem8.com/api_1.0/` - Auth: OAuth 2.0 (integration app) with customer contact permissions - Use case: Sites add-on enabled, site companies under a parent agency/head-office company Happy to provide additional request/response logs (with credentials redacted) if helpful. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Cody](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/community.servicem8.com/cody/32/52_2.png) [@Cody](https://community.servicem8.com/u/Cody)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 3:27am UTC](https://community.servicem8.com/t/issue-with-creating-property-owner-in-site-contacts/1127/2 "2026-06-21T03:27:19Z")
Hi Michael, From the documented Client Sites behaviour, a site shouldn’t have its own billing contact because billing contacts come from the head office, and adding a new site only captures site contact information because billing is handled through the head office. A first contact on a site being saved as `BILLING` doesn’t line up with that documented model, and we’re treating this pattern as something Support and engineering need to review rather than expected API behaviour. The `POST /companycontact.json` endpoint requires the `manage_customer_contacts` OAuth scope, returns the created contact UUID in the `x-record-uuid` response header, and documents `type` as a string with common values including `BILLING` and `JOB`. The same API reference documents `is_primary_contact` as `1` for primary and `0` for non-primary, with a company intended to have only one active primary contact. As an interim API pattern, create the contact, use the returned contact UUID, then immediately re-read the record and update it via `POST /companycontact/{uuid}.json` if the stored values were coerced. We can’t point to a documented API pattern that requires seeding another contact first, and the current `companycontact` reference doesn’t document a rule that the first site contact must be forced to `BILLING` or primary. Please email the redacted request/response payloads, timestamps, affected company/contact UUIDs, and app ID to [support@servicem8.com](mailto:support@servicem8.com) so we can investigate this against the API logs. Thanks, Cody