Spend enough time reading social media and you’d be forgiven for thinking every tenancy ends with an argument over the bond. I’ve seen recounts from tenants about agents trying to claim for a fingerprint left behind on a tap. I’ve had owners complain about properties being left absolutely trashed when, in reality, they’re upset over a few unwiped skirting boards. Somewhere in the middle sits the property manager, apparently making everybody’s life difficult.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve worked in this industry long enough to know poor practices exist. Like every profession, property management has its share of people who shouldn’t be doing the job.
For the most part, the reality is considerably less dramatic. The overwhelming majority of tenancies end exactly as they’re supposed to. The tenant provides notice, moves out, returns the keys, the property is inspected, perhaps there’s a couple of minor items to attend to, and the bond is refunded in full. When disputes do arise, they’re rarely because somebody has deliberately set out to create one. More often than not, they’re caused by differing expectations, misunderstandings about the legislation, or simply not appreciating how the process works. Understanding that process goes a long way towards avoiding problems before they ever arise.
Everything Should Start With Evidence
One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding bond disputes is that they’re somehow decided by whoever yells the loudest. Obviously, that’s not the case (and there shouldn’t be anyone yelling at all!). Every claim against a rental bond ultimately needs to be capable of being substantiated. That’s why the Entry Condition Report, Exit Condition Report, photographs, invoices and supporting evidence are so important.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard tenants tell me the property had to be completely recleaned before they moved in, so they shouldn’t be expected to leave it sparkling clean, despite the documentation clearly stating otherwise. Equally, I’ve had owners insist the property was absolutely perfect before the tenancy, despite the Entry Condition Report and photographs clearly documenting existing defects.
Do both situations occur? Absolutely. But in my experience, they’re nowhere near as common as people think. More often than not, once the Entry Condition Report, photographs and supporting evidence are reviewed objectively, it becomes fairly clear where responsibility sits.
The Vacate Inspection Is Just One of Many Steps
Once the keys are returned, the property manager completes the vacate inspection. Contrary to popular belief, this isn’t a hunt for things to claim against the bond. There’s very little benefit in making frivolous claims. If a tenant disputes them, they ultimately need to be supported by evidence and, where costs are involved, quotations and invoices.
The inspection is simply a comparison. Has the property been returned in substantially the same condition it was provided, allowing for fair wear and tear? That question sounds simple, but it’s where many disagreements begin.
The vacate inspection is often the first time the property has been completely empty in years. Furniture gets moved, rugs come up, cupboards are emptied and years of day-to-day living disappear. Things that simply weren’t visible during the tenancy suddenly are. It’s not because the property manager is looking harder, more that they’re seeing the property properly for the first time since the tenancy began.
But, It’s Fair Wear and Tear
Fair wear and tear. This is probably the phrase I hear quoted more than any other. Properties naturally deteriorate over time. Paint fades, carpet fibres flatten, timber floors develop surface wear, door handles loosen and silicone deteriorates. It is an unavoidable part of owning an investment property, and it’s something every landlord should expect when leasing their home.
The difficulty is that fair wear and tear isn’t a checklist, nor is there a simple rule that applies to every situation. Most disputes arise in the grey area between what has naturally occurred over time and what could reasonably have been avoided. A deep gouge through plasterboard isn’t wear and tear. Neither is a hole through a door, a broken window or heavy furniture scratches through timber flooring. At the same time, expecting a property to be returned in exactly the same condition after five or ten years of occupation is equally unrealistic.
One conversation I’ll never forget involved a tenant explaining that an iron burn in the carpet should simply be regarded as fair wear and tear because the carpet had exceeded its depreciable life. Unfortunately, depreciation and tenancy law are two entirely different concepts. The tax treatment of an asset has no bearing on whether avoidable damage has occurred. Likewise, I’ve had owners expect a property to be completely repainted after a lengthy tenancy despite there being nothing more than ordinary ageing throughout the home. Neither position is supported by the legislation.
This is where documentation becomes so very, very important. Few disagreements arise over the obvious examples. Everyone can generally agree that a hole knocked into a door or a missing garage remote isn’t fair wear and tear. The discussions tend to revolve around the more subjective issues. Is that mark on the wall consistent with everyday living, or has furniture repeatedly been dragged against it? Has the timber flooring naturally worn over time, or has it been deeply scratched by moving appliances? Is the paint simply showing its age, or has one section of wall been damaged beyond what would ordinarily be expected?
These aren’t questions that can be answered by opinion alone, and they’re certainly not answered by whoever argues the hardest. They’re answered by comparing the property’s condition at the commencement of the tenancy with its condition at the end, considering the age of the item, the nature of the defect and the evidence available. That’s ultimately why Entry Condition Reports, photographs and supporting documentation carry so much weight in the dispute process.
Things Don’t Always Go According To Plan
One thing I’ve learned over the years is that most end-of-tenancy disputes don’t begin with somebody deliberately doing the wrong thing. More often, they start because something goes wrong, plans change, and people understandably hope the outcome should change as well.
Just this month I dealt with a tenancy that demonstrates exactly that.
The tenant had decided not to renew their lease and secured another property. On the day they were due to return possession, they contacted our office to explain they hadn’t quite finished moving. The house itself was empty, but the garage was still full of belongings and their cleaner had cancelled at the last minute. Technically, the tenancy hadn’t ended. Rent remains payable until vacant possession is returned. In this instance, however, the owners were happy to be flexible and agreed to give them a couple of extra days without charging additional rent.
Two days later when the keys were returned, our property manager attended the vacate inspection expecting everything to be complete. It wasn’t.
The property hadn’t been cleaned. The tenant explained the replacement cleaners had been delayed again, so we gave them another opportunity to resolve it. When we returned the following day, the cleaners were at the property, but instead of cleaning they were sitting on the kitchen bench watching videos on their phones. The property has seriously been untouched and these “cleaners” had apparently taken payment upfront.
The tenant disputed the work with the cleaning company they’d engaged, which I completely understood and encouraged. Unfortunately, that dispute existed between the tenant and the cleaner. It didn’t alter the owner’s entitlement to receive the property back in the condition required under the tenancy agreement. At the owner’s direction, we provided one final opportunity for the tenant to resolve the issue before arranging our own cleaner.
That’s when the real dispute began. The tenant’s position was that they’d done everything they reasonably could. They’d organised cleaners, been let down, and believed they shouldn’t have to bear the cost of rectifying the situation. I understood the frustration. Most people would feel exactly the same. The difficulty is that tenancy obligations don’t change because the circumstances are unfortunate. The legislation doesn’t ask whether somebody tried to organise a cleaner, intended to remove the rubbish or meant to repair the damage. It asks whether the property was returned in the required condition.
How that outcome is achieved is entirely up to the tenant. They can clean the property themselves, engage a professional cleaner or ask family and friends to help. If they choose to engage a contractor who fails to perform the work, they may have a separate claim against that contractor, but it doesn’t transfer responsibility for the tenancy obligations to the owner.
The same principle applies whether you’re talking about cleaning, rubbish removal, repairing damage or returning the keys on time.
Why Immediate Bond Claims Can *Sometimes* Make Things Harder
Another misconception that’s become increasingly common is tenants lodging a claim for their bond immediately after handing back the keys. They’re absolutely entitled to do so, and where everyone agrees on the refund, it can be the quickest way to have the bond released. The difficulty arises where the property hasn’t yet been inspected, or there are legitimate issues that still need to be investigated.
By the time the keys are returned, the vacate inspection will typically not have taken place yet (there are specific prescribed timelines around this). If cleaning, damage or rubbish removal are identified, those costs can’t simply be guessed. Quotes may need to be obtained, the owner consulted, supporting evidence compiled and any proposed deductions authorised before a bond claim can be properly substantiated. Queensland’s tenancy laws require owners and property managers to provide evidence supporting any disputed bond deductions, so taking a little time to complete that process is often unavoidable.
Where everyone allows the inspection process to conclude first, many matters can be resolved by agreement without progressing into the RTA’s formal dispute process. In my experience, that’s usually quicker, less stressful and produces a better outcome for everyone involved than racing to be the first person to lodge a bond claim.
The Role of a Property Manager
One final point that’s worth addressing is the role of the property manager. Yes, we’re employed by the owner. We act on their instructions and represent their interests throughout the tenancy.
That doesn’t mean we can simply do whatever we’re asked (and I know some of my industry peers probably need to hear this). Every decision still has to sit within the framework of Queensland’s tenancy legislation. If an owner asks us to pursue a claim that isn’t supported by the legislation or the available evidence, our responsibility is to explain why we can’t. Equally, if a tenant disputes something that is clearly their responsibility, it’s our role to explain why. Our licence depends on getting those decisions right.
After nearly two decades in property management, one thing has become abundantly clear. Most people become defensive when they’re being held accountable. That’s true of tenants and it’s equally true of owners. And look, most disputes aren’t caused by dishonest people. They’re caused by people viewing the same situation through completely different lenses. The tenant sees the effort they put into leaving the property. The owner sees the condition they’re receiving it in. When everyone understands the legislation, the evidence is complete and people remain reasonable, most bond disputes are resolved long before they ever reach QCAT.
The overwhelming majority of tenancies don’t end in dispute. They end with a reconciled inspection, a refunded bond and everybody moving on. The disputes people hear about are the exception, not the rule. In my experience, the best way to avoid them isn’t by knowing how to argue your case. It’s by understanding the process before the keys are ever handed back and keeping clear records.