Tenant ordered to pay $3,386.85 rent arrears after rent-increase ruling overturned on appeal (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenancy began in about March 2019. A general tenancy agreement was signed by the tenant on 20 November 2022 for a periodic term starting 21 November 2022, at rent of $350.00 per week. The landlord did not counter-sign the agreement, but the Appeal Tribunal noted both parties acted as though its terms were agreed.

On 1 December 2023 the landlord gave notice increasing the rent to $450.00 per week from 29 January 2024. The tenant disputed the increase by email on 11 December 2023, saying two months' notice had not been given and the property had not been maintained, and disputed it again on 23 February 2024 on the notice point. By email of 14 March 2024 the landlord agreed to delay the increase to 1 February 2024, and his rental ledger showed the higher rent running from 2 February 2024. The tenant did not apply to the tribunal to challenge the increase.

In earlier proceedings the tribunal terminated the tenancy from midnight on 24 August 2024. The tenant lodged a bond claim with the Residential Tenancies Authority on 29 August 2024, the landlord disputed it, and conciliation on 9 September 2024 did not resolve it. Possession was returned to the landlord on 6 September 2024 when a warrant of possession was executed. The tenant appeared to have moved out earlier, but the keys were not returned until the landlord entered under the warrant.

At the first hearing, a Magistrate sitting as a tribunal member awarded the landlord $655.06 from the bond for re-keying the locks and ordered the balance of the bond, $799.94, to the tenant. A claim for water charges was dismissed as unsupported by evidence. The claim for rent arrears was dismissed because the member found the rent increase notice breached section 91(3) of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld): it did not give two months' notice and did not state the day rent was last increased.

What each side wanted

In the original application the landlord claimed $3,271.48 for rent arrears and compensation for the state the property was left in. On appeal he challenged only the rent part of the decision, arguing the member had used the wrong version of section 91: the requirement to state the day rent was last increased did not start until 6 June 2024, well after the December 2023 notice, so it could not make that notice invalid. His rent arrears figure on the appeal was $3,386.85 to 6 September 2024, and he gave up any claim above that. The tenant's objections were that the rent increase was invalid for want of two months' notice, and that rent should stop on 27 August 2024 when she said she moved out, not 6 September 2024.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. It set aside order 2 of the decision made on 26 February 2025 in matter Q8655-24 (Rockhampton) and substituted an order that the tenant pay the landlord $3,386.85 within twenty-one days of the date of the appeal decision.

Order 1 of the first decision, which directed the Residential Tenancies Authority to pay out the bond ($655.06 to the landlord for re-keying and $799.94 to the tenant), was left standing. The Appeal Tribunal said there was no point setting it aside because the Authority acts on orders promptly and the first decision had not been stayed.

On its own calculation the Appeal Tribunal worked the arrears out at $3,520.72: six days from 26 January to 1 February 2024 at $350.00 per week ($300.00), plus 218 days from 2 February to 6 September 2024 at $450.00 per week ($14,014.29), less a part payment of $422.15 and less $10,371.42 in rent paid. Because the landlord claimed the lower figure of $3,386.85, that lower amount was awarded in full.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Appeal Tribunal held that the member had applied the wrong version of the law. Section 91 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) has been amended more than once. The requirement that a rent increase notice state the day rent was last increased was not in force on 1 December 2023 when this notice was given, and the Act's transitional provisions (including section 550) meant a process started by a notice under the earlier law had to be finished under that earlier law. So the missing last-increase date could not invalidate the notice.

That error would not have mattered if the two months' notice finding was right on its own. But section 92 lets a tenant who believes an increase is excessive or not payable apply to the tribunal within 30 days of receiving the notice. The tenant here sent emails disputing the increase but never made that application. Following Chambers v Blackford & Anor [2023] QCATA 40, the Appeal Tribunal said the word "must" in that time limit means a late application fails. With no order under section 92, section 91(5) operated: the increased rent was payable from the day stated in the notice and the agreement was taken to be amended.

The Appeal Tribunal then applied section 97, under which rent accrues and is apportioned daily. Reading that with section 91(6)(a), an increase is unpayable only for the days on which section 91 was actually offended, which here would have been 30 and 31 January 2024 only. Any compensation claim by the tenant for a breach, under section 419, was limited to breaches in the six months before the dispute resolution request of 29 August 2024, that is from 1 March 2024. The landlord's email of 14 March 2024 moved the increase back to 1 February 2024, a full two months after the notice, so any breach in that window was cured and the tenant suffered no loss. The tenant's complaints about the increase therefore could not be considered at first instance, and dismissing the rent arrears claim caused the landlord a substantial injustice.

On the end date, the member had found as a fact that the tenant did move out but did not take care to return the keys. Possession therefore came back to the landlord on 6 September 2024 when the warrant was executed, and rent ran to that date. Because the error was one of mixed fact and law, section 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) required a rehearing, and the Appeal Tribunal substituted its own decision rather than sending the matter back.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows two things about how rent increase rules are applied in Queensland. The first is that the version of the Act in force when the notice was given is the version that counts. Tenancy law changes often, and a requirement added later does not reach back to a notice served before it started.

The second is that the Act sets a short window for a tenant to challenge an increase. Under section 92 the application to the tribunal has to be made within 30 days of receiving the notice, and emails objecting to the increase are not the same as making that application. Where no application is made in time, the decision shows the increase can take effect from the day stated in the notice, and the tenancy agreement is treated as changed. It also shows that rent is counted day by day, so a notice problem may only affect the particular days it touches rather than wiping out the whole increase, and that rent can keep running until keys are actually handed back.

In disputes about rent arrears, bond and the condition of a property, most people begin with a written, itemised claim or notice to the other side setting out each amount and what it is for, and then make an application to the tribunal if that does not resolve it. Keeping the ledgers, emails and dates in order matters, because the figures and the timing of each notice are what the tribunal works from.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a QCAT application. More decisions: QCAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: White v Pring [2026] QCATA 79 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.