Tenant’s appeal refused: $2,840 taken from the bond for cleaning, lost rent and a driveway stain (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

A tenant and two co-tenants signed a lease with a private lessor dated 29 November 2022 for a fixed term ending 24 January 2024. The tenant paid the whole rental bond of $3,120. The agent named in the lease was a business then trading as Rental Results, which the Appeal Tribunal identified as Longview Queensland Pty Ltd. Under clause 42 of the lease the agent could stand in the lessor's place in a tribunal application, which is why the agent brought the original case.

After the tenancy ended the parties went to conciliation with the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA), which did not resolve the dispute. The RTA's notice of 12 March 2024 told the agent it could apply to QCAT, and that it had to tell the RTA the QCAT file number on or before 19 March 2024, or the bond would be paid out according to the first refund form processed. There was evidence of a failed attempt to file on 19 March 2024, and the application was in fact filed on 20 March 2024, one day late. No extension of time was applied for. For reasons the Appeal Tribunal described as unknown, the RTA did not pay the bond out in the meantime.

The claim was that the tenants had breached section 188(4) of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRA Act), which requires a tenant to leave the premises in much the same condition as at the start of the tenancy. The tribunal member at first instance refused the tenant's request to dismiss the application for lateness, heard the claim over two days, and found that the premises had not been left clean, measured against the entry condition report and the cleaning register. Keys were first handed back on 24 January 2024, but further cleaning was needed and the keys were not finally returned until 13 February 2024. The property was not re-let until March 2024.

The member accepted the tenants had made significant efforts to comply, and cut the lost rent period down for delays by the agent, including a five-day delay in sending the exit condition report, a six-day wait for the keys, and a further reduction for the duty to limit the loss. That left 12 days of lost rent at $900 a week (the rent actually achieved, rather than the $950 advertised), being $1,542. A paint chip repair of $298 was admitted. An oil stain on the shared driveway needed resurfacing; the claim for that was discounted to $1,000 to allow for improved amenity and pre-existing cracks.

What each side wanted

The agent originally claimed compensation for breach of the lease under section 419 of the RTRA Act for lost rent and repair costs, then agreed at the first hearing to limit the claim to the amount of the bond so the co-tenants did not have to be joined. The tenant asked for the application to be struck out under section 48 of the QCAT Act because it was filed outside the seven-day window and the supporting documents came months later, and she filed a counter-application for $760 in water bills she said were wrongly invoiced, which her representative later withdrew to avoid an adjournment. On appeal the tenant argued five grounds: that the tribunal failed to consider whether the breach actually caused the lost rent; that ending the liability period on 13 February 2024 was arbitrary; that the tribunal applied the wrong section (section 136D instead of section 420) because the late filing meant section 136D was not available; that the approach to lost rent raised a question of general importance; and that she was denied natural justice when her counter-application was not decided.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal refused leave to appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal or appeal. Every ground failed.

The orders made in the original decision therefore stood: the RTA was to pay $2,840 to the lessor and $280 to the tenant out of the $3,120 bond. The $2,840 was made up of $1,542 for 12 days of lost rent, $298 for a paint chip repair, and $1,000 towards resurfacing the driveway. The agent had abandoned a further $280 claim at the hearing.

The Appeal Tribunal also corrected the record to name Longview Queensland Pty Ltd, the company that had carried on the business named as agent in the lease, as the respondent.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Leave to appeal is needed for a minor civil dispute decision under section 142(3)(a)(i) of the QCAT Act. To get leave, an appellant must show a reasonably arguable case and that they would suffer a substantial injustice without it, or that the appeal raises a question of general importance that the public would benefit from having decided.

On causation, the Appeal Tribunal held that the RTRA Act sets up its own compensation scheme rather than copying the common law of contract, where proving that a breach caused the loss is central. Compensation under the Act is a discretionary remedy, and orders must be fair and equitable. A discretion is only overturned if the decision maker applies a wrong principle, takes irrelevant matters into account, mistakes the facts, ignores a material consideration, or reaches a result that is unreasonable or plainly unjust. Here the member relied on relevant things: the breach of section 188(4), the cleaning that had to happen before anyone could move in, and the fact the keys were not back until 13 February 2024. Whatever the lessor's asking rent was, no one could take the property until it was clean and the keys were handed over, and the delay after that point was not blamed on the tenant. The 13 February end date was not arbitrary for the same reason, and the period had already been heavily discounted to 12 days.

On the wrong section, the Appeal Tribunal agreed with the tenant in part. The seven-day time limit in section 136B is mandatory if a person wants to stop the RTA paying the bond out on the first refund form it processes, so filing late meant section 136D, which lets the tribunal make orders about payment of the bond, should not have been the basis of the award. Section 420 was the right provision. But an error of law only matters on appeal if it could have changed the result, and the Appeal Tribunal found the outcome would have been the same either way, because both sections involve the same broad discretion. The only practical difference is that a bond claim under section 136D is capped at the bond, while section 420 is not. Where a bond is still held by the RTA at the time of hearing, an order about it can still be made.

On the counter-application, the record showed the tenant's own representative agreed to withdraw it to avoid an adjournment caused by joining the co-tenants, and no adjournment was sought. That was a choice, not a refusal to hear her, so there was no denial of natural justice. The Appeal Tribunal also noted the lessor's agreement to cap and later cut its claim worked in the tenant's favour.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position at the end of a Queensland tenancy, this decision shows how section 188(4) of the RTRA Act is applied in practice. The obligation is to leave the property in much the same condition as it was in at the start, and a tribunal can award compensation for the consequences of not doing so, including rent lost while the cleaning is finished and the keys are still with the tenant. The decision also shows that the tribunal is not applying the contract law idea that the landlord must prove the breach caused each dollar of the loss. It is exercising a discretion, weighing the evidence and making an order it considers fair and equitable, which can include cutting the claim for delays by the agent and for the landlord's duty to limit the loss.

It also shows how tight the appeal path is. For a minor civil dispute you need leave to appeal first, which means showing a reasonably arguable case and a substantial injustice. Even where an appeal tribunal agrees that a mistake of law was made, as it did here about which section applied, the appeal can still fail if the same result would have been reached anyway. And agreeing at a hearing to withdraw part of your own claim is treated as your decision, not something done to you.

The practical step most people take first in a bond dispute is a written bond claim letter to the landlord or agent that sets out, item by item, what is in dispute and what they say the bond should cover, before conciliation through the Residential Tenancies Authority and, if that does not work, a tribunal application.

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

Source: Beevis v Longview Queensland Pty Ltd [2026] QCATA 149 (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.