QCAT update - Compensation claims

In this article, we consider a recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal regarding compensation claims under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRA Act).

Healy v McNamara [2025] QCAT 394

Mr Healy (the Applicant) filed an application in the Tribunal on 18 February 2025, claiming the rental bond for the property as well as additional compensation from the tenant, Ms McNamara (the Respondent).

While the Applicant’s claim for compensation included claims for water consumption, gas consumption, cleaning and swimming pool expenses, it is the claims to replace a damaged vanity in the ensuite ($3,595) and damaged carpet in a bedroom at the property ($1,493) that are the focus of this article.

The Respondent disputed the claims, maintaining that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that she had damaged the vanity or that the carpet was damaged during her tenancy.

The Tribunal considered the legislative framework for compensation claims under the RTRA Act, referring to a tenant’s obligations under section 188(4) of the RTRA Act to leave the premises and inclusions, as far as possible, in the same condition they were in at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted.

The Tribunal also noted the timeframe for claims for compensation under section 419 of the RTRA Act,[1] and was satisfied that the Applicant had commenced his claim in time.

The Tribunal then turned to a lessor’s duty to mitigate loss in accordance with section 362 of the RTRA Act, before providing a useful reminder of what the Tribunal will consider when determining a claim for compensation. The Tribunal stated that:

 “Compensation is intended to put the complainant back, so far as money can do it, into the same position as if the damage had not occurred.” [2]

and

“…diminution of value is immediate when the damage occurs, so it is not a condition precedent to the claim that a repair has been done incurring expense.” [3]

The Tribunal added that:

“Betterment is when an award would place a lessor in a better position than if the breach had not occurred in the first place. This might arise for example, where a lessor replaced an old heavily soiled and stained carpet and claimed the whole cost of this from the tenant responsible for a stain. It may be true in such a case that the lessor would not have replaced the carpet if it were not for the new stain, and so on the face of it the cost of the new carpet is the lessor’s loss. But in such a case, it would be fair that the lessor give credit for the betterment.” [4]

In relation to carpet replacement, the Tribunal referred to the decision of Fankhauser v Mission Beach Property Management,[5] which considered a claim for $2,500 for the cost to replace carpet damaged by the tenant. In that decision, the Tribunal pointed out that since the carpet was eight years old and probably had a lifespan of 10 years, compensation was only awarded for the two years left of its lifespan.

The Tribunal then applied the above considerations when considering the claim for compensation to replace the ensuite vanity and carpet.

Ensuite vanity

The Applicant submitted that the entry condition report described the vanity as clean and undamaged. The Applicant maintains that he identified an odour in the vanity shortly before the Respondent vacated the property. Despite further cleaning and leaving the vanity to air for approximately five weeks, the Applicant’s property manager gave evidence that the odour was embedded in the vanity.

The Respondent submitted that she did not cause the odour and alleged that the property manager was not qualified to comment on whether there was an odour in the vanity. The Tribunal rejected this argument and maintained that any person can give evidence “…in their lived experience, as to the likely source or cause of the odour.” [6]

The Tribunal held that there was an odour, and the Respondent had breached her obligation under section 188(4) of the RTRA Act.

While the Tribunal also held that the Applicant had attempted cleaning the vanity in order to mitigate loss, it stated that there was no evidence from the Applicant as to why the entire vanity needed to be replaced. In this regard, the Applicant had submitted a quote to replace the vanity but no report or opinion as to why the vanity needed to be replaced because of the odour.

The Tribunal accepted that work is required to the vanity, “…but applying principles of betterment and an obligation to mitigate by reusing the aspects of the existing vanity, if possible (there is no evidence that they cannot be used), the claim cannot be allowed in full on the evidence before the Tribunal.” [7] The Applicant’s claim for $3,595 was reduced to 20%, being $719.

Carpet

The Applicant submitted that the carpets were newly installed in 2018, so where approximately six years old when the Respondent’s tenancy ended.

Again, the entry condition report described the carpet in bedroom three as clean and undamaged. The Applicant maintains that he identified an odour of carpet shampoo before the Respondent vacated the property, with the cleaning product smell subsiding after a few days to reveal the “unpleasant odour of cat urine”. [8]

The Applicant again submitted a quote to replace the carpet and underlay in the bedroom, but did not submit any evidence of the condition of the carpet and whether it required replacement due to the odour.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not established that the carpet needed to be replaced. The Tribunal added that the Applicant, “has not established that he met his obligation to mitigate under s362 by failing to attempt further cleaning of the carpet in bedroom three…”.[9]

While the Tribunal determined that the carpet was clearly damaged, it only awarded the Applicant $400 towards deep cleaning or replacement if it cannot be cleaned.

Conclusion

This decision will no doubt assist property managers when seeking instructions from their lessor clients regarding claims for compensation in the Tribunal. The decision also provides a useful reminder to property managers to ensure they have all necessary evidence prior to proceeding with any claims for compensation on behalf of their lessor clients, knowing what the Tribunal will consider when determining a claim for compensation.

Whilst all parties involved in residential tenancy disputes before the Tribunal must represent themselves (some exceptions apply), they are, of course, always able to seek legal advice regarding all aspects of a dispute. If property managers have any concerns about a residential tenancy dispute, it is strongly recommended that they seek legal advice.

Read another article about property management: Rent roll sale gone awry - Decision appealed.

Or browse our articles.