Emmert v Rolfe & Anor [2025] QCAT 502

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld)

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act

• [1] The application relates to 5-9 Rita Court, Tanawha, 4556, Queensland. The tenancy commenced on 12 November 2024 and had an end date of 10 November 2025. The rent was $1,250 per week. The bond held by the RTA was $5,000.00
• [2] The first Notice to Remedy Breach was issued by the tenant on 16 February 2025. It required compliance within seven days. A Dispute Resolution Request was lodged on 24 February 2025.[2] The Notice of Unresolved Dispute ('NURD') was issued on 18 March 2025. A further NURD was issued in May 2025 to the Agent.[3]
• [3] The tenancy ended on 25 March 2025. An earlier decision was made by the tribunal on 24 March 2025.[4] An interim Application by the tenant was also dismissed. The lessor made several claims for compensation. The tenant lodged a claim for $25,000 as compensation for mould damage.
• [4] The tenant also requested that I make findings regarding breaches of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) and regulations. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to cite the decision; however, there is an authority to the effect that the tribunal's function is not to make findings to regulate the agent or breaches of the act or regulations, but in cases such as this, to assess a party's entitlement to compensation.[5] In part, this is what was sought in the amended application:

(a) Recognise the landlord's breaches of tenancy obligations, housing standards, and

(b) Privacy laws.

(c) Issue a non-monetary order under s 419 requiring the landlord to cease surveillance.

(d) Defamatory communication and interference with quiet enjoyment.

(e) Support any future application under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) by formally recording the landlord's conduct.[6]

• [5] There are a few claims made by the lessee. To their immense credit, at the commencement of the proceedings, the lessee accepted many of these, being:

(a) The water in the amount of $335.73.

(b) Water utility charges in the amount of $470.71.

(c) Poor chemicals in the amount of $115.50.

(d) Pest control costs in a sum of $320.

(e) Damaged towel rail $350.

(f) The rent in the sum of $3,928.57.

(g) Total: $5,520.51.

(a) A damaged tap $303.75.

(b) Plant replacement $7,500.

(c) Damaged post $2,300.

(d) Pressure cleaning $650.

(e) Professional gardening $760.

(f) Professional cleaning $600.

(g) Carpet repairs $600.

• [7] I would like to first establish a framework for my decision, based on the previous decisions of the tribunal. I will first focus on the issue of wear and tear.

• [8] Fair wear and tear is a concept at the core of many disputes between landlords and tenants in Queensland, particularly when a residential tenancy ends. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ('QCAT') often hears cases involving bond refunds, property damage, and maintenance, and the principle of "fair wear and tear" plays a key role in its decisions. Understanding how QCAT interprets and applies this concept is important for both landlords and tenants to achieve a fair and lawful outcome.

• [9] Fair wear and tear refers to the natural and gradual deterioration of a property or its fixtures resulting from ordinary, everyday use. It is distinguished from damage caused by abuse, misuse, or negligence.[7] The distinction can be generally broken down as follows:

(a) Fair wear and tear: Fading paint, worn carpets, minor scratches on surfaces, loosening of door handles, and general aging of fixtures and fittings.

(b) Damage: Broken windows, large stains or burns on carpets, holes in walls, missing fixtures, or any issue arising from neglect, careless or intentional acts.

(a) Worn carpets and curtains due to age and sunlight.

(b) Faded or chipped paint from regular use.

(c) Worn door handles, hinges, and locks.

(d) Slight marks or scuffs on the walls from furniture placement.

(e) General aging of fixtures and fittings.

• [11] Examples of damage (not fair wear and tear):

(a) Large holes or dents in walls.

(b) Broken windows or doors.

(c) Stains or burns on carpets beyond normal use.

(d) Missing fixtures or deliberate modification of property.

(e) Negligence leading to water damage, mould, or pest infestation.

• [12] Relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) ('the Act') include:

(a) Section 185: Outlines the lessor's obligation to ensure premises are in good repair.

(b) Section 188: Details the tenant's obligations to keep the premises clean and not intentionally or negligently damage the property.

(c) Section 188(4): Specifically provides that a tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear.

(d) Section 429: Provides that QCAT may make decisions relating to the payment of bond and compensation for loss or damage.

• [13] The General Tenancy Agreement (Form 18a) incorporates by default the standard terms prescribed by the Act. These require tenants to return the premises in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted.[8]

• [14] In practice, this means that the Tribunal will assess:

(a) The age and quality of the item in question at the start of the tenancy;

(b) The length of the tenancy;

(c) The number of occupants and pets (if any);

(d) Nature and extent of deterioration or damage;

(e) Evidence provided by both parties, including condition reports and photographs.

• [15] Although each case turns on its particular facts, common principles have emerged from Tribunal decisions:

(a) Natural Deterioration: The law recognises that all properties and their fittings will naturally deteriorate over time. For example, carpet may become threadbare after years of use, and paint may fade or chip.

(b) Not Responsible for "Betterment": Landlords cannot expect tenants to pay for replacing old items with new unless there has been actual damage beyond fair wear and tear. For instance, if a carpet is already 10 years old and at the end of its lifespan, tenants are not required to pay for a brand-new replacement because of minor staining.

(c) Tenant's Onus: While tenants must take reasonable care of the premises, they are not liable for deterioration resulting from ordinary use or the passage of time.[9]

(a) A damaged tap at $303.75:

(i) There are differing opinions about the tap. On the one hand, the tenant claims that the damage occurred through normal use, which took place towards the end of the tenancy. On the other side, a plumber's report states that only excessive force could have caused the damage, which is unlikely from regular use. Overall, I accept the report and conclude that the damage tap was broken due to excessive force, and the explanation provided by the tenant is unreasonable.

(b) Plant replacement at $7,500:

(i) I cannot find any fair or reasonable grounds to hold the tenant responsible for the plant replacement, which costs $7,500. No breach of the tenant's obligation can be established based on the evidence. Overall, it cannot be concluded that the tenant failed to meet their obligations under the tenancy concerning the gardens. In reaching this conclusion, a fair and reasonable amount of compensation for the reinstatement of the gardens would be the planting of immature plants and letting nature take its course.

(ii) A fair and reasonable price for this would be approximately $500, including GST.[10]

(c) Damaged post at $2,300:

(i) The condition of the posts was revealed by removing a plant that had been growing on the posts. The tenant explained that the plant was interfering with their regular use of the path next to the post; that it was a simple matter of removing the plant; and that it was not done maliciously, intentionally, or by accident.[11] When the plant was removed, the weathered and worn appearance of the post was revealed.

(ii) In my assessment, the condition of the post is entirely due to the presence of the plant. The plant could have died or required further maintenance, but the tenant chose to remove it. There is no provision that specifically prevented the tenant from doing this, and in fact, they had obligations to maintain aspects of the garden which, with other conditions, potentially permitted the removal of the subject plant. They should have imposed a special condition if they wanted the plant to stay.

(iii) It is also clear that in seeking compensation for the repair of the post, they aim to have the post restored to a condition better than it was in before it was affected by the plant. I cannot think of any fair or reasonable basis on which the tenant should be held responsible for this repair to the post.

(iv) I'm not entirely convinced that the amount claimed is fair or reasonable. While I haven't approved any compensation, if I had, it would have been only a few hundred dollars, nothing more. The tenant did not place the plant where it was; the landlord has to accept responsibility for any consequential damage under the circumstances.

(d) Pressure cleaning at $650:

(i) The pressure cleaning was apparently necessary due to the property's condition; it was stated that pressure cleaning was the only way to remove the accumulated mess from the path. I have considered the evidence provided by the lessor. I do not believe the tenant should be responsible for the pressure cleaning. The position might have been different if the premises had been pressure cleaned before the tenant took possession, and there was some evidence to support this. Experience shows that the condition of the premises can change quite suddenly simply by being exposed over time to the elements.

(ii) I believe the condition of the premises likely required pressure cleaning, but this cannot be blamed on any failure by the tenant to meet their obligations under the tenancy. I am satisfied they fairly and frequently carried out the maintenance required of them, and there is no evidence of any failure on their part to comply with an obligation in their tenancy. I should mention that the amount claimed appears reasonable.

(e) Professional gardening at $760:

(i) I have considered the available evidence regarding the condition of the gardens at the time the tenant took possession of the premises. From what I can tell, despite efforts, the tenant has not fulfilled their obligations under the tenancy.[12] They are responsible for the gardening costs, which seem fair and reasonable in amount.

(f) Professional cleaning at $600:

(i) There are a couple of issues here. The agent states that the relationship between the parties was such that the tenant was not asked to return to the premises for a reclean due to the deteriorating relations between them. In this case, I accept that the relationship was very poor. The tenant basically had an associate do the cleaning work on the property. They didn't have the chance to go back and do a reclean. When I review the entry and exit reports, as well as the description in the invoice for the work done, it appears that the work was reasonably necessary to restore the property to its original condition, considering fair wear and tear.

(ii) During the hearing, I discussed with the managing agent the regulation that requires providing the tenant with the opportunity to do a reclean. I also highlighted the mitigation obligations that both parties have. Additionally, I suggested that an email could have been sent to the tenant. I suspect it would have been an issue for the lessor if an associate of the tenant returned to the premises to carry out this work.[13]

(iii) In the circumstances, I believe a reasonable compromise is to allow $300, which is approximately 50% of the value of this work.

(g) Carpet repairs at $600:

(i) The claimed amount accounts for betterment, adjusts for the damaged carpet area, and only a portion of the total was claimed, which seems reasonable. The lessor asserts that the carpet was damaged by burns and provides photographs and evidence to support the conclusion that the damage was caused by the tenant, which could not be considered fair wear and tear. The tenant merely stated they did not do what was alleged and could not have. The fact remains that the carpet was damaged, and the photographs and entry condition reports clearly show that it was not in the same condition as when the property was first occupied by the tenant, with wear and tear excepted.

(ii) I have considered the tenant's protestations and explanations. Respectfully, they do not account for the damage apparent in the photographs. I have allowed this amount in full.

• [17] Summary of Claims Determined by me to be allowed:

(a) Carpet $600.00.

(b) Cleaning $300.00.

(c) Garden Service $760.00.

(d) Damaged Tap $303.75.

(e) Total: $1,963.75.

• [18] The total of amounts allowed on the lessor's claim is therefore $7,484.26.
• [19] Several issues were raised by the tenant regarding the condition of the premises.

Ensuring Premises are Clean, Fit for Habitation, and in Good Repair

• [20] Section 185 of the Act is the cornerstone of the lessor's obligations, stating that the lessor must:

(a) Ensure the premises are clean and fit for the tenant to live in at the start of the tenancy.

(b) Maintain the premises in a state of reasonable repair.

(c) Ensure the premises comply with health and safety laws.

(d) Not interfere with the supply of utilities.

• [21] The Tribunal reaffirmed in Walker v Ison [2017] QCATA 64 at [14] that "a lessor must ensure that rented residential premises and standard items are in good (a reasonable state of) repair at the start of the tenancy and maintained that way for the duration of the lease..." (emphasis added).

• [22] Under section 183, the lessor must not interfere with the tenant's reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. This obligation is reinforced by section 192, which outlines the requirements for notice before entry.
• [23] In Bunting v S Drakos Real Estate Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QCATA 31 at [41], the Tribunal clarified the statutory obligations that a lessor has with respect to quiet enjoyment, and that under section 420(1)(e) of the Act, a breach of this may result in an order for compensation. Given the persistent and frequent messages from the tenant to the agent, these attendances could only be regarded as reasonable and necessary, and could not be regarded as excessive.

• [24] Section 216 distinguishes between urgent and routine repairs, with the former requiring immediate attention.[14] When properly considered, the agent's interventions at the tenant's request could only be deemed reasonable and necessary.

If there are urgent or emergency repairs needed, and a tenant gives a notice under section 217 of the Act, the repairs must be made in a reasonable time after the notice is given. Failure to do so allows a tenant to arrange for a suitable person to make the repairs, or apply to QCAT for an order about the repairs.[15] This process was largely absent from the tenant's actions. Where they did incur the expense - in respect of the snake - this I didn't feel was due to the lessor's failure to attend to an obligation under the tenancy.

• [25] Lessors must ensure that the property meets all legal and safety requirements, including the installation of smoke alarms, pool fencing, and electrical safety switches.
• [26] The Act imposes obligations on lessors to maintain the premises in a way that remains fit for the tenant to live in,[16] as well as compliance with any law dealing with issues about the health or safety of persons using or entering the premises.[17]
• [27] In this case, the minimum safety standards were satisfied:

(a) In particular, the entry of a carpet python onto the premises was unexpected and unlikely to pose any risk of harm to the tenants.

(b) The video and photographic evidence relied upon by the lessor makes clear that the tenant and their extended family, including young children, enjoyed the use of the premises without any risk to their health and safety, and in fact the tenant was inviting clients to enjoy the premises.

• [28] The Act also imposes minimum standards.
• [29] At the hearing, the tenant did not pursue the rent reduction claim under section 94. I would not have approved the claim. It is a prospective, not retrospective, entitlement. It also appears that they have not demonstrated a breach or a substantial reduction in amenity and therefore would not be entitled to a reduction.[18]
• [30] In the previous decision,[19] I note:

(a) The Form 13 was sent on 10 March - related to non-livability and unremedied breaches.

(b) The dispute resolution request was lodged on 24 February 2025.

(c) The application was first lodged by the tenant on 11 March 2025.

(d) The Form 11 relied upon by the tenant was sent on 16 February and required compliance by 23 February. That notice did not provide the seven-day required notice.[20]

(e) Mould was first reported on 8 January 2025.[21] In the tenant's summary, they say mould was immediately apparent on entry, and they first reported the presence of mould on 23 December 2024.[22]

(f) On 28 February 2025, a notice to remedy breach was sent to the landlord

• [31] Several issues were raised in a previous decision. I won't go into much detail about what was discussed during the decision-making process, which was delivered by me. However, I will summarise the following:

(a) There was no repeated breach as defined under section 315.[23]

(b) Section 227 relates to movable dwellings.

(c) Section 221 does not apply when regard is had to section 214.

(d) A remedy under section 302 was sought. I noted that a prior notice to remedy the breach needs to have been sent for the definition of an unremedied breach to apply - it hadn't happened.

(e) Section 313 does not apply, as there is no evidence that the lessor intimidated or verbally abused the tenant.[24]

(f) Section 305 was of no relevance. Procedurally, the relevant notices were not issued, and there is no reliable evidence that the premises were partially unfit to live in.[25]

(g) Conditions in relation to emergency repairs were considered.

(h) Conditions in relation to fitness for habitation were considered. Fitness for habitation does not "guarantee" the condition of fitness.

(i) The good repair at the start of the tenancy was observed.

(j) For the landlord to be held liable, the tenant must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the problem.

(k) Section 307 requires certain steps to be taken within the first seven days in which the tenant occupies the premises, which did not occur.

(l) Based on the evidence that was provided and presented, it appears that, overall, the tenant's health issues were pre-existing.

• [32] It also seemed more likely than not that they did significantly contribute to the mould issues by:

(a) The use of the premises involves storing items in a dark room with limited space.

(b) Storage of cleaning equipment with mould spores.

(c) Bringing furniture into premises contaminated by mould.[26]

• [33] Section 312 allows a co-tenant to apply because of the actions of a co-tenant.[27]
• [34] Costs are usually limited to the filing fee.[28]
• [35] The breach notice details a number of issues which are not directly relevant to the determination of these proceedings, as the tenant made clear they were only seeking compensation for the replacement of the items damaged by mould:

(a) Substantial financial loss incurred.

(b) Garden issues.

(c) Electrical issues.

(d) Carpet python in the roof.[29]

(e) Leaking taps.

(f) House patio is infected by midges, etc.

(g) Unable to maintain the pool due to the condition of the yard.

(h) Must wear footwear on deck to avoid splinters.

(i) Roof leak.[30]

(j) Fire safety - lock.[31]

(k) Smoke detector.[32]

(l) Water quality.

(m) Pest control.

(n) Lack of quiet enjoyment.

(o) Not safe, as snakes can enter under sleepers.

(p) Particular vulnerabilities of tenants and the inaction of the agent or landlord causing them to feel unsafe.

(q) Unable to use premises due to mould.

(r) Rusty toxic coating failure.

(s) Broken lock.

(t) Pool gate.

(u) Lack of garden maintenance.

• [36] The list was extensive. To some extent, some issues appeared quite serious - others, respectfully, not so. At one point, the agent expressed exasperation in an email and explained that the lessor was doing their best to consider and address concerns wherever possible. I totally accept that the lessor was.

• [37] In all circumstances consistent with earlier authorities of QCAT, the only fair and reasonable conclusion is that there has been no compensable impact on the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises.

• [38] The issue of fair wear and tear typically arises when it's claimed that the tenant has breached their obligations, and the tenant argues that the damage wasn't caused by their breach of the tenancy agreement. When fair wear and tear is in question, QCAT considers whether the issue is likely caused by normal use or by neglect, misuse, or intentional damage. If it's the former, it counts as fair wear and tear; if it's the latter, the tenant might be held responsible.
• [39] Where mould occurs, it is important to determine whether the lessor's premises or a failure by the lessor to fulfil its obligations caused or contributed to the presence of mould at the current premises. After reporting the mould and being dissatisfied with the lessor's response,[33] a report was obtained on 20 January 2025, revealing extensive mould.[34]
• [40] The tenants were dissatisfied with the proposed treatment.[35] The response I found was neither reasonable nor responsive to a reasonable treatment of the problem then disclosed. The agent considered the issues raised and sought advice on the treatment and the duration of the treatment. The emailed response was reasonable in all the circumstances.[36]
• [41] In that response, contemporaneous posts to a Facebook group suggest that the property had numerous positive features and clients were most welcome to enjoy the use of the premises, which was a type of wellness commercial activity being run from the premises.
• [42] It appears that:

(a) If Jason's health requirements were as described, it was incumbent on him to make reasonable enquiries prior to entry into possession to assess risks that might be associated with health issues known to him, and it appears he did not do this.

(b) He could have obtained a special condition; he could have arranged for an inspection prior to entry into possession.

• [43] I would have thought - and I have considered that he and his partner certainly have an eye for detail - they would have been more attentive to features of a property that might make it less likely to be associated with mould - for example, more natural light, more natural ventilation, or a property with significantly less plant and tree growth. The photos and videos I viewed actually reveal that this was a prominent feature of the property. It seems more likely than not that these features might have made the property better suited as a wellness retreat - although they may not be entirely appropriate given his pre-existing conditions.
• [44] It is not the lessor's responsibility in law to do more than, as the law currently stands, comply with their obligations under the Act for an average or normal occupant rather than someone with the particular health conditions or sensibilities of the tenant.[37] After all, the lessor could not have known of those matters at the time of the entry into possession of the tenant.[38]
• [45] The landlord could not reasonably have been aware of the presence of mould when the tenancy began. The agent scheduled mould remediation for 28 February 2025. This seemed to be a reasonable and timely response given all the circumstances.
• [46] The damage to the tenant's possessions was thoroughly reviewed, and the reports were scrutinised. I have not been able to convince myself that any of these reports conclusively prove that either of those situations occurred. In other words, there is no solid evidence[39] that the landlord's premises caused the mould, nor is there anything to suggest that the landlord failed in their obligations, whether through a lack of awareness or apparent knowledge of the mould or its development when they leased the premises.
• [47] I considered the heavy rainfall on the Sunshine Coast at that time, which significantly increased the presence of mould in many premises, including my own. When I made my earlier decision, I had dealt with several mould claims. This placed considerable pressure on tenants to clean their premises, and in most cases, there was no evidence to suggest that the condition of the premises or the tenant's obligations under the tenancy contributed to the mould on their furniture. That remains true in this case as well.
• [48] In my respectful opinion, there is no evidence that, if the mould did occur - which is clear that some did - then the landlord should be responsible for compensating the tenant for the value of the items the tenant claims were damaged.

• [49] If damage is confirmed, QCAT will consider the age, quality, and expected lifespan of the item when deciding on compensation. This prevents landlords from unjustly enriching themselves, such as by obtaining a new item when the damaged one was nearing the end of its useful life.
• [50] Similarly, using the replacement value of new instead of old is generally not appropriate when assessing the worth of items a tenant claims compensation for.
• [51] Regarding the mould issue:

(a) The tenant insisted that no cleaning products affected by mould were left in the house.

(b) The tenant maintained, despite what occurred during the previous tenancy, that there was no concrete evidence they had brought furniture into the premises already infested with mould. Respectfully, I find it difficult to accept that proposition, especially considering the date the tenancy began and when the mould was first reported.

• [52] In relation to causation, the tenant's claims are less convincing as the lessor expressed concern about the accuracy of the claim. In particular, they mentioned public posts that showed items apparently damaged, for which compensation was sought, and these were found in the tenant's internet posts.[40]
• [53] The tenant firmly objects to the suggestions and maintains that they are separate items. The tenant strongly argued that they had hardly any furniture and that essentially the belongings amassed over a lifetime had been taken away and discarded due to the mould.
• [54] I raised concerns regarding the tenant's estimate of the compensation.[41] The attached schedule reveals a total loss of $46,919.00 and relocation costs of $20,473.00.[42] I have great difficulty accepting that the replacement costs are either fair or reasonable, or, for that matter, that many of the items would have needed replacement.[43]
• [55] In relation to the relocation costs, it is clear that if costs were incurred, they were not due to a breach of the tenancy by the landlord and were a natural consequence of the tenant relocating after termination of the tenancy; and
• [56] Some of the costs are extraordinary, either in terms of their amount or the level of responsibility a landlord can incur, e.g., two weeks' rent in advance.[44]
• [57] A consideration of the amount for the skip bin indicates it was $1,500, including staff hire.[45] During the hearing, they had basically, without exaggeration, lost everything. Yet, the furniture removalist costs $2,000 (times two) for storage, shed, packing, and unpacking, which is a substantial amount. I have participated in numerous hearings where claims for the relocation of furniture have been made. The claimed cost of $4,000 is usually reflective of a substantial quantity of belongings and/or a great distance to travel.
• [58] The amounts claimed for relocating furniture clearly raise the question of how that money could have been spent if everything had to be discarded due to mould infection. It cannot be accepted.
• [59] A closer look at the estimates relied on by the tenant shows that many of the items are overvalued. When assessing their worth, I have considered the condition of the items and explicitly told the tenant that it was not like an insurance policy, which was subject to a new-for-old replacement.
• [60] The claims are excessive and unrealistic in terms of their estimated values. Frankly, it appears to be a disingenuous "money grab" by the tenant. In my opinion, if the compensation claim was based on a proven failure of the lessor, it would be worth no more than $4,500-$6,000, and that is assuming it's established that all the items needed to be disposed of, which I remain unconvinced of.
• [61] The lessor has also raised several issues regarding the veracity of the loss.[46] I have also considered those factors in conjunction with my own observations.
• [62] The tenant's application is entirely dismissed without any order for costs.

i. that the tenant pays to the lessor the sum of $7,484.26;

ii. that the RTA pay to the lessor the bond in the sum of $5,000.00 in partial satisfaction of this claim.

[1] This decision was made relatively quickly, before a leave commitment. The QCASE file was close to 1

gigabyte, and in excess of 2500 pages of material. It was difficult to manage the file to say the least. The

proceedings have been protracted. The parties unsuccessfully attempted a mediation. There have been

[2] I would like to have seen this to ensure what complained of. The lack of conciliation does affect the

available outcomes. However, one was not lodged in QCASE.

[3] Notice of Unresolved Dispute ('NURD') dated 7 May 2025.

[5] I make clear that the act, tenancy and regulations must be considered to assess an entitlement to

[7] Griffin v Gini [2011] QCATA 325.

[9] Griffin v Gini [2011] QCATA 325.

[11] That is, any damage was not due to the act of the tenant in making a bad repair as I found at first instance in

Griffin v Gini [2011] QCATA 325.

[12] Allowance had previously been made for the issues they raised and resolved with the gardener.

[13] I suspect based on the volume and nature of what I have read on QCASE that they would not have gone

[14] The urgent matters complained of were determined in an earlier decision.

[18] I refer in full to the summary of the lessor on this issue - including the offers made at the time which were

[20] Section 38 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) was referred to

[21] The breach notice reveals "zero Mould at commencement of tenancy"

[22] Then on 3 January 2025 and 19 February 2025.

[24] I also refer to section 35A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).

[25] I watched videos of the posts made by the tenant to followers of her wellness retreat but was then being

[26] Evidence provided from prior tenancy relied upon.

[27] Therefore, this was of no application to the current case.

[28] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) r 83.

[29] The tenant paid for the removal of a carpet python. I do not agree that this is the landlord's responsibility -

they can have no control over the movement so of the snake - and could have had no prior knowledge that

it would be in the roof. There were many emails about this - the noise, the danger to the pet dog and the

[30] Was investigated by a tradesman - the tenant remained unhappy. The landlord has to act reasonably - it

[31] The offer key - considering the issue raised was in the circumstances a reasonable response.

[32] The landlord has a certificate of compliance, and they are hard wired. No inspection is required. Having

said that, there are requirements imposed under the act regarding the smoke detectors. There is no evidence

that those obligations were not complied with despite the concerns held.

[33] It was emphasised that this was obtained as the male tenant had a pre-existing lung condition and other

[34] Notably they had been in occupation for about one month when the first report was issued and then two

[35] Paragraph 23 and 24 of submissions.

[36] I have considered the tenant has vehemently disagreed with this (21 Feb email).

[37] Perhaps what I am trying to describe is the veritable man, or woman, on the Clapham Omnibus.

[38] The current law relating to minimum standards recognises standards to address what might be considered

from time to time by parliament the community expectation in relation to the standard of premises.

[40] The tenant argued to the contrary - in my assessment, however, the photos relied upon by the lessor give a

reasonable basis for reaching a contrary conclusion.

[41] In the hearing giving examples of how to address this.

[42] Another list totalled in excess of $76,000.

[43] I do not intend to replicate the list - it largely speaks for itself.

[44] I do not intend to replicate the list - it largely speaks for itself.

[45] An invoice/statement referring to the staff member and hours worked in a booklet were relied upon

[46] See page 3 of the summary on 1 August 2025.