Tenancy Case Summaries (Databases)

The Applicant was a tenant that rented a property in Nelly Bay, Queensland. The lease was from 9 April 2013 to 8 October 2013. The First Respondent was the managing agent. They listed the Applicant on the TICA database due to rent in arrears owing from 23 September 2013 to 7 October 2013 for general cleaning and damages. The total amount owing was $1,182.50.

Decision

The Applicant applied to QCAT to have her name and personal details removed from the TICA database. The Tribunal found in favour of the Applicant and ordered that her information be removed from the TICA database.

Reasons

Pursuant to section 461, the Tribunal must have regard to the reason the tenant was listed on the database and any adverse consequences that the listing may cause the tenant. A letter from the First Respondent stated that the Applicant had paid all of the outstanding monies owed and they did not object to her details being removed from the database. They were the only entity to list the Applicant on the TICA database. As such, the Tribunal found it would be unfair and unjust for the Applicant’s personal details to remain on the database given she had repaid the monies in full and it would otherwise be near impossible for her to find appropriate rental accommodation in the future.

You can read the full decision here: O’Brien v Compass Property Group [2014] QCAT 548

A family (the Respondents) leased a house owned by the Applicant and moved in on 9 September 2009. The Respondents moved out on 10 September 2011 after the Brisbane City Council ordered them to leave on the basis that the house had been in a dilapidated condition and infected with vermin since 24 February 2009.

The Applicant asked QCAT for compensation from the Respondents for what he says was damages caused by them. He also threatened to list the Respondents on the TICA tenancy database.

Decision

QCAT ruled in favour of the Respondents.

Reasons

While the Applicant produced an Entry Condition Report signed by the Respondents that said all was “clean, undamaged, and working”, QCAT found that the Respondents only signed the Entry Condition Report because they were desperate for a place to live.
After considering evidence from cleaners and tradespersons who worked on the house after the Respondents left, QCAT found that the house was not in a suitable condition to be rented at the time the Respondents moved in. Further, the Applicant had created an environment of intimidation, which made it difficult for the Respondents to speak with the Applicant about the condition of the house.

For that reason, the Applicant’s claim had no merit. The Applicant was ordered to not place the tenants on the TICA tenancy database or any other similar database.

You can read the full decision here: Amos v Knights [2012] QCAT 88

The Applicant was formerly a tenant of residential premises managed by the Respondent. On a routine inspection, the Respondent found that a patch of paint had come off a benchtop.

Towards the end of the fixed term tenancy, the Respondent asked the Applicant to move out for unrelated reasons. The Respondent was asked by another agent to complete an online reference form for the Applicant, and in answer to whether the Applicant would receive a full bond refund, they said “Pending as tenant has damaged vanity benchtop and does not feel she is responsible. The entire benchtop may need to be replaced.” The Applicant maintained that the damage was not her fault, and the owner of the premises told the Applicant she was not required to fix it.

The Respondent’s reference ended up on a platform called Ignite which was accessible to subscribed agents.

The Applicant was unsuccessful in finding a new rental property. They learned of the reference on Ignite and applied to QCAT to have it removed.

Decision

While QCAT found that Ignite was a tenancy database for the purposes of the Act, it refused to make a removal order under section 461 against the Respondent.

Reasons

Once the Respondent gave the reference, it no longer had control over it and could not amend or remove it from Ignite, as it was not a subscriber of the platform. Any order against the Respondent would be futile, and Ignite’s operator should have been a party to the proceeding.

QCAT also noted that it was an exaggeration to blame the Applicant’s trouble in finding a new rental property on this once reference, as the property rental market was unusually tight in Brisbane at the time and it would not be surprising that many applications would not be accepted.

You can read the full decision here: Bourne v First National Real Estate Rochedale [2023] QCAT 359

The Appellant was the tenant of a rental premises. He put in notice of intention to leave on medical grounds and vacated the property on 1 December 2017, thereby breaking the lease. The premises were relet with a new tenant paying rent from 19 January 2018, and the Respondent sought money owed for the period up to when the new tenant started to pay rent.

The Appellant did not pay the money owing, and the Respondent listed them on the TICA database.

The Appellant argued they were under no obligation to pay ‘rent’ after 1 December 2017 because the tenancy agreement had ended, and any amount owing to the Respondent after this point was not ‘rent’ but actually ‘compensation’. If no rent was owing, then the Respondent had no basis for listing them on the TICA database.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The tenancy agreement was still ongoing, and therefore the Appellant was required to pay ‘rent’, which gave the Respondent a basis for listing them on the TICA database when the Appellant failed to pay the money owing.

Reasons

A tenancy agreement can only end in accordance with section 277 of the Act. Section 277(4) states that an agreement can end if the tenant gives notice of intention to leave and hands over vacant possession of the premises. QCAT found that the Appellant had not issued a notice of intention to leave that was compliant with sections 302 to 308 of the Act.

As such, the tenancy agreement had not ended pursuant to section 277, and the Appellant’s rent obligation continued. The money owing for the period up to 19 January 2018 was therefore ‘rent’, and not ‘compensation’, and the Respondent had a valid reason for listing them on the TICA database.

You can read the full decision here: Hiscox v PBG Realty [2019] QCATA 112

The Appellant leased a property from the Respondent, a real estate agent. The lease agreement limited the number of occupants to no more than five.

Around five months into the lease, the real estate agent suspected that the tenant was permitting his disability carer to reside at the property, which would mean that six people were residing at the property. The real estate agent issued a Notice to Remedy Breach and then applied to QCAT to terminate the tenancy agreement on the basis that the breach had not been remedied.

In the first hearing, QCAT adjourned the matter for six weeks on the understanding that the tenant was making arrangements to leave, and that a QCAT ordered termination could constitute a ground for listing on a tenancy database. The tenant did not attend the adjourned hearing but vacated the property at 4:30 pm that day and handed over the keys.

However, at that point, the matter was already heard and QCAT made the termination order against the tenant by default. The tenant applied for leave to appeal the decision to ‘correct the record’.

Decision

QCAT refused the tenant’s application for leave to appeal.

Reasons

The tenant had misapprehended the effect of the adjournment and thought QCAT had already decided to order termination if he did not move out by the adjournment date. However, that misapprehension did not relieve him of the obligation of appearing before QCAT.

QCAT noted the real estate agent did not intend to list the tenant on the TICA database, and that if the tenant was listed, he could apply to QCAT for an order removing the listing on the ground that it is incorrect, misleading and unjust.

You can read the full decision here: Bell v Metelerkamp [2017] QCATA 62

The Appellant was the letting agent for a property rented to the Respondents. The Respondents vacated the premises and the bond was paid to the lessor for unpaid rent.

Unbeknown to the Respondents, a further $297.00 remained unpaid.

At the end of the tenancy and after the bond was released, the Respondents were only advised of the unpaid rent by posted letter (not text message or email). The letter gave notice of intention to list the Respondents on the TICA tenancy database if the unpaid rent was not paid. The Appellant did not attempt to contact the Respondents otherwise to advise them of being placed on the database.

The unpaid rent was not paid and the Respondents were listed on the database.

Decision

The Respondents applied for an order that their names be removed from the database, and that they be awarded compensation for their names being listed. At first instance, an order was made to remove their names and $1,995.12 in compensation was awarded.

The Appellants appealed. On appeal, the compensation order was set aside.

Reasons

It was unfair and unjust to list the Respondents on the database because the Appellant had not complied with section 459 of the Act, which (at the time of the decision) required that the listing person gives notice to the other person about the database entry. The Respondents had not received the letter of notice, which was sent nearly four weeks after the tenancy was terminated. Furthermore, the expected arrangement for communication between the Respondents and Appellant was by text message or email, and yet the Appellant made no attempt to telephone or electronically contact the Respondents.

However, the Act does not provide compensation for a breach of section 459. As such, the compensation order was set aside.

You can read the full decision here: Elfbest Pty Ltd v Dynan and Anor [2012] QCATA 7

The Appellant was listed on the TICA tenancy database. The Respondent submitted material that showed the Appellant owed approximately $1200 in rent after the bond was claimed. The Respondent also incurred $500 in costs to restore the tenancy after the end of the Appellant’s tenancy. The Appellant submitted she was not liable for any debt.

The Appellant filed a QCAT application to have her name removed but did not attend the hearing. Her first instance application was dismissed and she appealed that decision.
The Appellant submitted that at the time of the hearing, she had just started a new job and her employer asked her to fill in for an employee going on leave. The Appellant said she rang QCAT for an adjournment but there was no evidence of this.

Decision

Leave to appeal was refused.

Reasons

The Appellant knew there was an allegation of the unpaid debt at least three months before the original hearing. Despite this, she did not put any material forward in support of her contention that she was not liable for any debt. There was no reasonably arguable case that the first instance Adjudicator was in error.

It was also noted that parties regularly make arrangements to attend the tribunal while in full time employment and that employment, by itself, is not a reasonable excuse for not attending a hearing.

You can read the full decision here: Clare v Professionals Rentals [2014] QCATA 198

Joshua Findley was listed on the TICA database on 9 March 2011 and 25 January 2012 for “Objectionable Behaviour within a Caravan Park”.

In previous proceedings, Mr Findley was successful in having the TICA listing removed but was unsuccessful in his compensation claim. QCAT does not have power to grant compensation for inaccurate or unlawful tenancy database listings: Elfbest Pty Ltd v Dynan and Anor [2012] QCATA 7

In the current proceedings, Mr Findley was seeking an extension to commence defamation action connected to the tenancy database listings.

Decision

Mr Findley successfully applied for an extension of time to bring defamation proceedings in relation to the TICA publication of 25 January 2012.

This decision considers s 32A of the Limitations of Action Act 1974 (Qld) and when a limitation period can be extended.

You can read the full decision here: Findley v Morand [2014] QSC 297

The Appellant had two listings on the TICA tenancy database in 2012 and 2013. In July 2016, the Queensland government passed legislation that provided that tenancy database listings may not exceed three years in duration. The Appellant’s listings were removed from TICA once the amendments took effect.

The Appellant commenced proceedings against TICA’s corporate entity in August 2016 alleging, among other things, that her personal information was still on TICA’s databases. In October 2016, TICA successfully had the claims against it summarily struck out.

The Appellant appealed the order striking out the claims against TICA, arguing that TICA also maintains a (not publicly accessible) Historical Database, which tracks all historical searches made of the main tenancy database, and that the Historical Database is also a tenancy database. The Historical Database contained the Appellant’s information.

The Respondents to the appeal were listed as “Mr Phillip Nounnis and Ms Marina Nounnis”. TICA was not joined as a party to the application, and Mr and Ms Nounnis were not parties to the original proceedings.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed because incorrect parties were named as respondents.

As to the merits of the case, it was not decided whether the Historical Database is a tenancy database within the meaning of the Act. If the Historical Database was a tenancy database, the correct course of action was for the Appellant to access the statutory remedy through an application to QCAT.

If the Historical Database was not a tenancy database, the Appellant did not provide a sound legal basis for a remedy according to general law principles. The Appellant had referred to ‘contracts’ between her and TICA, when there was no contractual relationship between them.

You can read the full decision here: Daniell v Nounnis [2017] QCA 150