Most bond disputes focus on what happened at the end of a tenancy. But in this NSW Tribunal case, the member made an important observation about what happens during the tenancy — particularly when damage becomes known.
The Tribunal commented that if the landlord or agent became aware of damage after the ingoing condition report, they should have taken action at that time rather than waiting until the tenancy ended and then attempting to recover the cost from the bond. That point goes directly to how responsibility and fairness are viewed.
A bond is intended to cover loss caused during the tenancy, but it doesn’t operate like a running tally you settle up at the end regardless of what happened in between. If damage occurs and the landlord or agent becomes aware of it, there is an expectation that it will be addressed, raised with the tenant, and dealt with in a timely way under s51(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act. Allowing the tenancy to continue without raising the issue and then treating it as a surprise claim at vacate weakens the argument that the tenant should bear the cost.
From the Tribunal’s perspective, waiting until the end can look unreasonable, especially if the issue was known earlier. It raises questions about whether the damage worsened over time, whether the tenant was given the opportunity to respond or rectify, and whether the landlord effectively accepted the situation by not acting. All of this can undermine a bond claim.
For property managers, this is a key operational lesson. Condition reports don’t just matter at the start and the end — what happens in the middle matters just as much. If damage is identified during routine inspections, reported by tenants, or otherwise becomes known, it should be documented and addressed at that point. That might involve notifying the tenant, arranging repairs, discussing responsibility, or keeping a clear written record of the issue and the communication around it.
This isn’t about routine wear and tear or minor issues. It’s about situations where there is identifiable damage and the agent is aware of it. Leaving it unaddressed and then attempting to recover costs months or years later creates evidentiary and fairness problems.
What the Tribunal was really saying is pretty straightforward: bond claims shouldn’t come as a surprise at the end. If damage is known during the tenancy, it needs to be dealt with at the time, not saved up for vacate. Acting early helps protect the landlord’s position, keeps communication open, and makes it far less likely that things will blow up into a bigger dispute once the tenancy has finished.
View the full case here:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19bd48cf5c2c9821c23fe2aa