Bond clean disputes are a normal part of renting and managing rentals on the Sunshine Coast. They’ve been around as long as bonds have. What’s shifted in the past twelve months is the specific patterns of what’s causing disputes — partly because of changes to how agents are inspecting, partly because the rental market dynamics have changed what tenants are willing to push back on.

This is a practical look at what’s been coming up in disputes through early 2026, drawn from doing bond cleans across the coast and talking with property managers and tenants who’ve been through the process.

The shift toward photographic evidence

The biggest single change in 2025-26 has been the level of photographic evidence agents are bringing to inspections. Five years ago, an exit inspection was largely the agent’s eyeballs and notes. Today the standard is a comprehensive photo set of every room, often with comparison shots against the entry condition report photos.

This has changed disputes in two directions. Tenants who do a thorough clean and have their own exit photos to compare against have stronger ground to stand on when an issue is flagged. Tenants who don’t have their own photos and are relying on memory often lose disputes they would have won under the older inspection regime.

The practical advice for tenants is to take photos. Lots of photos. Every room, every surface, every fixture, ideally with timestamp metadata. The phone in your pocket is the cheapest insurance you’ll ever buy on a bond.

Carpet condition continues to be the most disputed item

Carpets remain the single most common bond dispute. The pattern hasn’t changed but the specifics have.

Professional carpet cleaning is now expected at exit by virtually every Sunshine Coast property manager. The receipts matter. The cleaner matters — agents have firm views about which cleaners do work that meets their inspection standard and which don’t. A budget cleaner whose work doesn’t meet the agent’s standard means a re-clean at the tenant’s expense.

The other carpet pattern is wear-and-tear versus damage. Carpets that show heavy use after a long tenancy are often deemed wear and tear. Carpets with specific damage — pet stains, burn marks, paint spills — are deemed damage and the tenant pays. The line between the two is sometimes contested.

The tenants who’ve been winning this dispute are the ones who’ve maintained the carpet through the tenancy and have evidence of regular care. The tenants who haven’t are usually losing.

Walls and marks

Walls and marks are another high-frequency dispute area. The tenancy law treats wear and tear differently from intentional or negligent damage. The interpretation in practice varies.

Scuff marks at chair-back height are usually wear and tear. Scuff marks from furniture being dragged are sometimes considered damage. Marks from bumps and small accidents are usually wear and tear unless extensive. Holes from picture hooks are wear and tear if normal-sized; substantial holes from heavy fixings are sometimes considered damage.

The disputes I see resolved most cleanly are the ones where the tenant has been proactive — patching small holes, touching up scuff marks with leftover paint, generally restoring the walls to a presentable condition before the exit inspection. The disputes I see going against tenants are the ones where the wall condition at exit is materially worse than at entry and the tenant hasn’t done remedial work.

Bathroom mould and cleaning

Bathroom mould is increasingly disputed. Sunshine Coast humidity and the design of many older bathrooms creates conditions where mould develops faster than tenants can keep up with, particularly in bathrooms with poor ventilation.

The legal position is that some level of mould management is part of normal tenant cleaning. Severe mould that reflects an underlying ventilation problem is the landlord’s issue. The line in between is contested.

The tenants who’ve been doing well in these disputes are the ones who’ve raised the ventilation issue early in the tenancy with the property manager and have records of those communications. The mould then becomes a known issue rather than a discovery at exit.

The tenants who’ve been doing badly are the ones who didn’t flag ventilation problems and discovered at exit that the bathroom mould was being charged against the bond.

Outdoor areas

Outdoor cleaning has emerged as a more frequent dispute area than it used to be. Decks, patios, outdoor furniture, garden maintenance, fence condition — all of these are inspected more carefully now than they used to be.

The pattern is similar to interior items. Wear and tear is acceptable. Damage and neglect aren’t. The specifics depend on what the tenancy agreement specified about outdoor maintenance, which varies considerably.

For Sunshine Coast properties specifically, the outdoor cleaning challenge includes salt corrosion on metal fixtures, mould growth on shaded timber surfaces, and the general challenge of keeping outdoor surfaces presentable in coastal conditions. Tenants who haven’t engaged with this through the tenancy often face significant outdoor cleaning costs at exit.

Appliances

Oven, stovetop, and rangehood cleaning continues to be a focal point of bond clean disputes. The standard is high — agents expect appliances to be cleaned to a near-new condition. The reality is that achieving this on older appliances is genuinely difficult.

The dispute pattern that’s most frustrating for tenants is when an older appliance is cleaned to a high standard but still shows signs of years of use, and the agent treats this as inadequate cleaning rather than reasonable wear. The dispute is usually winnable for the tenant if they can show the appliance was as clean as it would reasonably get.

The tenants who avoid this dispute entirely are the ones who use a professional bond cleaning service that can speak to the standard achievable. The cleaner’s professional view that the appliance has been cleaned to the limit of what’s possible carries weight.

Pets

Pet-related disputes have grown as more rental properties have moved to allowing pets. The disputes are usually about specific damage — scratched doors, stained carpet, garden damage — rather than the general state of the property.

The tenants who manage these well are the ones who address pet damage proactively before exit. Repairing scratches. Replacing or professionally cleaning affected carpet. Documenting their pet’s behaviour over the tenancy if there are specific incidents.

The tenants who don’t manage these well often face larger costs than they expected. Bond may not be enough to cover serious pet damage, and the dispute can extend into payment plan territory or QCAT.

What’s actually working

The patterns of what works in bond clean disputes haven’t fundamentally changed but the specifics have sharpened.

Photographic documentation through the tenancy and at exit is more important than ever.

Professional cleaning with proper documentation is increasingly the expected standard.

Communication with the property manager throughout the tenancy creates a record that helps at exit.

Knowing the tenancy law specifics is more useful than it has been. The disputes that go to QCAT are won and lost on specific points of law.

The tenants who plan for the bond clean as part of the lease are getting their bond back at higher rates than the tenants who treat it as something to deal with at the end. The shift is partly about expectations management — knowing what you’ll need to do, doing it, and having evidence that you did it.