Bond & Compensation Claim & TICA Listing

Xie v Bakshi (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 1122

Decision Date: 17 December 2025

Key Issue: VCAT considered whether the rental provider was entitled to recover amounts from the bond for rental arrears, loss of rent, cleaning and carpet steam cleaning, wall damage, electricity charges, and a replacement garage remote. It also examined whether the renters were required to reimburse a previously granted rent discount, whether the rental provider had lawfully listed the renters’ personal information on the TICA tenancy database, and whether the renters were entitled to compensation arising from that listing.

Full Case: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2025/1122.html?

Background

This proceeding involved three related VCAT matters arising from the end of a residential tenancy between Xianxiang Xie ATF Xie Family Trust as rental provider and Vinay Bakshi and Neha Bakshi as renters.

The disputes concerned:

• competing claims to the $5,700 bond,

• claims for rental arrears, loss of rent, cleaning, damage, electricity, and a garage remote,

• and a separate application by the renters seeking relief after they were listed on the TICA tenancy database.

The rental agreement was a fixed-term lease running from 15 August 2023 to 14 August 2024. The renters vacated on 25 July 2024.

Issues

VCAT considered:

Whether the rental provider was entitled to recover amounts from the bond for:

• rental arrears,

• loss of rent,

• cleaning and carpet steam cleaning,

• wall damage,

• electricity charges,

• and a replacement garage remote.

Whether the renters were required to reimburse a rent discount previously given to them.

Whether the rental provider lawfully listed the renters’ personal information on a residential tenancy database (TICA).

Whether the renters were entitled to compensation arising from that listing.

Key Findings

1. Bond claim partly succeeded

VCAT found the rental provider had proved only part of the claimed losses. The Tribunal awarded:

• Rental arrears: $622.92

• Loss of rent: $542.88

• Cleaning: $100.00

• Carpet steam cleaning: $365.00

• Damage to walls: $704.00

• Basement electricity: $44.21

Total awarded to the rental provider: $2,379.01

The balance of the bond, $3,320.99, was ordered to be paid to the renters.

2. Invalid notice to vacate did not automatically excuse all rent liability

The rental provider had served a no-reason end-of-fixed-term notice to vacate under section 91ZZD.

VCAT found the notice was invalid because:

• it was given less than 90 days before the end of the fixed term,

• it was not in the prescribed form,

• it failed to correctly identify the rental provider, and

• it did not state the section or reason for the notice.

Because the notice was invalid, the renters could not rely on section 91ZB to terminate with the benefit of the shorter statutory notice period.

However, the Tribunal also held that the rental provider had failed to prove reasonable mitigation of loss. In the circumstances, VCAT awarded only 4 days’ loss of rent, not rent up to the end of the fixed term.

Because a new tenancy in fact began on 19 August 2024, which was only 4 days after the fixed term ended on 14 August 2024, VCAT allowed only 4 days’ loss of rent rather than the full period sought to the end of the fixed term.

In practical terms, the mitigation factors were:

• 21 days’ notice before vacating

• no evidence of prompt reletting efforts

• no evidence of advertising or inspection steps

• a strong rental market

• a desirable location

• a possible replacement tenant identified by the renters

• the agent’s mistaken belief that mitigation was unnecessary because rent was automatically payable to the end of the term

These circumstances led the Tribunal to significantly reduce the claim. That is why the Tribunal cut the loss of rent claim down to 4 days.

3. No reimbursement for rent discount

The rental provider claimed $519.00 for reimbursement of a rent reduction that had been given to the renters.

VCAT rejected that claim, finding the agreement was for a reduced rent until 14 August 2024 without condition, and not contingent on employment circumstances.

4. Cleaning and carpet claims treated differently

VCAT allowed only $100.00 for general cleaning, noting:

• the property was not entirely clean at the start of the tenancy,

• the renters had arranged professional cleaning,

• but the premises were still not left in a reasonably clean condition.

VCAT separately awarded $365.00 for steam cleaning the carpets, finding that:

• the carpets had been professionally cleaned at the start of the tenancy,

• the renters were advised of that, and

• steam cleaning was required to restore the carpets to their earlier condition.

The Tribunal also held that an additional lease term requiring professional cleaning receipts was a prohibited term and unenforceable, although the standard prescribed cleaning term remained enforceable.

5. Wall damage claim partly succeeded

VCAT found the renters were responsible for damage to several wall areas requiring repair, sanding and painting.

The Tribunal awarded $704.00 for wall damage, but refused other late-added repair items and treated some alleged damage as fair wear and tear.

6. TICA database listing was unlawful

VCAT found the rental provider, through her agents, had contravened section 439E by listing the renters’ personal information on the tenancy database.

The listing was unlawful because the information was not accurate, complete and unambiguous, including:

• using the rented premises as the renters’ address,

• describing the issue as rent arrears only,

• and implying the renters owed more than the bond in rent arrears, which was never true.

VCAT ordered both the rental provider and TICA Data Solutions Pty Ltd to take steps to remove the renters’ personal information from the database within 14 days.

7. No compensation for the renters

Although the Tribunal found the listing unlawful, it dismissed the renters’ claim for compensation.

VCAT held that:

• section 439L does not provide for compensation,

• there was no other compensable breach enlivening damages, and

• the stress and anxiety claimed amounted to pain and suffering, which VCAT cannot compensate under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Decision

VCAT ordered:

• $2,379.01 of the bond to the rental provider,

• $3,320.99 of the bond to the renters,

• removal of the renters’ details from the TICA tenancy database within 14 days, and

• dismissal of the renters’ separate compensation claim.

Key Legal Principles

This case is significant because it confirms that:

• an invalid notice to vacate cannot be relied on as a lawful basis for a renter to invoke section 91ZB,

• a rental provider claiming loss of rent must still prove reasonable mitigation,

• prohibited lease terms about cleaning are void and unenforceable,

• tenancy database listings must be strictly accurate, complete and unambiguous, and

• VCAT may order removal of an unlawful database listing even where no compensation is available.

It is also a useful decision on the distinction between:

• rental arrears,

• loss of rent,

• and lease break fees.