Tasmania Bond Dispute Guide: Navigating the Residential Tenancy Commissioner (2026)

Tasmania's bond dispute system works differently from most other Australian states, and understanding that difference is the first thing a property manager needs to get right when working in the state.

In Queensland, a disputed bond goes to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). In New South Wales, it goes to NCAT. In Victoria, VCAT. South Australia has SACAT. The ACT has ACAT. The Northern Territory has NTCAT. These are all dedicated civil and administrative tribunals with formal hearing processes, application forms, and adjudicators or members who hear both parties.

Tasmania takes a different approach. Bond disputes that cannot be resolved through the Rental Deposit Authority's MyBond portal are decided by the Residential Tenancy Commissioner — an independent role within Consumer, Building and Occupational Services (CBOS). The Commissioner reviews evidence from both parties and makes a binding determination about how the bond is to be distributed. This is an administrative determination, not a tribunal hearing. There is typically no requirement for either party to appear in person. The process is document-based: you submit your evidence, the tenant submits theirs, and the Commissioner decides.

This structure makes Tasmania's process less formal and generally less costly than the tribunal model — but it places an even greater premium on the quality of your documentation. The Commissioner cannot hear your explanation of what happened. They can only read what is on the page. A thorough, specific, consistent entry and exit condition report is not just useful in Tasmania; it is the foundation on which every successful bond claim is built.

For an introduction to Tasmania's condition report requirements and what the entry report must include, see our Tasmania condition report requirements guide. This bond dispute guide picks up where that one ends: at the moment the tenancy terminates and the claim process begins.

In Tasmania, security bonds for residential tenancies are held by the Rental Deposit Authority (RDA), a government body established under the Residential Tenancy Act 1997. The RDA holds the bond for the duration of the tenancy and releases it once the tenancy ends and both parties agree on how it should be distributed — or, if they disagree, once the Residential Tenancy Commissioner has made a determination.

This is broadly equivalent to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (RTBA) in Victoria, the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) in Queensland, and the Bond Administrator in Western Australia. The RDA's role is to hold the bond as a neutral third party and process releases according to agreement or order.

Bond transactions are managed through the RDA's MyBond portal, which is the platform used for initial lodgement, updates, and bond claims at the end of a tenancy. Property managers should be registered with the system and understand how to submit a claim and how to respond if a claim lodged against a tenant's bond is disputed.

At the outset of a tenancy, the lessor or property manager must lodge the bond with the RDA within the timeframe prescribed under the Act. Failure to lodge within that period is a breach of the legislation and creates administrative complications if a dispute arises later. A bond that is not held by the RDA cannot be distributed through the standard claim process.

When the tenancy ends, both parties can access the MyBond portal to initiate the bond return or claim process. If there is no dispute, the bond is paid out according to the agreed split. If there is a dispute, the bond is held by the RDA pending the Commissioner's determination.

The most critical deadline in a Tasmanian bond dispute occurs immediately after the tenancy ends. Under Section 28 of the Residential Tenancy Act 1997, the owner must give the tenant a claim form — the form used by both parties to initiate and respond to bond claims — within three working days after the termination of the tenancy.

This deadline is non-negotiable. An owner who fails to provide the claim form within three working days may lose the ability to pursue their bond claim through the standard process. This is Tasmania's equivalent of the seven-day QCAT application deadline in Queensland, but with a critical difference: the Section 28 deadline runs from the termination of the tenancy, before it is even known whether a dispute will arise. You do not wait to see whether the tenant disputes your claims before starting the clock. The obligation to provide the claim form arises at the moment the tenancy ends.

In practical terms: if a tenancy ends on a Friday, the claim form must be with the tenant by Wednesday of the following week at the latest (assuming a standard working week). If the tenancy ends mid-week, the window is even tighter.

For property managers, the Section 28 deadline must be built into your vacancy day workflow as a non-negotiable, day-one task — not a follow-up item for after the property has been assessed and cleaned. The sequence should be:

Step 1: Conduct the exit inspection on the day the tenant vacates or as close to that day as possible.

Step 2: Document the exit condition report with specific descriptions and timestamped photographs.

Step 3: Provide the claim form to the tenant within three working days of the tenancy end — even if your complete evidence package is not yet assembled.

Step 4: Follow up the claim through the MyBond portal once your invoices and supporting evidence are ready.

The claim form and the evidence package are two separate tasks. The deadline applies to the claim form. Missing it because you were waiting to finish compiling your evidence is not a valid reason for the delay.

Once you have provided the claim form and submitted your bond claim through the MyBond portal, the Rental Deposit Authority notifies the tenant of the claim. If the tenant agrees with the claimed amounts, the RDA processes the distribution and the matter is resolved.

A dispute arises when the tenant objects. A tenant can dispute the full claim, a partial amount, or the basis for a specific item. Common disputes include: the tenant argues that damage was pre-existing at entry; the tenant disputes the amount of a cleaning charge as disproportionate; the tenant argues the item claimed for falls within fair wear and tear; or the tenant disputes that they are responsible for the condition at all.

Once a dispute is registered, the bond is held by the RDA — it is not released to either party until there is an agreed distribution or a Commissioner determination.

At this stage, it is worth attempting to resolve the dispute directly. Property managers who communicate with the tenant, explain the basis for each claim, and are open to reasonable adjustments on items that are borderline will often resolve disputes without needing to involve the Commissioner. A partial settlement that avoids a Commissioner determination saves time for both parties and avoids the uncertainty of any document-based process.

If direct negotiation does not produce agreement, the matter proceeds to the Residential Tenancy Commissioner. Either the landlord or the tenant can make the application — there is no requirement for one party to move first.

Applications to the Residential Tenancy Commissioner in a bond dispute are made through CBOS. CBOS provides the relevant application forms and guidance on its website and can be contacted for questions about the process.

When preparing your application, include the following:

The claim form already provided to the tenant under Section 28. This is the starting document for the Commissioner's review. Without it, the Commissioner cannot confirm that the Section 28 obligation was met.

A clear statement of each amount you are claiming and its basis. Be specific and itemised. "Cleaning: $380 — professional clean required due to greasy stove, unclean bathroom, and carpet staining in lounge and main bedroom" is far more useful than "cleaning: $380." The Commissioner needs to understand what each claim relates to in order to evaluate it against the exit condition report and the evidence.

Your complete evidence bundle (covered in detail in the next section).

The property address and the tenancy dates, to allow CBOS to access any records held by the RDA.

Once the application is lodged, CBOS contacts both parties and provides instructions for submitting evidence. Both parties have the opportunity to put their case. The Commissioner then reviews all submissions and issues a binding determination. There is no set deadline for the Commissioner to decide, but most straightforward bond disputes are resolved within a few weeks of the evidence submission period closing.

Property managers should not submit evidence before CBOS prompts them to do so — wait for the formal instructions so that your submission is on the record in the right stage of the process.

The quality of your evidence bundle is the single largest factor in whether a bond claim succeeds before the Commissioner. The Commissioner can only decide on what is in front of them, and the decision is binding. A well-organised bundle that tells a coherent story of how the property's condition changed beyond fair wear and tear will consistently outperform a disorganised file.

Your evidence bundle should include the following, in this order:

1. Entry condition report. The baseline document. Without it, you cannot establish the property's condition at the start of the tenancy, and most damage claims will fail. The entry condition report must have been completed before the tenant moved in — not on a follow-up visit — and must include specific descriptions of each room and item. For Tasmania, CBOS explicitly accepts photographs as part of the condition record, but the combination of a written room-by-room report and timestamped photographs provides the strongest evidentiary record.

2. Exit condition report. Completed on or as close as possible to the day the tenant vacated. For every item where you are claiming deterioration, damage, or cleaning, the exit report should describe the specific condition clearly: not "carpet stained" but "carpet, main bedroom, large stain near north wall, appears to be red liquid, approximately 400mm x 300mm, not present in entry report."

3. Timestamped photographs. Entry photographs tied to specific rooms and items. Exit photographs of the same rooms and items. Where possible, photograph from the same angle at entry and exit so the change is obvious. Photographs without clear timestamps or metadata do not establish when they were taken and carry significantly less weight before the Commissioner.

4. Invoices and quotes. For every dollar amount claimed, attach either a paid invoice (preferred) or a formal written quote from a tradesperson on business letterhead specifying the work and cost. Undocumented estimates, rough numbers, or verbal descriptions of work done are routinely rejected or reduced by the Commissioner.

5. Rental ledger. If any part of your claim relates to unpaid rent, water charges, or other amounts under the tenancy agreement, include a complete rental ledger showing the outstanding balance.

6. Routine inspection records. If you conducted routine inspections during the tenancy and those records document conditions relevant to the claim — the presence of an undisclosed pet, developing damage, or repeated maintenance failures — include them. They provide corroborating evidence that the conditions claimed at exit were not pre-existing.

One rule applies across all evidence: it must be consistent with the condition reports. A claim for an item that was already noted as damaged in the entry condition report will be rejected. The Commissioner applies Section 53 of the Residential Tenancy Act 1997: the tenant is responsible for damage beyond fair wear and tear. If the entry report shows the damage was there before the tenant moved in, there is nothing to claim.

The Commissioner's determination is guided by the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 and the evidence submitted by both parties. The central question in every bond dispute is whether the property's condition at exit differs from its condition at entry — as documented in the condition reports — and whether any deterioration or damage exceeds fair wear and tear.

Under Section 53, the tenant is required to return the premises in the same condition as at the commencement of the tenancy, apart from fair wear and tear. This is the standard the Commissioner applies. Fair wear and tear is the natural, reasonable deterioration of a property from ordinary everyday use. It is not damage, and it cannot be claimed against the bond.

Examples of fair wear and tear: minor scuffs on painted walls after a long tenancy, light traffic wear in carpet at doorways and hallways, small marks from furniture placement on timber floors, gradual fading of blinds or curtains from sunlight, and minor surface scratches on kitchen benchtops from everyday food preparation. The age of the property, the quality of the fittings, and the length of the tenancy all affect where the fair wear and tear line sits — an older carpet in a high-traffic property will show more deterioration from a two-year tenancy than a newer carpet in a low-traffic property.

Examples that typically exceed fair wear and tear: large stains on carpets or flooring, holes or gouges in walls, broken fixtures that were working at entry, damage caused by pets, unremediated mould resulting from neglect, and properties left in an unclean state that requires professional remediation.

Property managers should apply this standard honestly when compiling their claim. Overclaiming — including items that represent ordinary deterioration — does not strengthen a claim; it weakens the credibility of the legitimate items. For detailed guidance on where the line falls in practice, see our fair wear and tear vs damage guide.

Once both parties have submitted their evidence and the Commissioner has reviewed the material, a binding determination is issued. The determination specifies how the bond is to be distributed: for example, a portion to the landlord for cleaning and damage with the balance returned to the tenant, or the full bond returned to the tenant if the claims are not substantiated.

The Commissioner can also determine that the landlord is entitled to an amount that exceeds the bond held by the RDA. In that case, the Commissioner may make a further order for the tenant to pay the difference directly. Enforcement of a debt beyond the bond requires Magistrates Court proceedings if the tenant does not pay voluntarily — the Commissioner cannot directly compel payment for amounts beyond the bond.

Both parties receive written notification of the determination. The bond is held by the RDA pending the end of any appeal period, after which it is paid out in accordance with the Commissioner's decision.

The determination is binding on both parties once it takes effect. A landlord who is satisfied with the outcome receives the bond distribution through the MyBond portal. A landlord who is dissatisfied has the right to appeal to the Magistrates Court.

For property managers, a Commissioner determination in your favour also creates a useful record for your files. Retain the determination alongside the condition reports and evidence bundle for at least twelve months — tenancy disputes occasionally have delayed consequences, and a documented resolution is useful protection.

A party who is dissatisfied with the Residential Tenancy Commissioner's determination can appeal to the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The Magistrates Court is also the enforcement mechanism if a party does not comply with a Commissioner determination.

Appeals should generally be based on an error in law, a significant error of fact, or a procedural problem with how the Commissioner handled the matter. The Magistrates Court will not generally re-hear a bond dispute simply because one party prefers a different outcome. Before pursuing a Magistrates Court appeal, it is worth assessing whether the determination contains a genuine error rather than a disagreement with the outcome on the facts.

The Magistrates Court process is more formal than the Commissioner determination. It involves filing an application, attending a hearing, presenting evidence before a Magistrate, and — in some cases — engaging legal representation. This is more time-consuming and costly than the Commissioner stage, which is why it is reserved for matters where a genuine error occurred or where the amounts at stake justify the additional process.

For property managers, the Magistrates Court is also the appropriate pathway for:

Direct proceedings where the claim significantly exceeds the bond amount and the full matter is more appropriate for a court than an administrative determination.

Enforcement where the Commissioner has made a determination and the other party has not complied — for example, a tenant ordered to pay compensation beyond the bond who has not done so within a reasonable period.

Most straightforward Tasmanian bond disputes — involving standard residential properties, clearly documented condition changes, and amounts up to or around the bond — are resolved at the Commissioner stage. The Magistrates Court pathway exists for the cases where the Commissioner process has not produced a result that accurately reflects the evidence and the law.

The bond claims that fail before the Residential Tenancy Commissioner follow recognisable patterns. Knowing what they are allows you to avoid them before a dispute ever arises.

Missing the Section 28 deadline. Providing the claim form more than three working days after the tenancy ends is the most consequential procedural error in Tasmanian bond disputes. The obligation runs from the day the tenancy terminates — not from when you finish assessing the property, not from when the invoices come in. Build the Section 28 obligation into your day-one vacancy checklist.

No entry condition report, or a vague one. The Commissioner relies on the entry condition report to establish the baseline. "Walls: satisfactory" and "carpet: clean" are not baselines — they are the kind of descriptions that leave everything in dispute. If the entry report does not specifically describe each room and item, there is nothing to compare the exit condition against. The CBOS template provides the right structure; fill it in fully, room by room, item by item.

Exit condition report completed days after the tenant vacated. An exit condition report completed a week after the tenant left cannot be reliably tied to the tenant's occupation. Conduct the exit inspection as close as possible to the day the tenant vacates. Ideally, do it while the tenant is present at key handover — this allows any issues to be discussed immediately and reduces the chance of later dispute about when damage occurred.

Claims that contradict the entry condition report. Claiming for a cracked window when the entry report noted the window was already cracked, or claiming for a carpet stain that was documented at entry, will be rejected by the Commissioner and undermines the credibility of your other claims. Review the entry report line by line against your claim before submitting.

Photographs without reliable timestamps. The Commissioner needs to know that entry photographs were taken before the tenancy and exit photographs were taken after. Photographs that cannot be reliably dated — no metadata, no visible date, no linking to a specific inspection — carry minimal evidential value. Use an inspection app that embeds timestamps in the image, or take the photographs in a way that creates a clear, reliable record of when each image was captured.

Generic or unsigned invoices. A text message that says "cleaning will cost about $300" is not acceptable evidence before the Commissioner. You need either a paid invoice on business letterhead specifying what was done and the cost, or a formal written quote from a licensed or qualified tradesperson. A vague reference to a cost or an undocumented verbal estimate will not support the claim.

Claiming for fair wear and tear. Including items that represent ordinary deterioration in a bond claim is both legally incorrect and strategically counterproductive. Apply the Section 53 standard honestly and remove any item that a reasonable person would regard as fair wear and tear. A tightly focused, well-documented claim is more persuasive to the Commissioner than an inflated claim with weak items.

Tasmania is the only Australian state or territory whose bond dispute process has always used a Commissioner-based administrative determination model, without a dedicated civil and administrative tribunal. Understanding this difference matters for property managers who work across multiple states.

Queensland (QCAT): When an RTA conciliation attempt fails, the Residential Tenancies Authority issues a Notice of Unresolved Dispute (NURD). The property manager then has seven calendar days to apply to QCAT using Form 2. QCAT holds a formal hearing — typically with both parties present — and an adjudicator or Justice of the Peace makes a binding order. The QCAT hearing is significantly more formal than the Commissioner process in Tasmania.

New South Wales (NCAT): After a conciliation attempt through NSW Fair Trading, either party can apply to NCAT for a formal hearing. Similar to QCAT, the hearing involves in-person attendance, evidence, and a binding decision by a member.

Victoria (VCAT): Applications to VCAT follow a failed conciliation attempt. The hearing process is more formal than Tasmania's Commissioner model, though VCAT handles a high volume of residential tenancy matters with relatively efficient scheduling.

Tasmania (Commissioner): Either party can apply to the Commissioner through CBOS once the bond claim dispute cannot be resolved through the MyBond portal. The process is document-based. The Commissioner reviews written submissions and evidence, not oral evidence at a hearing. The three-working-day Section 28 deadline is the most distinctive and time-sensitive obligation in the TAS framework.

For property managers moving between states, the practical differences are: Tasmania requires less formal preparation (no hearing to attend) but demands equally rigorous documentation. The Section 28 deadline is more immediate than the QCAT or NCAT application deadlines in those states. And the Commissioner's inability to hear oral submissions means that the quality of your written evidence and documentation is the only thing that matters.

ConditionHQ generates condition reports that meet the requirements of Tasmania's Residential Tenancy Act 1997 and produce the evidentiary record that the Residential Tenancy Commissioner expects.

For Tasmania property managers, the most valuable feature is the AI-assisted condition description. The Commissioner's determination rests on the quality and specificity of the entry and exit condition reports. "Carpet: fair" is not a description that supports or defends a bond claim. "Carpet, main bedroom, short-pile, no stains, light traffic wear near doorway — consistent with property age and tenancy length" is. ConditionHQ generates descriptions at this level of specificity from photographs and brief on-site notes, eliminating the most common quality failure in condition report evidence.

Timestamped photographs are embedded in the ConditionHQ report against the specific room and item they document. There is no separate folder of images requiring manual cross-referencing. The Commissioner receives a self-contained document where every description is visually supported at the point of claim — the format that is most readable and most persuasive in a document-based determination process.

The entry-to-exit comparison feature directly addresses the Commissioner's central question: what changed between entry and exit, and what is beyond fair wear and tear? The comparison highlights every item where the condition changed, producing a structured comparison that removes the need to manually track changes across two separate documents.

For the Section 28 deadline, ConditionHQ's rapid report generation means reports are ready at or shortly after the exit inspection — not days later after an office processing step. This supports the three-working-day claim form window by ensuring the exit condition report is available as part of the process, not trailing behind it.

ConditionHQ offers a free tier with three reports per month. The Pro plan at $59 per month provides unlimited reports. For Tasmania property managers whose bond claims are decided entirely on the quality of their documentary evidence, having reports that are specific, visually supported, and ready immediately after the inspection is a meaningful operational advantage.