I've never heard of tenants painting a property when they leave.
As a landlord I definitely would NOT want a tenant to get a flat repainted.
You'd (as a tenant) end up spending $5k to mitigate $250 of unreasonable wear, that I could have had done at cost. Then you'd incur an additional $2k of costs to put the mess you 'randomly specified' right.... but it still wouldn't be right.
Don't do it; it's lose:Lose .
Just my 2c as an experienced landlord.
p.s. Please feel completely free to follow up the question/discussion; I'm in no way trying to 'shut you down' ok?
Depends on the rental contract. In one of the places we rented (where the landlord was NTUC Income), there was a clause that obliged the tenant to repaint at the end of the tenancy. We priced that into the equation when deciding whether or not to rent the place. Sorry but I can't remember how much it cost to get the repainting done as this was several years ago.
None of the other places we've rented have had that clause in the contract, so it would seem to be a relatively rare stipulation. In fact if we'd known that this was not so commonplace as everyone was telling us at the time, we'd have probably tried to negotiate it out of the agreement.