carpet cleaning at end of tenancy

BitterAndTwisted

Balls? If the carpets haven't been cleaned during a tenancy of two years then I would hazard a guess that they would need it by now. It's not reasonable, in my opinion, to say that the carpets aren't in good condition and weren't at the the start of the tenancy therefore I will not clean them. Wear and damage/dirt are not the same things. In order to return carpets in the same condition at the end of a tenancy as they were at the start would invariably require cleaning unless the tenancy was only a fortnight or so.

I'd tell the agents to go and boil their heads for asking to see the receipt for professional cleaning! I'd show them the receipt for the hire of a stream-cleaner and tell them that I'd see them in court if there were no stains that weren't there at the start of the tenancy and I could prove it..

poppy10_2

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

If the carpets haven't been cleaned during a tenancy of two years then I would hazard a guess that they would need it by now.

Exactly. Fair wear and tear. It's unreasonable for the LL to expect the carpets to be in the same condition as when the tenant moved in two years ago. If the LL wants the carpets back in the same condition, then he can pay for them to be cleaned himself.

BitterAndTwisted

The same condition does not include the dirt the carpets have acquired during the tenancy! These agents have asked to see the receipt for the cleaning so you can bet your bottom-dollar that they will be looking to retain part of the deposit if it's not done. I wouldn't risk it, I'd hire a Rug Doctor for twenty quid rather than lose the hundred-plus the agents will probably charge

moromir

poppy10 wrote: »

Exactly. Fair wear and tear. It's unreasonable for the LL to expect the carpets to be in the same condition as when the tenant moved in two years ago. If the LL wants the carpets back in the same condition, then he can pay for them to be cleaned himself.

Two years of accumulated dirt is not fair wear and tear.

Carpets do require regular cleaning to keep them in a good condition.

Examples of fair wear and tear on a carpet would be perhaps thinning of the carpet over high traffic areas, fading of areas by sunlight.

Why should the landlord pay to remove the tenant's dirt because they failed to maintain the carpets properly? It is not unreasonable for the tenant to be responsible for giving the carpets a good shampoo after two years.

Aquatronixjenny

I shampoo our carpets every 6 months, its only £20 to hire a rug doctor and there is all sorts of dust and dirt hidden in the carpet. There is nothing in our contract about carpet cleaning but I just think its the right thing to do. Why would I expect our landlord to have to clean up after me? 2 years worth of dust is not fair wear and tear...

It does not have to be 'professionally cleaned' thats an unenforcable clause. Just hire a steam cleaner.

00ec25

as aqua says requirements to have "professional" cleaning and//or produce proof of "professional" cleaning are considered uneforceable clauses, however this will only take effect when you ask a court to consider it.
so you will have to clean them somehow to return them to check in condition (that is beyond question) but you have a quandry how to do it:
either: hire a rug doctor and do it yourself, be prepared to dispute the deposit deduction the LA may make becuase they won't accept the receipt as a professional clean - you need to convince the DPA arbitrators that its an unfair clause
or: don't clean them at all and dispute the inevitable deduction, you will almost certainly lose some deposit because cleaned they must be don't clean them,
or: don't use the arbitraton service but take the LL to court over the deposit deductuion and let the judge decide on the clause