Tenancy agreement help - RE professional cleaning.

chris_m

Of course, the definition "professionally cleaned" is somewhat ambiguous anyway - professional only means "paid to do something", so it could just as validly be a company with three vanloads of specialist equipment, three operatives and a day-and-a-half to do it - or a quick whizz-round by the little old lady down the road who does cleaning to supplement her pension.
The end result is what applies, not the method.

prudryden

chris_m wrote: »

Of course, the definition "professionally cleaned" is somewhat ambiguous anyway - professional only means "paid to do something", so it could just as validly be a company with three vanloads of specialist equipment, three operatives and a day-and-a-half to do it - or a quick whizz-round by the little old lady down the road who does cleaning to supplement her pension.
The end result is what applies, not the method.

Very true. However, if the little old lady could do the same kind of job as the 3 special forces, she must be called Wonder Woman or Batlady.:)

jjlandlord

chris_m wrote: »

Of course, the definition "professionally cleaned" is somewhat ambiguous anyway - professional only means "paid to do something".

Should it comes to that I think a court would agree that "professionally cleaned" means cleaned by professionals in the domain, ie. that they are considered expert compared to the average person.
I can give a tenner to any joe from the pub to clean my house, that does not make it a professional cleaner.

tbs624

jjlandlord wrote: »

This clause and reasonable and was freely agreed. It is enforceable.

Only a court can decide what is enforceable. A LL cannot expect a tenancy clause stipulating that the T has to effectively return the property in a better condition than when original let to him/her to be upheld.

LL without a signed inventory in place, and/or other evidence to prove the property's condition from the start, is going to struggle to get any proposed deductions from the Ts deposit.

jjlandlord

tbs624 wrote: »

A LL cannot expect a tenancy clause stipulating that the T has to effectively return the property in a better condition than when original let to him/her to be upheld.

The clause states that items that might have been soiled should be professionally cleaned.
It is conditional and does not imply that the property should be returned in a better condition. Thus a court might have no problem with it provided that LL tries to enforce it reasonably.

tbs624 wrote: »

LL without a signed inventory in place, and/or other evidence to prove the property's condition from the start, is going to struggle to get any proposed deductions from the Ts deposit.

Yes, but that's another issue.

prudryden

"The clause states that items that might have been soiled should be professionally cleaned."

It still doesn't say "during the term". So far, that is what I have always seen written into contracts that I have used. Check the ones that you use and let us know if you have them. Would a court not have to assume/infer that the contract means during this term? Is inference a valid argument in legal action? What do you think?
.

Lazzza

I don't see where the ambiguity is. If the carpets and curtains don't need cleaning (i.e. are clean and unsoiled) then you don't need to do anything professionally.

So just clean the place yourself to the level it was at or better when you moved in.

LL is dreaming.

may_fair

2)"To pay for the professional cleaning or washing of such carpets, curtains, upholstery and loose covers, counterpanes, blankets and linen which shall have been soiled, including items stored during the tenancy and which at the termination of the tenancy may require to be washed and/or cleaned. To provide to the landlord or the landlords agent receipts for such"

prudryden wrote: »

It still doesn't say "during the term". So far, that is what I have always seen written into contracts that I have used....Would a court not have to assume/infer that the contract means during this term? Is inference a valid argument in legal action? What do you think?

There will sometimes be ambiguities in written contracts (or even in legal statutes). A court will interpret what the intended meaning is. In this clause, I think it is fairly clear that it intends to refer to soiling which occured during the tenancy, especially as it goes on to say "including items stored during the tenancy and which at the termination of the tenancy...". I don't think you'd get very far trying to argue that it refers to soiling which occurred before or after the tenancy.

Wyndham

I'm interested to know if you should get carpets cleaned at the end of a tenancy as a general rule. There is a certain amount of 'wear and tear' expected, so assuming you aren't dragging mud through the house on a regular basis and are just a 'normal carpet user' then wouldn't it come under this? I'd no more clean the carpets than I'd paint the walls, and would expect the landlord to decide whether either of these needed doing before he let the place again.

Alias_Omega

Rug doctor the carpets, can be hired from B&Q for less than £30.

Good polish (pledge etc) will remove most marks from walls, units etc with a good spray. Once you've washed the kitchen sink, dry it with a towel. Mould on bathroom tiles etc, will come off with the use of a scouring pad.

Curtains, bedding etc, you could remove and have professionally cleaned, leaving them in the packaging for the landlord to hang themselves, or leave for the next tenant.