Checkout Inventory and Betterment Questions

discerningspender

I've just moved out of a rented property and have a few questions about deposit return. The first is about the check out inventory: the tenancy agreement does not mention either check in, or check out inventory fees; however, the LL has stated that I am to pay for the check-out inventory. I understand from a quick search that this is not the case, since it is not mentioned in the agreement I do not have to pay for one. However, my question is, supposing the LL were to decide therefore not to do a check out inventory, could that actually ever be a problem to a tenant? My understanding is that if deductions are disputed through the DPS (which is likely, given already the usual unfair carpet cleaning when the carpets weren't cleaned on entry trick is already being mooted) then the DPS will require the LL to prove any damages rather than the tenant to prove there are not any. Therefore, it doesn't seem that there would be a problem to me there being no inventory, but I wanted to check. (The deposit is protected and I do have the details).


I was also wondering how betterment works: does it apply to single items, or to the whole property in general. For example (hypothetical), if there is some dust on the skirting board in the lounge that wasn't there at check-in, but the sink is cleaner at check out than check in, can the LL charge for cleaning of the items that are dirtier without taking into account anything that is now cleaner? The property has been thoroughly cleaned, but it's hard to match any cleaning job exactly.


Finally, putting normal furniture on carpet and using it in the normal way leaves slight dents in that carpet where the furniture was when it is removed. Is this considered damage, or normal wear and tear?


Thanks!

G_M

1a) If you have not agreed (normally via signing the tenancy agreement) to pay a check out charge, then you cannot be made to pay one. The landlord can ask you to of course, and you can agree or decline.

1b) if no check out inspection is undertaken, the landlord will find it difficult to prove (in the event of a dispute over the deposit for example) that the condition at the end was not as it was at the beginning. Same with check-in inventory (though there are other ways to prove condition at start eg receipt for brand new goods, receipt for professional cleaning etc)

2) betterment applies to each item. If the sink is cleaner at the end, you cannot offset this 'betterment' against a dirty toilet. You must still leave the toilet as clean (or more so) as it was at the start

3) normal wear and tear. But the key is 'normal furniture'. If you brought in a super-heavy unusual item that caused damage to the carpet, that would not be fair wear and tear.

Gigervamp

For future reference, re the carpet indentations, I read a tip for that. If you put an ice cube on the dent, it will raise the pile.

bouicca21

Actually on my recent checkout the inventory guy said exactly the opposite to GM. He specifically said that items that were in better nick at check out than at check in would be offset against anything that was worse. And his written report indicated the same - that a bit of cleaning that I'd missed should be offset against two significant areas that were better. Mind you even allowing for the bits I'd missed, a comparison of the state of the flat when I moved in and when I moved out suggests they ought to have paid me ...

G_M

bouicca21 wrote: »

Actually on my recent checkout the inventory guy said exactly the opposite to GM. He specifically said that items that were in better nick at check out than at check in would be offset against anything that was worse. And his written report indicated the same - that a bit of cleaning that I'd missed should be offset against two significant areas that were better. Mind you even allowing for the bits I'd missed, a comparison of the state of the flat when I moved in and when I moved out suggests they ought to have paid me ...

Well of course there is nothing to prevent a landlord (or his agent) from taking this approach.

My point was that the tenant cannot legally insist that the LL take this approach.

G_M

Gigervamp wrote: »

For future reference, re the carpet indentations, I read a tip for that. If you put an ice cube on the dent, it will raise the pile.

You're pulling our legs! Really?

I gotta try that. Will let you know.......

discerningspender

Thanks for the replies . I actually used the ice cube trick in a previous rented house, but forgot about it this time. It was bog standard furniture though so fair wear and tear it is.

I always find the process of moving out frustrating because no matter how hard one busts a gut to make the place clean, there's always something, and there's rarely any appreciation of what is actually better, and on top of that there are often unfair betterment tricks that letting agencies push hard and make landlords believe. It just feels like another opportunity to rip people off. By contrast when one buys a house the expectations are much more realistic. Unfortunately I think I'm dealing with an inexperienced LL whose expectations have been raised by a letting agency and also has some emotional attachement, which makes things a little tricky, but I will fight for what's fair.

Interesting to see two different views on the betterment thing, on the one hand it makes sense to treat items separately: it's little use saying yes I smashed up your £300 TV, but I left a shower screen to that value so you're even. But on the other hand it's a question of whether cleaning could be considered a bulk (after all the cost of cleaning one item is pretty much interchangeable with that of cleaning another, within reason): clearly the LL is better off if a cleaner is brought in to do what was less clean, but what was more clean is not factored in.

Still awaiting a proposal for deductions (inventory still not done) rather than a list of personal complaints so we'll see.