Landlord's Cleaning Charge

ERB20

G_M wrote: »

Dear Mr Landlord,

Further to our discussions over cleaning I am writing to remind you that our tenancy runs until 7th March 2015, and we have paid rent until that date.

During previous discussions, it was agreed that an Early Surrender would be accepted if a replacement tenant could be found.

I understand no replacement tenant has been found, so my tenancy has not been surrendered, and therefore continues to March 7th.

Although we have several times requested keys so as to regain access to the property, this has been refused, constituting an illegal eviction, contrary to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

I remind you that "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both."

With regards to the issue of cleaning, should a deduction be proposed from my deposit, I shall of course raise a dispute with the deposit scheme, and cite the denial of access as explanation for the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.

Yours sincerely,

Erb20

---

send it BY LETTER to the address "for the serving of notices"

Thanks for your help G_M, I've just had a look at that legislation, would this clause not void my claim?

"If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises."

We've not lived there since 17th January and the LL is aware of that.

G_M

An arguable defence. But remember

* the Act is a criminal one, so the LL might escape conviction on those grounds, but that would not affect your contractual civil right to access

* you have on several occassions (list the dates/methods - eg phone, email - in your letter) requested access. so the LL does NOT have "reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside..." you want to get back in.

In any event, the reality is that getting a prosecution under the Act is hard. Just persuading the authorities to prosectute is difficult. But the point here is to show the LL that denying you access is unacceptable, backed up by law, and he should be giving you back a key.

Or he should be accepting there's been an 'Early Surrender' and give you back some rent.....

Pixie5740

You say the property wasn't clean when you moved in. Did your LL provide you with an inventory that accurately described the condition of your property at the start of the tenancy? If so, did you sign it?

You might not have taken photos but the onus is on your LL to provide evidence that any proposed deductions from your deposit are justified.

ERB20

Thanks G_M and Pixie5740.

G_M - yeah, I wasn't planning on actually trying to take this to court, that's more hassle than it's worth but it would be good to have some weight behind my argument. Thank you for pointing me to the legislation.

Pixie5740 - no, there was never an inventory that I signed. This was something that I was looking into the other day but without proper proof I wasn't sure how strong my case was. The LL had taken photos of the bits she wasn't happy with - given I'd forgotten to vacuum under the sofa and hadn't dusted the blinds but it wasn't anything I couldn't have gone back in and sorted myself and avoided the £127 flat clean + £95 oven clean -_- (despite cleaning the oven before leaving).

onamissionEU

No signed inventory = LL's problem as Pixie said. He needs to prove to the DPS that you have left the flat in a condition warranting a prof clean. Without a signed inventory he can not do this - he is just trying it on. Backed up with proof that you have on several occasions unsuccessfully requested access to the property he does not have a leg to stand on.


Send GM's letter then forget about it. If he gives you a key back then give the place a clean - if you want to. BUT as he can not prove his claim due to lack of inventory you do not even need to do that! Request deposit back from scheme and if LL disputes, submit your evidence.


Any LL not doing a full and comprehensive inventory is asking for trouble!

RAS

OP, you seem to have got this back to front, if you are in England and Wales.

Assuming your deposit is is secured in a scheme (which one?)

1. in order to claim any money from the deposit the LL has to prove that your left the property in a worse state than when you moved in.
2. In the absence of a signed inventory, the LL has no proof as to the state when you moved in.
3. Therefore the LL cannot prove that the property is now in a worse state.

orionmoo

To be honest the LL doesn't have to prove, the DPS can just say "on the balance of probabilities it probably was in a worse state when the tenancy ended".

The dispute adjudicator did that to me with the oven.

The check in report said "Good condition but shows sign of use".
The check out report said "Good condition but shows sign of use".

The LL wanted to claim £60 for cleaning. No photos were provided specifically of the oven before or after.

The adjudicator said on the balance of probabilities it probably was in a worse condition, and ruled for a £40 cleaning payment (so we got a slight reduction).

But just shows the adjudicator can do whatever they like it seems, irrespective of the check-in and check-out reports matching!

G_M

RAS wrote: »

OP, you seem to have got this back to front, if you are in England and Wales.

Assuming your deposit is is secured in a scheme (which one?)

1. in order to claim any money from the deposit the LL has to prove that your left the property in a worse state than when you moved in.
2. In the absence of a signed inventory, the LL has no proof as too the state when you moved in.
3. Therefore the LL cannot prove that the property is now in a worse state.

Indeed. As explained further in the link provided in post 2 above.

* Deposits (payment, protection and return)