Tenancy deposite dispute

Pianoman1

I've just checked out of a property that I was renting for 1.5 years and the Landlord has made a claim for the carpets to be professionally cleaned. When we gave our notice to end the tenancy, we asked for cleaning instructions in the letter (to the estate agents) and received none. We also called the estate agents twice about asking if the carpet needed to be professionally cleaned. Answer was "not that I am aware of".

There is no clause in the tenancy agreement regarding professional cleaning of house or carpets. When we moved into the property, there was a book from the landlord stating that the carpets "may need to be professionally cleaned", though this was once we had been given keys and put down rent and deposit. This is why I called estate agent to double check.

We left the property in very good condition, was assessed by external inventory service and said to be "very well taken care of" and the carpets "appear reasonably clean". We also have photo evidence. The carpet has one mark, which could easily be cleaned with product, and has been photographed. The carpets are good condition, just looks slightly faded from when moved in. Landlord says carpets were brand new before we moved in. This is believable as they were in very good condition.

I feel this claim is unfair as we were only in for 1.5 years and seems unreasonable to demand professional cleaning. Also, if they did answer to my query before moving, i would have probably used a rug doctor and saved money.

Deposit is held in protection scheme. I haven't responded to their email with the claims. Obviously want to try and resolve with agent/landlord before taking it to TDS.

Any tips on how i can form an initial reply/dispute?

anselld

Well from you own statements "reasonably clean" is not the same as "very good condition" and there is one specific stain.

The deposit criteria is that you leave things in the same state less wear and tear. The differences above are not wear and tear they are cleaning tasks for which you are responsible, instructions or no.

Provided the charges are reasonable then I would think you should pay. The TDS may or may not agree of course!

FBaby

It is not unusual to expect new carpet to be professionally cleaned especially after a short period of time. Ultimately, it's not about the professional cleaning, it's about the carpet being in a condition that is deemed acceptable after 18 months, ie. as it was when you moved in but for wear and tear you would expect during that period.

If you don't agree you should be charged anything, say so and it can be left to an adjudicator to decide, or if you want to avoid delaying the return of your deposit and potentially the landlord to get his way, maybe you could offer something towards to cleaning that you think is reasonable.

Pianoman1

anselld wrote: »

Well from you own statements "reasonably clean" is not the same as "very good condition" and there is one specific stain.

The deposit criteria is that you leave things in the same state less wear and tear. The differences above are not wear and tear they are cleaning tasks for which you are responsible, instructions or no.

Provided the charges are reasonable then I would think you should pay. The TDS may or may not agree of course!

Hi Anselld,

The state of cleanliness was very good. It is just natural fade on the carpets through being used, which I would consider wear and tear. The inventory clerk didn't make a comment about the carpets until the landlord asked (at the end) if we had the carpets cleaned and complained that we hadn't. The were no stains, marks, footprints or dirt anywhere expect for a slightly darker patch the size of a golf ball on a dark chocolate carpet.

My concern is that the charges wont be reasonable. They haven't stated a cost and I haven't had much confidence in this landlord and don't feel the charge will be reasonable.

Also, i need to stress that this wasn't in the tenancy agreement! And if did get a request I would have used a rug doctor.

Pianoman1

FBaby wrote: »

It is not unusual to expect new carpet to be professionally cleaned especially after a short period of time. Ultimately, it's not about the professional cleaning, it's about the carpet being in a condition that is deemed acceptable after 18 months, ie. as it was when you moved in but for wear and tear you would expect during that period.

If you don't agree you should be charged anything, say so and it can be left to an adjudicator to decide, or if you want to avoid delaying the return of your deposit and potentially the landlord to get his way, maybe you could offer something towards to cleaning that you think is reasonable.

No rush on the deposit here, which is helpful. Agree, carpet shouldn't be dirty/stained, but it has to be lived in and carpet can't stay exactly the same shade of colour as new. Even the inventory clerk said she hated doing this landlord's houses and that she expects everything to stay perfect.

I'm willing to accept responsibility for the mark. Is there any way that I can tactfully respond and offer this? Should I wait on this part until there have been a few more exchanges of emails? Also, how should I offer this to be cleaned? It looks like a mark that just needs some work with standard carpet cleaner. We just missed this one as it is only a slightly darker shade than the already dark chocolate brown carpet.

Marvel1

I would claim back the full deposit, let the deposit protection decide what is fair.

G_M

Relevant bits highlighted

Pianoman1 wrote: »

We left the property in very good condition, was assessed by external inventory service and said to be "very well taken care of" and the carpets "appear reasonably clean".


We also have photo evidence. The carpet has one mark, which could easily be cleaned with product, and has been photographed. The carpets are good condition, just looks slightly faded from when moved in.

Landlord says carpets were brand new before we moved in. This is believable as they were in very good condition.

After 1.5 years, I would not expect brand new carpets to be brad new any more. But I would expect them to still be in 'very good condition' and 'clean', and unstained.

If you dispute this, the arbitartors will look at the evidence from both sides and decide. Impossible to 2nd guess them. But provided the amount claimed by the LL is reasonable, a deduction seems on the face of it to be fair.

Presumably the LL will produce the dated carpet receipt to prove the carpets were brand new.

dekaspace

I was in a property for 3 years and the landlord put in carpet so cheap and nasty that I went to proper carpet shops and enquired about costs and was told it was cheap and nasty carpet that they didnt sell let alone could get hold of and told me it was cheap and nasty (that part I already knew)

When I moved he claimed it was beyond cleaning condition (it had a single burn caused by the electric fire he provided toppling over) and wanted new carpet for the entire property (despite the carpet in other rooms being old when I moved in)

I was advised by shelter (this was before the DPS schemes were in force) to let the landlord keep my deposit despite having photos of a clean property because as hard as I could scrub dirt from everything (and pay £40 in cleaning product costs) the property showed damage.

Sorry hope thats not seen as off topic too much but people can twist things to their agenda no matter if you are innocent.

anselld

dekaspace wrote: »

I was in a property for 3 years and the landlord put in carpet so cheap and nasty that I went to proper carpet shops and enquired about costs and was told it was cheap and nasty carpet that they didnt sell let alone could get hold of and told me it was cheap and nasty (that part I already knew)

When I moved he claimed it was beyond cleaning condition (it had a single burn caused by the electric fire he provided toppling over) and wanted new carpet for the entire property (despite the carpet in other rooms being old when I moved in)

I was advised by shelter (this was before the DPS schemes were in force) to let the landlord keep my deposit despite having photos of a clean property because as hard as I could scrub dirt from everything (and pay £40 in cleaning product costs) the property showed damage.

Sorry hope thats not seen as off topic too much but people can twist things to their agenda no matter if you are innocent.

You were not "innocent"...Cheap and nasty carpet does not excuse burns or dirt.

However, if the carpet needs to be replaced then the age and quality must be taken into account. So replacement carpet must also be cheap and nasty. The cost must also be apportioned to account for the expected life of a cheap and nasty carpet so you should only have been charged for the loss of life remaining, not the full replacement.

anselld

Pianoman1 wrote: »

My concern is that the charges wont be reasonable. They haven't stated a cost and I haven't had much confidence in this landlord and don't feel the charge will be reasonable.

Well you cannot agree a deduction until they tell you how much. Ask to see quote from the cleaners before deciding.

Pianoman1 wrote: »

Also, i need to stress that this wasn't in the tenancy agreement! And if did get a request I would have used a rug doctor.

Irrelevant. It either needs doing or it doesn't based on the checkout state vs checkin state. If it needed doing you don't need to be asked or instructed.

dekaspace

anselld wrote: »

You were not "innocent"...Cheap and nasty carpet does not excuse burns or dirt.

However, if the carpet needs to be replaced then the age and quality must be taken into account. So replacement carpet must also be cheap and nasty. The cost must also be apportioned to account for the expected life of a cheap and nasty carpet so you should only have been charged for the loss of life remaining, not the full replacement.

Actually the burn was due to the landlords heater, he gave it after the gas heater broke and he couldn't be bothered repairing it, the electric heater he gave me was faulty and the leg bent in usage and despite it taking seconds for me to turn it off the damage had been done, and it was a small area less than a 50p piece.

So that cheap carpet that cost under £200 to put down he wanted £600 to replace even though I had used a professional carpet machine on each room and he wanted the whole property carpeted even though the other rooms had even older carpet which was so badly put down there was lumps in it everywhere.

He was a dodgy landlord though, I had leaks in the roof for 2 years before moving out he never repaired so buckets everywhre and he blamed me for them, he self installed a kitchen so doors fell off first time I used them (actual damage to walls) that was my fault he not only failed to repair but said it was malicious damage that I did, poundland tiles in kitchen floor that a single tile cracked as it couldn't hold weight and he wanted me to pay for whole kitchen.

Oh and he hid massive holes in kitchen walls above cupboard when I moved in by putting wood in front of them, im talking the actual deep holes as you saw the framework behind snapped, of course he said I did it.

He even was petty enough to charge me for where the metal headboard made a few small paint scrapes against wall by wanting whole bedroom repainted.