Tenancy deposit dispute

jamezm

Hi all. Seeking your wisdom on a dispute I'm in with a management agency and landlord regarding return of our tenancy deposit.

We have been in the house for more than four years. It's a high-value rental and it was a new build, albeit with a few minor imperfections including some marks to one of the carpets.

We left the house and cleaned the house 'to a professional standard' including paying some local cleaners to help for a few hours. The house was already kept very clean and tidy. We asked the agency beforehand whether they had any particular requests for the cleaning and they said:
- clean to a professional standard but don't worry too much about (for example) hoovering and general cleaning as they would be getting some painting and decoration completed between tenancies so they would be doing a fresh clean later
- focus on bathrooms and appliances

On departure, I handed over the keys and the agency went around the house to take a quick look. They said the house seemed extremely clean but they pointed out 5 or 6 areas where they weren't happy so we spent another few hours focusing on those. Some areas (such as the oven tray and grille, scorch marks on the hob rings, and a stain on one of the carpets) couldn't be made entirely perfect despite a lot of effort put in.

After departure, the agent sent a note to say that they were going to have to pay for a professional oven clean for the oven and hob and a professional carpet clean for one of the carpets. They plan to deduct the cost of these from the tenancy deposit. If the carpet stain doesn't come out, they intend to deduct the cost for replacing the entire carpet.

I don't think this is reasonable or proportionate and would appreciate your thoughts.

My reasoning:
- they shouldn't expect an oven tray, grille, or hob, to look entirely perfect after nearly four years of domestic use, and the oven interior and glass door were spotless
- surely in a high-value rental the landlord would often expect to replace all carpets in between tenancies or every 4/5 years anyway
- most of the house is wooden flooring but there are three carpeted rooms and they intend to clean/replace two out of the three anyway due to water leak damage and some pre-existing marks, so likely that they would consider replacing carpet in the third room anyway

We've always been good tenants and don't want the stress and worry of a dispute but it just doesn't seem reasonable to expect us to pay out for this.

Mark_d

Landlord always want their property returned in a perfect condition - and try to con their tenants.  Fortunately the deposit protection agencies are there to find the correct amount which should be deducted from the deposit.

You did not have the property professionally cleaned and you will always get caught on this.  You need professional cleaning and proof the the place has been professionally cleaned.

The deduction for damage to the carpet should be adjusted for depreciation (normal wear & tear) on the carpet.  The landlord will likely to try to con you here but you should be able to make a case for the deposit protection agency.

newsgroupmonkey_

Mark_d said:

You did not have the property professionally cleaned and you will always get caught on this.  You need professional cleaning and proof the the place has been professionally cleaned.

Yes they did. They brought in some local cleaners.

_Penny_Dreadful

Mark_d said:

You did not have the property professionally cleaned and you will always get caught on this.  You need professional cleaning and proof the the place has been professionally cleaned.

Firstly, the OP did pay people to clean.  Secondly, what qualifies someone to be a professional cleaner?  Just because someone charges for the service and wears a tabard does not mean they will clean the place any better than the tenant.  Landlords just want the place clean, the how is not important.  

In my time I've paid some very good cleaners, some mediocre ones and some bloody awful ones.  Those who are mediocre and awful are unlikely to help with getting the full deposit back.

_Penny_Dreadful

jamezm said:

Hi all. Seeking your wisdom on a dispute I'm in with a management agency and landlord regarding return of our tenancy deposit.

We have been in the house for more than four years. It's a high-value rental and it was a new build, albeit with a few minor imperfections including some marks to one of the carpets.

We left the house and cleaned the house 'to a professional standard' including paying some local cleaners to help for a few hours. The house was already kept very clean and tidy. We asked the agency beforehand whether they had any particular requests for the cleaning and they said:
- clean to a professional standard but don't worry too much about (for example) hoovering and general cleaning as they would be getting some painting and decoration completed between tenancies so they would be doing a fresh clean later
- focus on bathrooms and appliances

On departure, I handed over the keys and the agency went around the house to take a quick look. They said the house seemed extremely clean but they pointed out 5 or 6 areas where they weren't happy so we spent another few hours focusing on those. Some areas (such as the oven tray and grille, scorch marks on the hob rings, and a stain on one of the carpets) couldn't be made entirely perfect despite a lot of effort put in.

After departure, the agent sent a note to say that they were going to have to pay for a professional oven clean for the oven and hob and a professional carpet clean for one of the carpets. They plan to deduct the cost of these from the tenancy deposit. If the carpet stain doesn't come out, they intend to deduct the cost for replacing the entire carpet.

I don't think this is reasonable or proportionate and would appreciate your thoughts.

My reasoning:
- they shouldn't expect an oven tray, grille, or hob, to look entirely perfect after nearly four years of domestic use, and the oven interior and glass door were spotless
- surely in a high-value rental the landlord would often expect to replace all carpets in between tenancies or every 4/5 years anyway
- most of the house is wooden flooring but there are three carpeted rooms and they intend to clean/replace two out of the three anyway due to water leak damage and some pre-existing marks, so likely that they would consider replacing carpet in the third room anyway

We've always been good tenants and don't want the stress and worry of a dispute but it just doesn't seem reasonable to expect us to pay out for this.

If you don't think the proposed deductions are reasonable or proportionate then use the deposit scheme's arbitration service, that it is why it exists after all.  You need to leave the property in the same condition, minus any fair wear and tear, as it was in at the start of the tenancy. 

The letting agent certainly likes to bandy around the word, "professional," so have they qualified exactly what that means other than paying someone to do the work?  How exactly are they defining, "professional standard?"

In a high-value rental I wouldn't expect to replace the carpets every 4-5 years as I would expect a high-value rental to have high quality flooring and not the cheap carpets that fall apart.  My grandparents' tufted wilton is still going strong many decades later.  Depending on the quality of the carpets your landlord may reasonably expect them to last 10 years so let's say you've been in the property for 5 years, as your landlord is not entitled to betterment so your landlord would be entitled to 5/10 of the cost of replacing the carpet.  One carpet you appear to admit to staining so it's possibly reasonable that you pay a portion of the cost of replacing it.  The two carpets with water leak damage, providing you were not responsible for causing the leak, probably have a residual value of zero since they are already damaged and I wouldn't expect you to contribute towards the cost of those.

FlorayG

The oven clean I would think acceptable - it's not in the condition it was when you moved in and only a professional clean will make it so after more than 4 years. Lots of people have their own ovens professionally cleaned so I don't think that one is unreasonable
The carpets are a different matter, as others have said there's wear and tear and also to make note of any damage that wasn't your fault. The deposit protection service will find a reasonable compromise

MikeJXE

The last flat I vacated after 2 years I cleaned myself

The oven was the issue 

The agent charged for a profesional clean despite me never using it 

It’s hard to argue how clean is clean so I didn’t 

Not worth the hassle 

DE_612183

I would expect "professional" to mean someone you engage who's services are provided on the basis they are cleaners, and if they fail to do the job properly you have some form of redress.

saajan_12

Ignoring the word "professional" on both sides, as its not relevant how much effort was put in and by who.. what matters is the end result - how clean and undamaged the property actually is compared to fair wear & tear. 

* Oven - hard to say without pictures, but its possible that there is stuff baked on now, and needs a chemical clean to remove now. From my experience they can indeed go back to looking fairly 'new'. 

* Carpet - Was the stain actually caused during your tenancy? This may need a carpet shampoo, or may border on damage if it can't be removed by cleaning. Either way, its not about how much effort went in, stains are not considered fair wear & tear, so the (depreciated) cost would be yours. 

jamezm said:

My reasoning:
- they shouldn't expect an oven tray, grille, or hob, to look entirely perfect after nearly four years of domestic use, and the oven interior and glass door were spotless - disagree, a deep chemical clean can leave these looking pretty shiny. 

- surely in a high-value rental the landlord would often expect to replace all carpets in between tenancies or every 4/5 years anyway - no, if the carpets were good quality then they could last 10/20/30 years and there is no expectation of replacement prematurely. However they would need to deduct proportionately for the age of the carpet, ie 4 years, or longer if it wasn't new when you moved in. 

- most of the house is wooden flooring but there are three carpeted rooms and they intend to clean/replace two out of the three anyway due to water leak damage and some pre-existing marks, so likely that they would consider replacing carpet in the third room anyway - that's not really relevant what the LL would do for their own purposes. You just pay for a contribution due to it not being in the saem condition as when you started. 

RAS

This wasn't a high end rental but there was a fairly recent case here where the tenant admitted causing a iron burn mark in a corner of a carpet that was new when they moved in.

The LL wanted the cost of replacing the whole carpet, the deposit scheme gave the LL what was essentially a small contribution towards the cost of replacing at a future date; £80.

You aren't required to return stuff brand new, it's less fair wear and tear. This may be damage but the LL can re-let with the damage, as long as that's made explicit to the new tenant. Obviously a bit different if it's a 50cm ink stain rather than a 2cm blur.

If the LL claims the whole cost, rebut with a photo of the actual stain, size of carpet and ask the deposit scheme to adjudicate. Don't enter into argy bargy with the EA.

theartfullodger

Is this genuinely high rent~~~???? If so it can't (may not be, legally impossible to be) an AST (or AT) ) .  If the rent is less than  £1,500 pa or more than £100,00 (really high)  it's not an AST - see from the experts...
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/renting/assured_and_assured_shorthold_tenancies/tenancies_that_cannot_be_assured#title-3

- so deposit protection doesn't apply so agreeing on deductions depends on contract