I've done end of tenancy clean myself – how do I charge tenant?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    That sounds right to me, MTG; but it seems what I'm up against here is the arbitrator and how s/he judges these things; and I suspect, given all I've read about the arbitration process, then Rosemary is right and that the arbitrator will want to see full-proof evidence that you've given the tenant the opportunity to clean/make repairs you've asked for. What if, for example, the tenant does some cleaning which they regard as satisfactory/as returning the property in the state they found it in, only for landlord to object? Is the LL entitled to say, 'you've had your chance, now I'm doing it'; or, as Rosemary says, does the LL have to go to the T. and say 'do it again and to my instructions otherwise I'll do it and charge you for it'?


      Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
      If that was demonstrably 'squeaky clean', then one can demand squeaky cleanliness in return.
      I am not sure that is the case. If the property is taken squeaky clean and left reasonably clean, I would suggest that that is a case of fair wear and tear. If the property is left in a state that any prospective tenant (not being a person with exacting standards) who had a look at it would walk straight out the front door that is different


        It is amazing how it is expected that a property is expected to be "squeaky clean" when a tenant moves out but when a tenant moves in it is alright to be "fairly clean". It seems to me that four hours to clean a kitchen is ridiculous unless it is completely wrecked. I have been a Landlord for over 15 years and have never expected a tenant to leave a property "squeaky clean". To me it is just an excuse to keep the tenant´s deposit. If a property has been left in an appalling state fair enough but other than that be fair.


          What Hampton says reminds me that on another site a poster said:

          It would be nice if the deposit arbitrations were a bit more even handed in their decisions towards the landlords. Tenants are getting away with not paying for damages and repairs by about 81% of the time, despite photographic evidence and testimonials.

          To which I replied:

          I do not think we can necessarily conclude that arbitrations favour tenants because they are "winning" 81% of the time. The figure may, and I am sure at least in part must, reflect the fact that many landlords have unreasonable expectations. A scuffed skirting board does not mean the tenant has to pay for the room to be redecorated; a cigarette burn on an armchair does not entitle the landlord to claim a new three-piece suite; a scorched worktop does not mean the landlord can insist on new kitchen units.


          Latest Activity