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

[johnkimon]

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'?

[Lawcruncher]

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

[Hampton]

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.

[Lawcruncher]

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.