Landlord unfairly charged me for professional cleaning and GARDENING! Please help...

[moonmaiden83]

To cut a long story short - My tenancy came to an end about a month ago. I put down a tenancy deposit of £900 and have received a cheque of only £600!!! There was a check-out fee which I am okay with as I signed a contract agreeing to it.

The problem is that the landlord has had the place professionally cleaned and billed me for it, when I had cleaned the place myself from top to toe (I left it SPOTLESS) - an inventory was even carried out and NOWHERE was it marked that anything needed attention with regards to cleaning. Everything was agreed as clean and in good condition.

I think my landlord is a bit of a psycho (excuse my language) and extrememly critical, and so felt that he wanted to property professionally cleaned none-the-less. However, didn't I do my part if I left the property in pristine condition and as I found it?

Secondly, he had a problem with how I maintained the garden. I had cut the grass and pruned any branches that were in the way and overgrown. He again felt this was not good enough and hired professional gardeners at my expense, charging me £165 for this! I went by the house today to inspect for myself what had been done and I can see that everything has been trimmed/pruned/cut back significantly - however THIS WAS NOT HOW I FOUND THE PROPERTY.

I'd like to mention at this stage that the landlord had been out of the country for months before I even set foot into the property. Perhaps the state of the garden was how he wanted it when he left (he was living in the house before he left) but it is obvious that the bushes and shrubs and whatever must have grown out a bit when he left because I repeat, I did not find it in the condition he has it in now. The problem is that I do not have proof of how the garden looked when I nbegun my tenancy and I know this would have helped me more than anything right now.

But once again, haven't a done my part with the garden? Nothing was seriously overgrown - and not being a professional gardener myself, I did not want to take the liberty to prune things down an enormous ammount - I only did it as much as I remember the state being when I moved into the house.

SO my questions are:

1) Havent I done my part as a good tenant?

2) What is the law with regards to my deposit - can the landlord charge for things which it seems are more centered on his taste and opinion?

3) Should I not have been informed that I was going to be charged for these things before the landlord went ahead and got the cleaning and gardening done? Perhaps it should have been discussed with me first, and I should have been given a chance to recitfy the problem myself or perhaps select a cheaper company?

Your help and any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I just want to know what the law is with this and where I stand. I intend to put my complaint in writing and explain my point of view to the landlord (I would say for DEFINITE even that the cleaning bill should NOT be my resposibility) and perhaps reach a neotiation. Failing this, I will probably go ahead and threaten to take him to a small claims court.

One thing's for sure, and that is that he hasn't heard the last of this one.

Many thanks - all help and advice will be much appreciated!

[Goldlady]

Moonmaiden it is a bit late to ask but did you take any photos of the interior/exterior before you moved out? We had similar problem with commercial landlord which we are still arguing over but we have photographic evidence that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the building.

[moonmaiden83]

No no no... and I am bashing my head against the wall because of this! But I had never had a problem like this before (I have rented several different properties in the past 5 years) - and ofcourse its just typical that I wouldn't have photos to support my case when something like this has happened.

Did you go aheat to a small claims court then?

[Goldlady]

We are going to the mega claims court - he did us out of £20k compensation for terminating the lease early by locking us out of the building for invented rent arrears: almost destroyed our business. I will see if I can find anything out to help you as I am studying land law at the moment.

[moonmaiden83]

Woa.... that sounds nasty (and makes my problem seem miniscule!)

I'd really really appreciate your help - I'd like to know just how picky and petty the law allows the landlord to be with things like this? Because seriously, atleast the house I know for SURE was left in pristine ocndition, you would have thought I got professional cleaners in myself! Plus the details on the invoice of what work was done stated things like dusting, removal of limescale in bathroom.... blah blah blah.... and the inventory noted that there was NONE of this!

But I do believe that the garden bit is a matter of taste - seriously, the grass was cut and bushes were mainly pruned (obviously not to his standards but they weren't in the way of anything and they didn't look untidy in the least).

I might try to negotiate and offer to pay only half... might have more of a chance for doing this but I still feel I shouldn't have to pay ANYTHING for this and don't want to!

[Goldlady]

have had a look for caselaw and can't find any particularly relevant. However several thoughts - you could pretend you have photos , you could also say that he should have gone through the house with you when you moved out, or that he should have had an independent valuer in and that you do not accept the bill from the cleaners as evidence as you can prove otherwise. (The guy we are fighting had a quotation from a building firm for extreme stuff such as cleaning carpets, replastering walls when in fact the B****d demolished the place so he has no legs left to stand on.) Have you got any details of what the deposit was for - as to me it should be for any damage rather than as you say a subjective opinion of what a garden should look like.

From what I know about such things I think you have done well to get some of it back. Best of luck.

[Joa]

moonmaiden- did you have a look at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...tml#post643195 ?
Also, there is a lot of info about difficulties with deposits on this forum. People who are experts made sure wrong or silly info has been removed or critiqued.
So get a glass of wine/hot chocolate/green tea and have a reading session. Remember: well informed= well armed

[Goldlady]

From the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - not certain if relevant after you have moved out but it might be worth saying that you consider he is in breach of s19.


19.—Limitation of service charges: reasonableness.

(1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period—

(a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and

(b) where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard;

and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.

(2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise.

(3) An agreement by the tenant of a flat (other than an arbitration agreement within the meaning of section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1950[4]) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination in a particular manner, or on particular evidence, of any question—

(a) whether costs incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management were reasonably incurred,

(b) whether services or works for which costs were incurred are of a reasonable standard, or

(c) whether an amount payable before costs are incurred is reasonable.

(4) A county court may make a declaration—

(a) that any such costs were or were not reasonably incurred,

(b) that any such services or works are or are not of a reasonable standard, or

(c) that any such amount is or is not reasonable, notwithstanding that no other relief is sought in the proceedings.

20.—Limitation of service charges: estimates and consultation.

(1) Where relevant costs incurred on the carrying out of works on a building exceed the limit specified in subsection (2), the excess shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge unless—

(a) the requirements of subsection (3) as to estimates and consultation have been complied with, or

(b) those requirements have been dispensed with by the court in accordance with subsection (5);

and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.

(2) The limit is whichever is the greater of—

(a) £25, or such other amount as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State, multiplied by the number of flats in the building, or

(b) £500, or such other amount as may be so prescribed.

(3) The requirements are:-

(a) At least two estimates for the works shall be obtained, one of them from a person wholly unconnected with the landlord.

(b) A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of the tenants concerned or shall be displayed in the buildings so as to be likely to come to the notice of all those tenants; and, if there is a recognised tenants' association for the building, the notice and copy of the estimates shall also be given to the secretary of the association.

(c) The notice shall describe the works to be carried out and invite observations on them and on the estimates and shall state the name and the address in the United Kingdom of the person to whom the observations may be sent and the date by which they are to be received.

(d) The date stated in the notice shall not be earlier than one month after the date on which the notice is given or displayed as required by paragraph (b).

(e) The landlord shall have regard to any observations received in pursuance of the notice; and unless the works are urgently required they shall not be begun earlier than the date specified in the notice.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the tenants concerned are all the landlord's tenants of flats in the building by whom a service charge is payable to which the costs of the proposed works are relevant.

(5) In proceedings relating to a service charge the court may, if satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably, dispense with all or any of the requirements of subsection (3).

(6) An order under this section—

(a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas, and

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

[MrShed]

Goldlady - irrelevant, these are not service charges. With respect(and I do mean that, I realise you are trying to help) some of your advice above is pretty incorrect - the landlord did not need to go through the house with the tenant, nor does he need an independent valuer, and neither should deductions be only for "damages" as opposed to stuff like cleaning.

Moonmaiden. To answer your questions simply and easily:

- You have no right to have a say in the company that performs the works, nor are you entitled to return to the property after it has vacated and perform the works yourself.

- Did you sign and return to the landlord a fully detailed inventoryon moving into the property?

- Without seeing the property before and after, it is impossible for us to say whether these charges are justified, whether the charges are for the landlords "taste", or whether you have done your "bit" as a tenant. However, we can advise on what I would call "technicalities", such as a lack of inventory etc.

[Joa]

You have no right to have a say in the company that performs the works

- Mr Shed, i think the tenant has a say as it's their money being spent. The landlord should allow the tenant a chance to remedy the damages or to decide who does the work based on at least two quotations.

The overarching issue with the deposits is that they must not be wittheld for anything else then: outstanding rent and property not being left in a state which it was first encountered allowing for fair wear and tear. When there is no evidence of the state of the property on entry (i.e. no entry inventory)- the landlord has no leg to stand on , as we say here often.
Landlord's taste has really no place here; the question is: was the property left as encountered, fair wear and tear and garden growth considered?
Your crucial bit of evidence is this:

an inventory was even carried out and NOWHERE was it marked that anything needed attention with regards to cleaning. Everything was agreed as clean and in good condition.

In light of the above in my opinion you do have a case against the landlord.

[Aequitas]

Originally Posted by Joa

When there is no evidence of the state of the property on entry (i.e. no entry inventory)- the landlord has no leg to stand on.

Whilst it is true that a landlord is able to prove his case more strongly if there is a written record of the condition of the property, it is not absolutely essential as other evidence may be admissible. This will particularly be the case where the tenant has trashed a property.

[MrShed]

Originally Posted by Joa

- Mr Shed, i think the tenant has a say as it's their money being spent. The landlord should allow the tenant a chance to remedy the damages or to decide who does the work based on at least two quotations.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one Joa

[demon_x_slash]

AFAIK, the landlord doesn't need to allow a chance to remedy, or a say in who does the cleaning, as long as the costs can be deemed 'reasonable' by the court. Many tenancy agreements stipulate that the property must be 'professionally cleaned' at the end of said tenancy. Sorry I can't offer more

[MrShed]

My point exactly demon. However, it should be noted that to state that the property must be "professionally cleaned" is against OFT fair terms, and is ambiguous. If someone must have this clause in, it should be worded that the property "must be cleaned by a proprietary cleaning company". If it is not, there is valid argument, that I would side with, that you can ignore such a term.