Unfair deduction for cleaning

[hansgillhaus]

Tenancy was granted in writing on 15/03/2007 for six months and was formally renewed for additional six months in writing on 15/9/07.

 

Rent was 365 per month and was paid monthly by direct debit.

 

I gave notice and vacated the property on 15/5/09.

 

 

The inventory upon checkout stated that a 'light clean' was needed for carpets and window ledges. Original inventory at check in stated carpets to be 'stained' and windows 'not clean'. Upon receipt of my deposit cheque, they had deducted 150 pounds from a total of 525 pounds made payable to a cleaning company.

 

Only when i queried this did they provide me with an invoice for the work carried out and stated that it was to remove mould from the windows caused by condensation.

 

I have sent them the letter stickied above - 'notice before action', they have replied stating that they believe the deduction to be correct.

 

In addition, I have never received any information re my deposit and the 'landlord deposit scheme', tenancy was formally renewed in writing on 15/9/07 and thereafter.

 

Do you feel that I have a case?

 

Also, I have not cashed the cheque for 375 pounds as yet, do you think it would matter if I did?

 

Many thanks for any help and advice in advance.

[Kentish Lass]

It would appear that the LL did not protect your deposit (or he would not have got his hands on it!)

 

I suggest that you write to the LL stating that you are aware that your deposit in relation to the AST which commenced on 15/09/97 was not protected in accordance with the law and that unless the balance of the deposit is returned to you with [10?] days, you will be suing them for the deposit + 3x deposit penalty for non-compliance with the Deposit Protection legislation.

 

As I have mentioned before, this often works a bit like a laxative......

 

You could go for the 3x deposit but need to think whether it is worth the hassle.

 

For £150 I would expect a complete and thorough clean of all areas!! Mould on the windows! - 10 minutes with a cloth and some bleach!

[pompeyfaith]

would the mould be the OP responsability as that is caused by damp walls which in turn is caused by a structual defect

[Kentish Lass]

would the mould be the OP responsability as that is caused by damp walls which in turn is caused by a structual defect

 

No - this type of mould on windows is not caused by structural defects. It is caused by condensation - classic problem in flats or houses where washing is dried indoors without adequate ventilation - the moisture from the washing (and cooking and showering and bathing etc.) gets into the air which is warm. When it hits the windows, which are cold, it turns into water droplets. Unless cleaned off every day, mould will form. Can also be a problem with walls and ceilings, particularly in bathrooms which are not adequately ventilated. That is one of the reasons that it is a legal requirement for bathrooms to have an extractor fan if there is no window. In fact, it is wise to have an extractor even if there is a window.

[hansgillhaus]

Thanks for the advice.

 

What do you think about the fact that the check out inventory stated a 'light clean for window ledges and carpets'?

 

Also, would the LL not have had to provide me with a quotation for the cleaning work prior to having it carried out and deducted from the deposit?

[Steve__M]

Sounds like they've charged a bit too much and that they've maybe not protected the deposit. So you need to go with Kentish Lass's first suggestion and mention deposit protection. You may have to be sufficiently determined to submit a court claim.

[Kentish Lass]

Thanks for the advice.

 

What do you think about the fact that the check out inventory stated a 'light clean for window ledges and carpets'?

 

I think that a quick wipe of the window ledges with a cloth and some bleach followed by a hoover and maybe shampoo of carpets. My AST includes a clause which says that at the end of the tenancy the carpets must be "professionally cleaned". It is not an unreasonable request.

 

Also, would the LL not have had to provide me with a quotation for the cleaning work prior to having it carried out and deducted from the deposit?

 

No LL simply has to provide proof of the cost of the work carried out.

 

But the fact that LL was ABLE TO DEDUCT monies from the deposit proves it was not protected.

[Steve__M]

I believe that requirements for "professional cleaning" of carpets are questionable in tenancy contracts - tenants only have to return the property in a condition similar to what it was when they moved in (fair wear etc. allowed). I'm not sure I've ever seen a case summary from the deposit protection arbitration schemes ever make reference to contractual requirements in tenancies.

 

Some of the schemes are insurance backed - the landlord or agent keeps the money. This means that the deduction can be made. It is then up to the tenant to complain and get arbitration. For the DPS, though, tenant and landlord have to actively agree to deductions before money is released. But in this case it doesn't sound like the deposit was protected!

 

I think invoices are usually strong evidence that costs were undertaken, even if they are apparently unreasonable. However, if the invoice covers things over and above what was listed in the checkout inventory then you have grounds to complain.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Go get a letter to the LL about TDS, if the deposit was not protected them I really think you should sue, eventually LL's will get the message.

 

Andy