Tenent not allowed to clean before leaving

[RobS]

A friend of mine has just vacated a property today. The agent who looks after the property came round for check out. She said that because there was dust on the window sills and under the sofa my friend would be charged £50 for cleaning.

 

My friend had taken the day off work to finish moving and clean the property. She had a vacuum cleaner handy and offered to clean the dust there and then. The agent told her that because she had already handed the keys to her at that point she wasn't allowed to vacuum and would have the money taken out of her deposit.

 

Surely my friend is entitled to spend 2 mins vacuuming and avoid a £50 charge? Unfortunately she didn't argue at the time and signed the check out report (of which she doesn't have a copy).

[rebel11]

Hi Rob

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will advise as soon as they are available.

[Ed999]

My advice is applicable only if the rented premises are entirely within England and Wales, and only if you were granted a shorthold tenancy (under which you [and your spouse/partner/children if any] had exclusive use of a seperate dwelling, which was not shared with another tenant nor with the landlord) and you were over 18 years of age when the tenancy was granted.

 

 

If the tenant paid a deposit, read the FAQs about the tenancy deposit scheme, under which she might be entitled to sue for compensation if the deposit has not been protected, if she was granted a shorthold tenancy -

 

- Tenancy Deposit Scheme

 

- Tenancy Deposit Protection - First High Court Decision

 

- TDS eligibility, implication of breach and legal questions answered

 

 

The High Court decided in Potts v Densley that the tenant can win a claim if the landlord fails to provide the prescribed information pursuant to section 213(5), even if the deposit is actually protected within the TDS scheme.

 

 

Suing for the penalty, or merely threatening to do so, might cause the landlord to return the entire deposit, without any deductions, thus resolving the dispute; although the landlord could, alternatively, put the deposit into a TDS scheme instead, and then continue to argue for deductions.

 

The Act expressly states that the parties to the tenancy cannot agree not to protect the deposit. So it's futile for the landlord to raise this defence - but many still try to!

 

 

Alternative Dispute Resolution

 

If the deposit paid by the tenant is currently still protected within an authorised TDS Scheme, the Deposit Protection Service (DPS) - who administer all TDS Schemes - offer an alternative procedure for resolving disputes, to save her having to go to court.

 

They have issued a guide, explaining the disputes procedure they provide:

 

http://www.depositprotection.com/documents/a-guide-to-tenancy-deposits-disputes-and-damages.pdf

 

Where a deposit is protected by being placed in the TDS scheme, if a dispute arises at the end of the tenancy (e.g. over alleged disrepair) the parties can choose to resolve it by this procedure instead of going to court (but must begin the procedure within a time limit).

 

Both the landlord and the tenant must agree to use the DPS disputes procedure. It cannot be initiated by only one of them. But it can be MUCH cheaper than a court case.

 

 

The same procedure applies in ANY dispute concerning a tenancy deposit protected in a TDS scheme, regardless of the type of scheme involved (i.e. whether it is a custodial scheme or an insurance scheme), and regardless of which of the three authorised bodies is administering the scheme.

 

 

Further information: Deposit Protection Service (DPS) website

[Steve__M]

Rights and wrongs of the charge aside, the practical issue is that it would often be unwise for an agent to let an ex-tenant back into a property.

 

My friend (a landlord) attended an official checkout along with tenant. The checkout person basically allowed the tenant to clean *until* the checkout process was over.

[Ed999]

As a matter of law, possession of the premises belongs to the tenant until the moment of termination of the tenancy; and until then the tenant cannot lawfully be prevented from cleaning the premises, or even occupying them.

 

It will be a question of fact as to precisely when the tenancy ends. Giving up the keys might not be significant, if the notice of termination has not yet expired. An implied surrender - one done without a written deed of surrender - does not take effect until the landlord re-lets the premises, so merely handing over the keys is not conclusive.