Hi Tony, the original thread is here.
I’d invite readers of this thread to go in and read the above thread for the full context.
To reiterate, though, the clause mentioned describes an optional cost. Tenants can either do the cleaning or pay for it to be done professionally. We believe that is in keeping with the word and spirit of Tenant Fees Act — an Act which we contributed to with supporting evidence.
You’re right that only a court can decide such things. But we think that this wording is fair. The fact the clause can exist helps tenants with pets find homes, because without it landlords must accept that tenants with pets will cost them ~£200 more than those without. Many landlords in this case would just not accept tenants with pets. From the tenant perspective, they can simply clean the property themselves (which most tenants do anyway as a matter of courtesy!) and avoid the cost. And the landlord is then protected from their property being in a bad state due to their willingness to accommodate tenants with pets.
So I think this term of our AST ticks all the boxes.