Our letting agent has just proposed some deductions from our deposit. One of them is for a ‘top up clean’ including cleaning the oven. When we moved in we stated in our offer that we wanted it professionally cleaned which it was not, the check in report even states this. The oven was dirty with a pan of oil in it. Part way through our tenancy our oven broke and they replaced it. They’re now saying the new oven negates the lack of cleanliness of the old oven when we moved in. Is this correct?
The old one broke, it has gone to the grave. You have a new one they supplied. Have you left it clean?
Probably not spotlessly clean no. We didn’t think it would matter being that they said we didn’t have to have it to a professionally cleaned standard. What annoys me is that they technically owe us a cleaning service and it feels like a bit of a mickey take that a new oven gets them out of this.
The state of cleanliness you must follow is that stated in the tenancy agreement regardless of the state when you moved-in
Well citizens advice and other similar sources state you don’t have to leave the flat in a better condition when you moved in. Why would you? The part that makes this complicated is the addition of new appliances. A landlord that lets a tenant move into a filthy flat and then charges for cleaning on exit is a pretty evil person in my book
1 Like
Evil? I’m sure the Bible mentions things much worse than this as being evil. Naughty perhaps, not evil.
Well this is getting political now but if you own several properties (he does) and you wanna squeeze more money out of low income tenants after letting them clean previous tenants filth then I would call that evil. Carry-on films are ‘naughty’. Exploiting people less fortunate than you is something else
1 Like
How many properties owned is irrelevant. Do you know their financial burdens? Would it make a difference to you if you did?
Likewise, tenant income is irrelevant.
Liability is all that matters.
Exploiting? Please explain.
You were given a clean oven, you didn’t leave it clean by your own admission.
If there is a tenancy deposit scheme then contest any other cleaning disputes with them, thats what it’s there for.
Maybe the the key thing is you moved into ,you say , a dirty flat . You should have complained about it or refused to take it in the first place
2 Likes
If you own multiple properties, are owning around £2000 a month from them and you have ‘financial burdens’ that require scrimping on cleaning and then charging your tenants then I think you need to ask yourself some questions
Yes we should have made a formal complaint but we didn’t. We complained to them and they didn’t do anything about it. This indeed worked to their advantage
1 Like
By your logic, every single bill you pay or thing you buy then you are being exploited.
Landlord has worked hard and sacrificed I’m sure to get themselves in that situation. They may be running at a loss for all you know.
You signed a contract, abide by its terms. You have options to contest it if landlord isnt playing by the rules, which I would not condone.
How is it my logic that I shouldn’t pay bills? You pay for services provided. We offered to pay for a clean flat, not a dirty one.
Not all landlords worked hard for their property and it’s irrelevant if they did. If they’re failing financially there’s no reason for the burden to land on their tenants
Nonsensical reply.
I’ve already said that finances play no part, yet you believe your income is relevant for some reason. 
Go through the correct channels, they will make a decision based on the relevant facts and not emotion.
Was there an inventory taken? The check out inventory would be compared to check in inventory.
My comment is not ‘nonsensical’. If finances and emotion play no part then why did you invent a hypothetical sob story in which landlords might be struggling financially? As if that should sway my opinion in the ethics involved here.
You arnt following.
It was to illustrate the point that your finances have no bearing, so understanding theirs wouldn’t change your mind one bit, and it didn’t.
Anyway, this is going south,
It would be the agent thats likely the “evil” culprit as landlords often just leave them to it, especially landlords of a certain size.
And also the fact that being less “fortunate” doesn’t absolve responsibility.
No it doesn’t. However it’s not out of the question to give some grace to a tenant who’s let you off the hook about far bigger failures, especially when our property alone earned them £25k a year. It’s just having a conscience
You failed to contest it at the time, you should have. Agents rarely give way or show willing. Usually a small landlord can be a pushover on things like this but is often guided by agent or not even involved at all.
Use the proper channels, that’s why they exist for disagreements.
You have to follow what the tenancy agreement says, so if it says that the tenant has to leave it in a better condition, then they are contractually obliged to do so. In practice this almost never happens and its not clear how a judge would react to the clause, but the starting point has to be that all other things being equal, adults are entering a contract with full awareness of the consequences.
1 Like