In this case, the landlord was claiming that the tenant should pay for the cost of treating a flea infestation at the property.
The disputed amount was £180, which related entirely to a contractor’s fee to attend the property and fumigate to eradicate the fleas.
The landlord’s position was that an infestation of fleas became apparent after the tenant and their cat had vacated the property, and attributed the problem to the presence of the cat during the tenancy.
The tenant denied there was any evidence of fleas at the property when they vacated the property, said their cat was flea-treated by the vet and had never had fleas.
The landlord submitted dated and signed check-in and check-out reports, an invoice in the amount claimed from a pest treatment contractor along with a statement of opinion from the contractor, various emails and a photograph of a flea-bitten ankle.
The tenant submitted various documents relating to their cat’s vet treatments and receipts for the purchase of pet flea prevention treatments.
The adjudicator noted that the check-out report made no mention of fleas, and that the photograph of the ankle appeared to have been taken at least a week after the tenancy had come to an end.
This evidence did not clearly satisfy the adjudicator that there were fleas in the property as a result of the tenant’s occupation.
However, the pest treatment contractor’s statement did show that they had identified a flea infestation at the property, two weeks after the tenancy had ended, when they visited the property. Their statement confirmed the property was empty at that time and that an infestation was clear.
The tenancy agreement set out the landlord’s agreement the tenant could keep a cat at the property, and, among other responsibilities, that the tenant would be responsible for costs arising for damage or to eradicate any pests caused by or resulting from the presence of the animal in the property.
The relevant special clause included that, “The tenant will be liable to compensate the landlord for any losses due to flea infestation by an animal of the tenant, his family or his visitors”.
The adjudicator was persuaded, on a balance of probabilities, that the flea infestation identified within a short number of weeks of the end of the tenancy was likely the result of the presence of the tenant’s cat at the property.
As there was no record or report of a flea infestation at the start or during the course of this tenancy, the adjudicator was satisfied to award the landlord the cost they had claimed from the tenant’s deposit for the eradication of the fleas at the property.
So, what are the key points?
- Proving that certain types of pest infestations had begun or occurred during a tenancy, or as a result of a tenant’s actions or inaction can be difficult. Ensuring that a tenancy agreement contains sufficiently robust provisions relating to the keeping of an animal and the possibilities of resulting damage or pest infestations, is crucial.
- An independent specialist contractor’s statement is helpful in order to establish the link between an infestation and the tenancy. Given the nature of some pest infestations means they will not always be visible or apparent for some days or weeks after a tenancy has ended. Without the special clause in this case in the tenancy agreement, or indeed the contractor’s statement, the adjudicator may not have been satisfied there was adequate basis to make an award to the landlord.
Sandy Bastin, the author of this article, is head of dispute resolution at TDS
Comments (10)
They miss another ‘key point’ – that the tenant only had to pay for the cost of the treatment and made no contribution whatsoever towards the time and hassle their breach of tenancy conditions caused to the landlord, agent, contractor, next tenant, etc. resolving the issue and then writing and submitting evidence in order to satisfy the adjudicator.
Absolutely spot on and adjudicators Are unlikely to agree reimbursement of the cost of expert evidence. Perhaps the author of the article can confirm if presentation and evidential costs would be awarded. My guess is not.
If anyone has, I have been, the first square meal for the resident fleas after a cat has vacated, they will know what a horrible experience this can be for the agent – I didn’t only have to get the property fumigated, I also had to do the same on return to my office because I was still covered in the blighters!
and that is why if pets are permitted then the tenant should be forced to pay for a ‘pet treatment’ post tenancy…..
My limited knowledge from experience is that fleas do not manifest themselves during the tenancy as the host is still present to hop on and off like a bus. It is when the host vacates they make their presence known looking for a new host, so tenants are usually correct when they say they have no problem with fleas on their pets, they don’t, it is the follow on tenant who has the problem
The flea eggs stay dormant while the heating is off. As soon as the heating comes back on and footsteps start banging about they wake up.
Really difficult to prove that a stray animal hasn’t got in while it’s empty though – especially if there’s a catflap.
This is totally correct.
The fleas can start hopping 6months after the tenant has left due to heating being put on.
I put in my tenancy that they have to use the flea spray and leave the reciept its about £20 per can for 3 bed house when vacating.
But perhaps it would be better if they left the full can behind .
Lettings industry is terrible
Tenants won’t take responsibility and some landlords are just plain nasty.
Need clear and logical rules for all.
Not sure what you’re not understanding….. the tenant caused a dilapidation and had to pay for it…. what’s so ‘terrible’ and ‘nasty’ about that…??…
This is one of the reasons pets are not welcome at most properties. Fleas can be dormant and identifying precise time of infestation is difficult. I doubt that many adjudicators are skilled enough or knowledgable enough to understand the life cycle of all pests. Even if in this instance the correct decision may have been made. Again it shows the thinking that the onus is always on the landlord to prove his case whilst tenants are always given the benefit of the doubt. So why take pets to start with as you can’t even cover the increased risks with adjustment of deposits.