This month’s dispute concerned a landlord’s claim for £245.00 relating to the cost of professional cleaning at the end of a one-year tenancy. The landlord asserted that the property had not been returned in a sufficiently clean condition, contrary to the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The case
Cleaning disputes are among the most frequently raised issues at the end of a tenancy. Tenants often believe that a general tidy is adequate, while landlords may expect a standard closer to a professional clean – particularly where the property was presented to a high standard at check-in. In this case, the tenant stated that they had “thoroughly cleaned” the property prior to departure and argued that any remaining issues were minor.
The evidence
The landlord provided a detailed check-in inventory describing the property as “professionally cleaned throughout,” with particular reference to spotless kitchen appliances, limescale-free bathroom fittings, and freshly vacuumed carpets. Supporting photographs showed a high standard of cleanliness. At check-out, however, the report identified grease build-up in the oven, limescale deposits in the bathroom, dust accumulation on skirting boards, and staining to the carpets. The landlord also submitted an invoice from a professional cleaning company outlining a full end-of-tenancy clean.
The tenant accepted that some areas may not have been cleaned to a “professional standard” but maintained that the property was left in a “reasonable domestic condition.” They further argued that some of the issues such as limescale, were the result of hard water and would have developed regardless of their cleaning efforts.
The outcome
While the adjudicator acknowledged that a tenant is not necessarily required to return a property in a better condition than at the start of the tenancy, it was noted that the check-in evidence clearly demonstrated a professionally cleaned property. The check-out report showed multiple areas where cleaning fell below that initial standard. The presence of grease, limescale, and dust in several locations indicated that cleaning had not been carried out to a comparable level.
Accordingly, the adjudicator awarded the landlord £180.00, reflecting the reasonable cost of restoring the property to its original standard of cleanliness.
So, what are the key points here?
+ The standard of cleanliness at check-in sets the benchmark for check-out expectations.
+ “Domestic cleaning” may not be sufficient where a property was professionally cleaned at the start of the tenancy.
+ Inventories and photographic evidence are critical in demonstrating differences
+ By following these tips and using a trusted deposit protection scheme like the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, landlords and letting agents can ensure disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly.
If you are interested in further guidance relating to deposit disputes, visit the Help Centre at TDS to browse further guides.
Sandy Bastin is director of resolution at TDS Adjudication Services – the only not-for-profit tenancy deposit protection scheme.
The crucial point here being that despite it costing £245, which includes the call-out, the landlord only recieves £180 back. So that’s £65 for the pleasure of arranging. EOT cleaners rarely do spot cleaning (this bit but not that bit) as it is not a good business strategy. That is not the landlord’s fault, but the landlord is the one who suffers financially.
I understand that fairness is needed in deposit deductions, however this nuance is always overlooked; who caused the necessity for the clean?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This is where most agents and landlords are dismayed by the adjudication decisions. The cost was £245 and the deduction should have been £245. The tenant had plenty of time to clean it to the required standard before moving out, but the landlord had to arrange for it to be cleaned instead. The cost of this is the cost, not £180.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
And that folks is why landlords hate adjudication! We see this time and again, legitimate claims by landlords laughed at by the adjudicator! Why should landlords be penalised? If the cost of doing a job is X, why is the full amount not given? To think that this incompetent government wants landlords to go to arbitration before courts is abhorrent despite the fact that any court ruling is likely to follow the same landlord bashing pattern.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’m surprised that TDS thinks this is a ‘good story’! Clearly they agree with the landlord but still expect them to pay a contribution of the cleaning charge!
What would be far more helpful is if they could explain what more the landlord could have done to be awarded the full reimbursement.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So the moral, in the skewed world of deposit arbitrators, or ICE as they are referred to, is that the LL has done everything right, but sill pays a contribution for the cleaning they have been forced to organise due to the tenant’s failures/negligence/breaches. Not to mention all the supporting evidence they have paid for and gathered to substantiate the proven claim. Don’t we just see this everywhere in life day-to-day now, abuse the system, as somewhere there will be a knight in shining armour to fight the cause of the wrong doer, standing up for their rights. WRONG break the rules, pay the price and a premium if necessary….. the sooner this nannying of folks that don’t toe the line ends the better. It won’t, so in the meantime, loads your bills so the likes of TDS can chip away to make “fair” arbitration reports.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Why should a landlord need to cover the cost because a tenant couldnt leave a property clean?
Its not home improvements, its the very least that needs to be done between tenancies.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Of course the tenant should pay the full amount. Adjudication should have no right to reduce the cost in favour of the tenant. If it cost £245 that is exactly what the tenant must pay. Because of results like this too many landlords end up doing the cleaning themselves and, of course, at no charge to the lazy tenants.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Perhaps Sandy Bastin could explain WHY the landlord did not get the full amount? The landlord would have been better going to small claims since they tend to make SENSIBLE decisions, unlike the tenant-biased decisions of the TDS.
“By following these tips and using a trusted deposit protection scheme like the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, landlords and letting agents can ensure disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly. ”
Efficiently?
Fairly?
Not on the evidence above.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register