Landlady question re:cleanliness, is this fair?

[Vargas]

A quick rundown:

2 bed flat was professionally cleaned 3.5 years ago, absolutely immaculate. Inventory done.
Lead tenant lived in flat for 3.5 years, with 3 different sharers.
He's moving out and last sharer (6 months) is staying with new flatmate, so the flat is still furnished/food in cupboards etc...
Lead tenant and I decided to start a brand new tenancy, return old deposit, start new deposit etc... as if there are brand new tenants.
The tenants claim to have 'had the flat cleaned'.
BUT having gone round yesterday, the flat is not clean enough for 'new tenants'. Oven filthy, hob filthy, cobwebs, dust on architraves, extractor full of dust, washing machine drawer skanky etc... but there's no damage and tenant has been good, always paid on time, let in workmen, etc...

So DH thinks we should take off £200+ from deposit for cleaning as the 'baseline cleanliness' (his words :-)) is not good enough, and we're having new inventory done tomorrow. I'm inclined to agree, but what do other landladies/tenants think? Does this seem fair?

I'd hesitate to say that they should do that cleaning before every inspection. I wouldn't have someone come to visit me in any capacity and walk into filth (and I'm not the best housekeeper - but it's immaculate whenever anyone comes over).

What you're not getting is that it doesn't matter whether they clean the oven or the dishwasher! How are you going to prepare a schedule of condition with people living in the house? How are you going to evidence the standard that you want the new tenants to return the property to when they are already living there?

You don't seem versed in how you can make deductions from a deposit and what for. You can only charge the tenants if they don't revert the property to the condition it was in when they moved in, less wear and tear. But you cannot evidence that. You literally can't win any future deposit dispute because photos of an oven or whatever are not going to cut it when the property is full of people's stuff and they are living there. If you can't evidence what the tenants haven't done then you can't claim any deductions.

You've saved a fair bit by having no vacancy between tenants and no marketing or maintenance costs. Plus, even if these tenants leave in 6 months that's 4 consecutive years of letting. When they leave you'll have to paint and have a professional clean regardless. So it's a future cost that you have, whatever the current tenant does or doesn't do with the oven. You need to treat this as a business decision. You've saved money, and at an unspecified future time you'll have to spend money. Your outgoing tenant's cleaning skills are irrelevant.

Sure, but in this case the new tenants are already living there, so they can't.

My attitude as a landlord is, If I want tenants to perform a task then I make sure the necessary tools are available for them to use. Why not buy one ladder that all tenants can use over the years? It's just common sense. My neighbours are tenants and it's in their contract that they have to look after the garden. But the landlord doesn't provide half the equipment they need to do it and then complains when it gets overgrown. I think that's unreasonable - and also means his garden is deteriorating.

You might think that but they don't have to do anything of the sort. How you choose to live and how these tenants choose to live are your and their business only. It's also not the landlord's business, unless they breach the tenancy agreement at the point of leaving.

They need to have their own lawn mower! Or pay someone to do it.

It's like we're assuming tenants aren't normal, everyday people, that don't have the basic necessities of being a householder.

None of my landlords ever provided any of those items, neither did I expect them to!

It isn't only home owners that are adults with adult possessions. And if you're taking on a tenancy, you are responsible for the things in the tenancy agreement regardless. Otherwise you shouldn't take on the tenancy! I wasn't the most responsible tenant (had cats in a no-pet rental) but even I could work that one out.

Hmmm, you lost me at keeping cats in a no-pets rental @MiserableMrsMopp .

It’s always a mistake to judge people by your own standards. You might think it obvious to buy a lawnmower. A lot of people either can’t or won’t. I’ve had tenants call me to replace a lightbulb that’s blown. Or a battery for a tv remote. Most people will handle that themselves, but some people either don’t know how or don’t think it’s their responsibility.

Landlord here. As you're not losing any rent by having a continuous tenant, you're not really losing out if you have to pay for a deep clean when the new tenant leaves. By all means take a new inventory but after so many years it will need repainting etc. I'd look at it as a win.

The tenancy agreement is a standard Open Rent AST, used by thousands of landlords and tenants...I didn't add any clauses.

That doesn't mean all your clauses will be automatically enforceable.

Loads of them on "proper" sites have unenforceable clauses in them. The right to enter/inspect without permission with 24 hours notice myth is one example that's used in shitloads of AST's but isn't enforceable.

The right to show around prospective new tenants is another unenforceable clause in most (if not most!) AST's

I’ve just spent a day or so finishing the cleaning after tenants moved out. The outside loo floor was grotty and there was mould round some windows and green algae on the paving stones outside.
On the whole the house itself was clean and in good repair and the tenants always paid on time and were good neighbours. So I didn’t want to charge them, and would not in your case either, if they were responsible on the whole.

I have the same question as @IMissSparkling.

Are any new tenants moving in at all?
If not, why would you need to professionally clean the flat?

Damage is different, of course. If the person moving out has actually broken or damaged items, for example.

No, she seems to have one 'tenant' and a bunch of sub tenants (wonder how much protection they have? Since they aren't lodgers, they should have their own tenancy agreements. Also wonder if this is to avoid HMO regulations?). The 'tenant' is moving out and another sub tenant is getting their own shiny new tenancy agreement which they should have already had

OP better reflect on the type of agreements you have with the other sub tenants. If they pay you rent and you don't live there then they do have de facto ASTs too...

I don't think it is the case unless a lease specifically requires it.

Plus, the flat isn't being vacated.

How would cleaners clean rooms where other people had clothing, books, desks, food in fridge and cupboards, bathroom full of toiletries, personal.kitchen appliances on counters, etc?

You're going to have to stop fretting about baseline cleans. The flat has been continuously occupied for 3.5 years and will be occupied for an indefinite period into the future. It will need a thorough cleaning when/ if the current tenants move out and the flat is vacant regardless of how clean or manky they keep it, just by dint of elapsed time. It will most likely need redecorating too.

Focus on wear and tear to cupboards, furniture, fridge, floors.

The next set of tenants after the current ones can have the cost of cleaning and replacement of flooring, furniture, etc tacked onto their rent. You have wiggle room there according to you.

It seemed to me that previous sub-letters are going to continue loving there under new footing. I agree with the concerns about the kease situation/ rights of tenants/ legal ramifications of "lead tenant" and sublet rooms.

I’ve been a landlady for over a decade and I’ve never expected my tenants to do a clean or pay for a clean. I pay for it to be professionally cleaned at the start of every new tenancy and I’m sure this is the norm because it’s a service that my agent offers as standard to landlords as part of a new tenancy agreement, I really don’t understand why you think this is the tenants responsibility

This is rubbish, stop making assumptions about me. I had one tenant for 3.5 years, he then had various sharers and some time on his own. EVERY time he had a new flatmate I amended the contract so BOTH tenants were named. As he's leaving, and at the new lead tenant's request I have ended the tenancy and started a brand new AST. Get a grip.

Whereas I rented for 15 years after divorce. 5 houses/flats. Every one was required to be cleaned to professional standard when I left. Every time I had money deducted from my deposit due to something they said I'd missed (I dispute that I'd missed anything but just put up with it).

We're talking oven cleaned, windows done inside and out, carpets cleaned (with a rental carpet cleaning machine, not a professional doing it), walls washed if they looked grubby.

Anyway, this is no longer an issue, the leaving tenant has come back to me and we have come to an agreement about the cleaning, and the current (one who is staying) tenant is happy with the situation.

Many thanks to those who offered advice. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on who is responsible for cleaning at the end of a tenancy! It appears to be fairly split on this thread....

@Boardingschoolmumoftwo it's a service your agent offers because it makes them look good, and because they probably make a profit on it, not because it's the norm.

It's the tenants responsibility because legally, it's an enforceable clause in most ASTs that it's the tenants responsibility to bring it up to the standard it was in at the start of the tenancy. It is legally the tenants problem. If the OP chooses not to enforce it, fine, but that doesn't change the legally enforceable clause in the AST that can be used to make a deduction from the deposit.

Sounds like a good outcome @vargas. 👍

@Vargas glad to hear you've come to an agreement (I personally would have asked for £1-150 towards the cost, so gone halves if you think an agency clean would have been £2-300, for goodwill and to save hassle).

There are lots of people here who either aren't landlords/ in the business, or who are but are woefully uninformed and probably shouldn't be. I can promise you that if you go to a professional landlords meeting, or spoke to the deposit scheme, the answer would have been completely different than 80% of those here.

'to compensate the Landlord for any reasonable cost incurred to clean the Premises to the same standard as at the beginning of the tenancy;'

Change the clause to say you want it professionally cleaned, if that's what you are expecting. This clause is massively vague and deliberately so, it means any landlord can point to any area not as clean as they pretend it should be and withhold a deposit.

I think the point is that there's now a "new" tenancy in legal terms and the new tenants would be within their rights to leave the property in the state it was in when this new tenancy started, i.e. filthy and not have to do an end of tenancy clean at the end of the new tenancy term.

@BoredZelda it's not legally enforceable to say it needs to be professionally cleaned. It is enforceable to say it needs to be returned to the same standard, (which was professionally cleaned, but a person may bring it up to that standard themselves if they wish), providing you have enough evidence of the condition it is in- pictures and inventory.