This case concerns claims for cleaning, damage to a door and redecoration to walls at the end of a tenancy. The full deposit, of which 50% was undisputed, was submitted to TDS.

The evidence included the tenancy agreement, check-in and check-out reports, invoices in support of the claimed amounts and various emails from both the landlord and tenant, specifically related to the matters in the claim.

Cleaning

The landlord was claiming for a full professional clean at the end of the tenancy, including a professional cleaning of all carpets.  The tenants accepted that they were responsible for some general cleaning, however felt that as they had cleaned the carpets with a hired machine, they should not be responsible for the carpet cleaning element of the claim.

Although the property and carpets had been professionally cleaned at the start of the tenancy, the carpets had residual marks and staining, and the check-in report also identified various minor cleaning omissions.

At end of tenancy, the check-out confirmed a clean to a domestic standard only, with some cleaning omissions, and all carpets within the property, except for one bedroom, were noted to be ‘as inventory’.

It was clear in this case that an award for the full amount claimed, would have placed the landlord in a position of betterment.

The cleaning omissions noted at the start of tenancyneeded to have been considered, and only one of the four carpets within the property was noted to require cleaning at tenancy end. The remaining three carpets were recorded as being as clean as at the start of the tenancy.

The tenants were not disputing that some cleaning was their responsibility.  Had these factors been reflected in the amount claimed, agreement would likely have been reached between the parties avoiding the need for formal adjudication.  A reduced award was made.

Damage and Redecoration

The landlord was claiming for heavy dents to the internal side of a bedroom door, a large defect to the frame of the same door, and redecoration of walls in the room.

The check-out report supported the claims; however, the tenants provided evidence to show that they reported an issue with the internal doors at the start of and during the tenancy, which they stated were poorly fitted and would not properly close.

The tenants stated that contractors attended but did not repair the doors to a professional standard, and that the damage claimed was caused by them.

Included within the evidence was an email from the agents to the tenants, stating that they had placed their former contractors on hold due to the condition of certain jobs. The check-out photographs showed that the repairs to the door and frame did not appear to have been completed in a professional manner.

On balance, the adjudicator was persuaded by the tenants’ explanation, supported by agent email correspondence, and no award was made.

The claim for redecoration of the walls was also not upheld.  The evidence showed there was heavy leak damage to the walls during the tenancy and the check-out report identified the defects to the walls as a landlord’s maintenance issue, not the responsibility of the tenants.

It is worth noting here also, that the walls would likely have required replastering due to the leak damage and require full redecoration, which is not the responsibility of the tenants.

So, what are the key points here?

• The evidence in this case, was such that some of the claims made against the deposit should not have been raised against the tenants’ deposit, or the claims reduced for the reasons above.
• It is beneficial to all parties to reach agreement as early as possible at the end of the tenancy.  To do so enables a landlord to carry out any remedial works expeditiously, and from a tenant’s perspective, release of any undisputed deposit amount delays causes issues with tenants, as it delays their ability to use the monies towards their next rental deposit.
• Ensure that any undisputed deposit is returned to the tenants expediently.

If you are interested in further guidance relating to deposit disputes, visit the Information Lounge at TDS to browse further guides.

Sandy Bastin is head of dispute resolution at TDS.