If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
...We wouldn't the precious tenants getting sick because of the unhygienic carpets would we? Work with it Wayne, don't fight it. We need to get tenants cleaning the carpet when they move out for the sake of the next lot of incoming tenants.
Catch 22, you can't give new inward tenants an unhygienic rental but your outward tenants legal responsibility is to leave the property only REASONABLY clean. It is down to the LL to bring the rental up to scratch between tenants.
A side note - who here has added the installed insulation ratings and locations of their properties to their TA's as outlined in the new rules?
Work with it Wayne, don't fight it. We need to get tenants cleaning the carpet when they move out for the sake of the next lot of incoming tenants.
Not sure what I am 'working with' but certainly not 'fighting' anything.
I ensure the carpets are reasonably clean at the start and end of tenancies.
If they need a 'professional' clean I'd ensure it was done and the required party (the outgoing tenant or me) pay for this.
But don't require a compulsory professional clean as per some illegal (it would seem) clauses.
It's truly like banging your head against a brick wall. Who determines reasonably clean? An adjudicator sitting in a room with absolutely no idea or concept of the state of the carpet they are ruling on. No wonder the TT deliver the outcomes they do, stick up for yourselves because no one else will. Why as a landlord am I obliged to bring a rental up to scratch after the tenants that have been living there vacate and deem it reasonably clean and tidy? (by their standards which may not necessarily be clean and tidy by other tenants standards either).
I am in that position at the moment waiting on the outcome of a hearing whereby I had the carpets cleaned and the tenant does not think it warranted cleaning. If the numbnuts adjudicator determines that I had the carpet cleaned unnecessarily then I guess I will appeal the decision.
A side note - who here has added the installed insulation ratings and locations of their properties to their TA's as outlined in the new rules?
Not yet - got to find the receipt of when the top-ups were done and just haven't had time.
Next change-over will force the issue as I don't think it is required on 'existing' agreements.
A side note - who here has added the installed insulation ratings and locations of their properties to their TA's as outlined in the new rules?
NOPE!
Not to the TA's. God! That would mean individual tenancy agreements kept on record for each of the properties.
However, the in going inspection report, being part of the tenancy agreement, is individual to that property and has the ratings listed where they should be.
Seems, then, that you have opened yourself up for a potential fine should your tenants decide.
Not at all. If the carpets are not reasonably cleaned by the tenants then the professional carpet cleaner that i use will state so on his invoice to me. This protects me from any notions of the tenant saying i had a conflict of interest regarding the cleaning. At the end of the day i discourage tenants using rug doctors or very cheap crappy carpet cleaning services that are out there. In essence they will get billed twice if they decide to go down that path. Clean carpets is all that is required and being asked for - no more , no less.
Not at all. If the carpets are not reasonably cleaned by the tenants then the professional carpet cleaner that i use will state so on his invoice to me. This protects me from any notions of the tenant saying i had a conflict of interest regarding the cleaning. At the end of the day i discourage tenants using rug doctors or very cheap crappy carpet cleaning services that are out there. In essence they will get billed twice if they decide to go down that path. Clean carpets is all that is required and being asked for - no more , no less.
I understand what you are trying to achive and fair enough.
If the carpet needs cleaning then a proper clean is needed as those Rug Doctor things (and some professional cleaners) use far to much water and likely damage more than they fix.
But my point, though, was that the clause itself is illegal (according to keys and he would know better than me) so potentially the tenant to challange the very clause right now if they were so inclined. They don't need to wait for you to actually try to use it.
I dispute that it is illegal but possibly it could be re-worded - removing the part "to the satisfaction of the landlord"" - however the end result would be the same with or without the wording and i always protect myself by having someone else do any kind of additional cleaning service and stating on their report/invoice it wasn't up to scratch. Courts are highly unlikely to look at this as being disadvantageous to the tenant, some would see it protecting the tenant from being charged twice - as it requires only fair & reasonable observance.
In essence at the end of the tenancy in determining the condition of the property left by the tenants everything is subject ""to the satisfaction of the landlord"" but needing alongside proof from a non-conflict remedy of service.
To a differing degree the tenant can argue this too . And the court examines both sides and reaches a verdict.
I've seen a TA which specifies the outgoing tenant is responsible for advertising and credit check costs. I understand this for breaking a TA but is it lawful to charge these at the end of every tenancy?
I dispute that it is illegal but possibly it could be re-worded
Fair enough - I went looking for the clause but gave up - the TA is not really my thing.
I was kinda hoping Keys would quote chapter and verse as he is so good at doing.
To write into a TA that carpets shall be professionally cleaned removes the right from the tenant to leave the place (ahem)
"reasonably clean and reasonably tidy"
And this makes 137 1(b) an unlawful act
137 (2) Requiring any person to enter into any transaction, or to make any contract or arrangement, in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A gives the maximun fines for unlawful acts but doesn't list an amount for 137
Comment