Carpet clean at end of tenancy.

[spaceman]

I said you couldn't take the tenant to the TT if the carpet wasn't left in a reasonable condition.
The link has been provided earlier but I will post it again. Clearly you are unable to read it and comprehend. Ask a friend to explain what it says about requirements for professional carpet cleaning to be unenforceable

http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/...cy-agreements/

The clause is unenforceable and you know it, you admit that you had to change the wording.

The requirement for the carpet to be left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is completely enforceable.


Cheers
Spaceman

[mrsaneperson]

You are not seeing logic but have instead being duped into thinking carpet cleaning is unenforceable. This is how socialist propaganda works, you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker by not using your mind.
Question : is it enforceable to have the property reasonably clean by the tenant?
Answer :Yes, this apply to all parts of the house including carpets, and is subject to the original incoming inspection signed by tenant and landlord.

[spaceman]

You are not seeing logic but have instead being duped into thinking carpet cleaning is unenforceable.

The requirement for the carpet to be left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is completely enforceable

Question : is it enforceable to have the property reasonably clean by the tenant?

Did anybody claim otherwise??

Question: Why did you change the wording of the clause in your TA??

Question: What did your friend tell you about the link I posted?

Question:what does this reasonably simple sentence mean to you …………

A tenant only has to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Tenants do not have to leave the carpets in a professionally cleaned state.

…???

Cheers
Spaceman

[mrsaneperson]

Any part of the house that is not in a reasonably clean condition left by an outgoing tenant is subject to a professional cleaning service attending to it and subsequently the tenant will be billed.
You somehow think that carpets are the exception.
Well your irrational thinking serves no one but unruly tenants.
Professional cleaning is enforceable, only dogmatic socialists think otherwise.
I doubt if you have had the same experience as myself in attendance at TT , they ruled in my favour. Receipt states carpet was dirty signed Joe Blow , Professional Carpet Cleaner

The tenant moved in with a clean carpet so the tenant moves out cleans the carpet recommended by a professional service ,because that is what is required to adequately clean them properly. Its a specialized service Spaceman, and carpets cost a small fortune and need to be looked after.

[Keys]

"waves to Spaceman"

[mrsaneperson]

To answer your questions which in essence I've already answered:

1.I changed the wording to reccomend rather than a stipulation because I'm abiding by the socialist propaganda of the law. But as I said before the wording is superfluous as the outcome of legally enforcement to having clean carpets is always going to be the same.
2. Reasonably clean vs professionally cleaned. OK, I'll repeat again spaceman, to clean a carpet properly, reasonably needs professionally specialist knowledge and gear, and rug doctors are not allowed, so that leaves only the professional carpet cleaners.In essence this is the only option that will result in a reasonably clean carpet status. So in a nutshell the tenant is unable to act on the stupid socialist indoctrination vehicle that says professional clean not enforceable , though I'm sure with landlords like yourself and Keys around they may get away with it, much to the detriment of the landlord and the incoming tenant sadly.
3. What did my friend think of the link? No idea what friend you're referring too.

Up your stakes spaceman, by that I mean up your service levels to your tenants and then at least you wouldn't be here in error berating a member of this industry who seeks only to look after the interests of both his tenants and fellow landlords.

[mrsaneperson]

If I wish to state rug doctors are not allowed in my TA that is my prerogative.Happy chappy Keys has that wording in his TAs
Again if tenant chooses not to abide by the TA thereby using rug doctor, the end result is the same, I call the professional carpet cleaner so they will end up paying twice, so my advice to them is always don't waste your time.

[Bob Kane]

Ah, spaceman.
Just like the old days.
BK
(someone who has never professionally cleaned any carpets ever)

[sidinz]

Curious: what is wrong with using a Rug Doctor?

[mrsaneperson]

Past experience has shown if not used properly can damage the carpet.

[Learning]

Would make an interesting case for TT -
A tenant uses a rugDr in violation of their TA, but does a good job and actually cleans the carpet to at least a reasonable clean and tidy condition. The tangled web of legalities...

[Bob Kane]

Past experience has shown if not used properly can damage the carpet.

So there's nothing wrong with a Rug Doctor.
The problem is the operator?
What do they do wrong which causes problems?

[mrsaneperson]

Rug doctors often result in damaged or partially cleaned carpet even those with reasonable intelligence can get it wrong. I have seen the results. Hence advise not to use rug doctors as it may result in tenant being pinged with costs for replacing entire carpet in worst case scenarios.

Carpet cleaning is different from other types of cleaning, you really need a professional service to do it. Professional clean still results in a reasonably clean result which lies within the realm of what a tenant is supposed to engage. There's no other option despite what the RTA says. The wording of the law is wrong and fails to recognise that specifically cleaning of carpets is very different from general household cleaning. .

Average price for a 3 bedroom house is around $150, it's not squillions of dollars we're talking about.

[Wayne]

The wording of the law is wrong and fails to recognise that specifically cleaning of carpets is very different from general household cleaning. .

Unfortunately it is still the wording of the law - wrong or not (in your opinion).

[Keys]

The wording of the law is wrong and ........

There are many parts of the law's interpretation which I disagree with. However, as has been said. That is the law and you must work with it.