Having a clause to have carpets professionally cleaned is illegal

My Adelaide PM wrote regarding having carpets cleaned professional upon exiting of the lease

The Residential Tenancies Tribunal have sent warning letters out to all agents that it is illegal to put this clause in and are now fining agents $500.00 for any breaches.

This condition seems unreasonable since I had the carpets professionally cleaned prior to renting and expect the tenants to do the same before the next tenants move in .
Does the RTT in SA actually have this authority?

redsquash said:

My Adelaide PM wrote regarding having carpets cleaned professional upon exiting of the lease

The Residential Tenancies Tribunal have sent warning letters out to all agents that it is illegal to put this clause in and are now fining agents $500.00 for any breaches.

This condition seems unreasonable since I had the carpets professionally cleaned prior to renting and expect the tenants to do the same before the next tenants move in .
Does the RTT in SA actually have this authority?

Click to expand...

Not sure about in SA, but i believe it is the same in NSW. We "strongly recommend" to our tenants that they steam clean upon vacating in order to return the property to them in the way in which it was let. But at the tribunal unless you can prove that there are marks on the carpet making steamcleaning necessary you cannot enforce it on a tenant.

We haven't been tenants for quite some time now, but the last lease we signed had clauses requiring the property to have pest treatment and steam cleaning of the carpets done upon vacating the premises. This was in Queensland in 1995 - not sure of what the current situation is.

Cheers
LynnH

I want it to go back to the "good ole days" when a landlord/landlady was KING/QUEEN.

We get to make the rules about our property.
If a tenant didn't like them, they are free to look elsewhere.

It's just not Australia Tenancy Boards that have too much say..it is certainly in Canada too.

I say us land owners unite and start taking back our power.

From the RTA (QLD) website http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/faq_ending_a_tenancy.cfm?item=64.00

Dave

Does anyone know what the status is in relation to this in W.A.?
I have this clause in my agreements too...

Am

"Although carpet cleaning may be included as a special term in the tenancy agreement, the lessor may not specify that the tenant use a particular company or product to clean the carpets as this may be considered to be an offence under the Act."

Fair enough, from that all I can read is we cna;t sepcifry WHO they hae to use.

"A lessor cannot require a tenant to pay a set fee for carpet cleaning"

Fair enough, a set fee might be $300, when the cleaning cost $60 if they use a reputable cleaner. Unlike hotels we dont "trade", otherwise we coudl stock mini bars with $10/can local beer too

"The obligations of the tenant at the end of the occupancy regarding the condition of the premises include: -

Having the carpets shampooed/steam cleaned: -


The same standard they were in at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted;
On the last day of the occupancy;
Giving the lessor or the lessor's agent a copy of any carpet cleaner's receipt.
Before a tenant signs an agreement with a clause such as this in it, the tenant should be made aware of the clause, what it means and how it applies to their tenancy"

So we can ask them to have carpet's professionally cleaned

I have to say that when I was renting and now with the rentals that the PM's wouldnt /wont accept that a place has had the carpets done without a reciept from a cleaner.

As we are all well aware there are cleaners and then there are cleaners.

I'm sure the tenant (as I did when renting) will get the cheapest job possible.

Dave

At the end of the day, why would you care whether it's been done professionally or not? If it's clean - it's clean. If not - get them to clean it again.
Anyone can become "professional" cleaner - all they need to do is buy equipment and register ABN. That doesn't mean the job will be done good or to any standard.

aussieamp said:

Does anyone know what the status is in relation to this in W.A.?
I have this clause in my agreements too...

Am

Click to expand...

Bound to be something here
Residential Tenancies Act

http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_821_homepage.html

Residential Tenancies Regulations 1989

http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_1992_homepage.html

Dave

redsquash said:

My Adelaide PM wrote regarding having carpets cleaned professional upon exiting of the lease

The Residential Tenancies Tribunal have sent warning letters out to all agents that it is illegal to put this clause in and are now fining agents $500.00 for any breaches.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised your agent has not known this already

It is not "illegal" it contradicts the act so is therefore not enforceable!

I still can't believe that they waited for the tribunal to send a letter out to find out. It never ceases to amaze me what some property managers are just not aware of!

I can see the tribunal's point! The $500 fine is them having had enough of agents contradicting the act and not even knowing it!

I think the Act is a bit weak, if they were really looking after tenants interests they should just make the charging of rent illegal. Just seems so unfair that people have to pay good money to occupy houses!

how about if they pay what they think is fair ? most people are reasonable I'm sure theyll fess up and the minority who dont would only be ripping off greedy rich landlords who spend all their time counting how much net income their next rent increases will reap them

Xenia said:

I'm surprised your agent has not known this already

It is not "illegal" it contradicts the act so is therefore not enforceable!

I still can't believe that they waited for the tribunal to send a letter out to find out. It never ceases to amaze me what some property managers are just not aware of!

Click to expand...

Could you refer me to the Act and section this pertains to?

I checked out the 1995 Tenancies Act of SA but I must be looking at the wrong Act, as this section is silent on carpet cleaning.
Sec 69—Tenant's responsibility for cleanliness and damage
(1) It is a term of a residential tenancy agreement that the tenant—
(a) must keep the premises and ancillary property in a reasonable state of
cleanliness; and
(b) must notify the landlord of damage to the premises or ancillary property; and
(c) must not intentionally or negligently cause or permit damage to the premises
or ancillary property.
(2) A tenant who intentionally causes serious damage to the premises or ancillary
property is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $2 000.
The liability to be prosecuted for an offence is in addition to civil liability for a
breach of the agreement.
(3) It is a term of a residential tenancy agreement that, at the end of the tenancy, the tenant
must give the premises and ancillary property back to the landlord in reasonable
condition and in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

jaycee said:

how about if they pay what they think is fair ? most people are reasonable I'm sure theyll fess up and the minority who dont would only be ripping off greedy rich landlords who spend all their time counting how much net income their next rent increases will reap them

Click to expand...

good thinking Jaycee... that restaurant on the foreshore where you only pay what you think it is worth seems to work really well. It must be a reverese psychology

redsquash said:

Could you refer me to the Act and section this pertains to?

I checked out the 1995 Tenancies Act of SA but I must be looking at the wrong Act, as this section is silent on carpet cleaning.
Sec 69—Tenant's responsibility for cleanliness and damage
(1) It is a term of a residential tenancy agreement that the tenant—
(a) must keep the premises and ancillary property in a reasonable state of
cleanliness; and
(b) (3) It is a term of a residential tenancy agreement that, at the end of the tenancy, the tenant
must give the premises and ancillary property back to the landlord in reasonable
condition and in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

Click to expand...

Vacuming is "reasonable" and I have never seen a LL successful for forcing a tenant to do more.

We have always put a clause in that the tenants will have the carpets cleaned and a flea treatment (if there is a pet) at the end of the tenancy.

We have never "forced" anyone to do it, but have also never had anybody refuse. Most people are decent and reasonable. Most people also get the cheapest possible clean, but I don't care as long as I don't have to pay to have it done.

We don't ask for carpet cleaning any more, because we don't have carpets, or even carpet squares in the houses any more. People just don't seem to want them in Brisbane, in our experience of renting anyway.

We have never "forced" anyone to do it, but have also never had anybody refuse. Most people are decent and reasonable.

Click to expand...

.....and this is the heart of the matter for us, for this little carpet cleaning example and every other example - and there must have been hundreds over the years brought up by different forum members.

If you are dealing with decent people, then yes, the Laws are not needed and everyone is happy chappy......BUT....if you are dealing with someone who "knows their rights" and wants to be unreasonable against the Landlord, then it's not very comforting to discover that the Law (under the specific state's RTA) doesn't give the Owner much stroke at all, and it's ability to enforce is sadly lacking.....and let's face it, Laws that cannot or will not be enforced aren't worth having.

People come on this site and have a moan about things that don't seem fair because they genuinely believe that as the Owner of a property they have certain rights and certain rights to enforce. When they try to "enforce", they quickly discover that instead of standing on rock solid ground, they are in fact standing on tissue paper which gives way easily and leaves them feeling despondent.

This was our final conclusion after many years of observation. We did something about it.

Xenia said:

I can see the tribunal's point! The $500 fine is them having had enough of agents contradicting the act and not even knowing it!

Click to expand...

I finally spoke to The Department in SA and they confirmed my view that how the carpet is cleaned in the ACT as per section 69, is not addressed .

It is only a tribunal that is interpreting the Act. I strongly suspect,and it is my opinion only, that if this went through the courts the RTT in SA would loose.
Its flexing muscle it doesn't have.
A contractual agreement which does not have duress and/or where both parties are on equal .
standing, are free to make whatever contract they like ,provided it is not against the public interest
and not illegal.


As a side issue a contract does not necessarily need to be fair.

Courts are loathe to intervene in private agreements, and take the view of Caveat Emptor---------Let the buyer beware.
If the condition of cleaning the carpets is not in the lease then I don't see the tenants need to have professional cleaning , but they do need to clean the carpets thoroughly and properly.
Who however is going to drag this minor cleaning issue through the courts which will cost thousands of dollars and many time consuming months.
I like to look after my tenants and had carpets professionally cleaned so they have a pristine environment to live in.
There will be fair wear and tear and the carpets should look fairly similar, though not the same on exiting the lease.

PS
Which toilet paper is best?