Resolution case study - hob replacement

What happened?

The tenant said:

• the property was left mostly clean, but they do accept responsibility for some cleaning costs, just not the large amount the landlord is claiming
• the tenancy was just over two years in total and while the hob was not new at the start, they deny causing the crack which was there when they moved in
• there may be some extra minor scratches on the hob from pans as you would expect from normal use, but it was working perfectly throughout the tenancy, and they are not willing to pay for a replacement

The landlord responded, saying:

• the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs reflects the extent of cleaning required to return the property cleaned to the same standard it was in at the start of the tenancy and the market rate in the area
• the induction hob was part of the fitted kitchen in a new build property one year before the tenancy began
• the tenants lived there for over two years and the check-out report shows the cracked hob so it is reasonable for the tenant to pay for the replacement

What evidence was provided?

Tenancy agreement, check-in report, check-out report, estimate, invoice

What was decided and why?

Cleaning

• The check-in report confirmed the property was cleaned to a professional standard when the tenant moved in.
• The comparison of the check-in and check-out reports clearly showed the deterioration in the standard of cleaning. In particular, the kitchen and bathrooms were left very dirty with other areas dusty and ‘grubby’.
• A tenant is responsible for returning the property cleaned to the same standard as when they moved in so was found responsible for cleaning costs.
• The agent provided an invoice for £360 which referred to ‘cleaning in line with the check-out report as requested’. Considering the size of the property and extent of cleaning required, this amount was awarded in full.

 Replacement hob

• The check-in report contained no written comment in the report and there was no evident crack in the three photos attached.
• The check-out report refers to a superficial hairline crack about seven centimetres long in one corner.
• The hob was evidently one year old at the start of the tenancy and has been returned in worse condition than when the tenant moved in.
• While the landlord may choose to replace the hob, the crack did not affect the appliance’s function and was over three years old when the tenancy ended so it is unreasonable to claim for replacement costs.
• The £802 estimate provided is for a replacement hob and fitting.
• The cost claimed was found high with no evidence that:
  • fair wear and tear over three years was considered
  • it was for a like for like model and the quality of the item claimed was not a higher spec than the one in place i.e. betterment
• Allowing for all the above and the average cost of a new appliance from the same manufacturer, it was found reasonable to award the landlord £420 compensation (cost of a new hob less wear and tear plus a contribution towards fitting).

Key takeaway points

• To manage everyone’s expectations it is good for a landlord, or their agent, to carry out a pre-end of tenancy inspection and remind the tenant of their contractual responsibilities
• Maintaining a good relationship throughout the tenancy is key
• Claiming the full cost of any item is unreasonable and wear and tear must be considered
• When making a claim for a high value item, you must be able to show that it is on a like for like basis and that it is not a better quality item