Requirement for professional carpet cleaning at end of lease ruled invalid in Tasmania

Australia Broadcast Center

2 days ago

Tasmanian tenants are not necessarily required to have their carpets professionally cleaned when they vacate their rental property, despite "almost all" leases saying they are, a ruling has found.
In a recent bond dispute regarding a Burnie property, the Residential Tenancy Commissioner found the tenant is only required to have the carpet professionally cleaned if they leave it in a worse state than when they began their lease.
"A tenant is not responsible for carpet cleaning performed as a matter of general practice as opposed to any real need or genuine failure of the tenant, in accordance with their obligations," it states.
The Tenants Union of Tasmania, which represented the tenant, said this was the first definitive ruling on the matter and was a legally enforceable decision.
"It really shines a light that a blanket clause in standard tenancy agreements that says you have to have premises professionally cleaned is invalid," Tenants Union senior solicitor Andrew Smith said.
"A tenant has the right not to do it, if they've left it in the same condition as when they moved in and there's proof of that.
Mr Smith said despite the ruling, the condition to have carpets professionally cleaned was appearing in leases "all the time", as it was in the standard lease provided to landlords by the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania.
"It is in the standard Real Estate Institute lease almost all real estate agents will use and a lot of private landlords will choose to use, even some social housing providers are using these leases," he said.
The Real Estate Institute of Tasmania has declined to comment.
In the case that led to this ruling, the Residential Tenancy Commissioner said the owner had provided a photo of a "small yellow stain on the carpet of one of the bedrooms, which was not recorded in the ingoing condition report".
But no other photos had been supplied showing the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenant's lease.
Hence, the commissioner said the tenant was only responsible for the cost of cleaning that one stain.
"I will award an amount I consider reasonable given the stain in question is very small, even when photographed close up," the ruling states.
"The owner is awarded $25 for carpet cleaning."
The case also dealt with the cost of fumigating the property, given the tenant had a pet.
The tenant had argued the same principle should apply to fumigation as carpet cleaning, but the commissioner took a different view.
"While I understand they seem similar in nature, carpet cleaning is predominantly cosmetic and the requirement can be determined based on outgoing photographs," the ruling says.
"Fumigation is considered a necessary measure to return the property to a hygienic state and remove pests, dander and other allergens associated with pets in the premises.
"Therefore, I am satisfied that a requirement for fumigation at the end of a tenancy is reasonable and is not inconsistent with the [Residential Tenancy] Act."
The Tenants Union said it did not agree entirely with the commissioner's interpretation of the law.
"We think it's a similar issue and that clauses requiring professional fumigation unconditionally are also invalid if they're not required by the condition of the premises," Mr Smith said.
"Say if the tenant had a dog that always stayed outside or simply a fish in a fish tank, why is a tick and flea spray required inside the premises?"