Our lease says that carpets must be “professionally cleaned” at move-out. However, from what I understand, under the BC Residential Tenancy Act, tenants are only required to leave the unit reasonably clean, and landlords can’t enforce clauses that go beyond that.
We fully intend to clean the unit thoroughly ourselves (floors, carpets, appliances, etc.) and document everything, but the landlord is insisting on a professional cleaning service.
Has anyone dealt with this before? Did the RTB side with the tenant even when the lease mentioned professional cleaning?
Appreciate any insight or past experiences.
from RTB policy
So, no, professionally cleaning can not be required, but you do need to steam clean or shampoo the carpets. If not, then the LL can claim the costs for carpet cleaning against your deposit through the RTB if you do not give them permission to retain any of your deposit.
I rented a carpet cleaner from Home Depot, I think everything was under 100 bucks all together!
Rented from here twice, like a 4 hour rental is 40-50 bucks, very worth it.
PetSmart rents them for cheap, and it comes with a bottle of carpet shampoo! I think I paid $35 for 48 hours. Just for an option for OP
Unenforcable.
Just do the cleaning as good as to reflect the condition that you first moved in. And when you move out give your forwarding address and the landlord must return your deposit within 15 days or you can to to RTB and get double the $
If they want to take some of your deposit back, they have to go to RTB and ask for it. If they can prove damage beyond reasonable wear and tear, they can get some.
But they're not gonna get anything for the above unenforcable request
Simply ignore it, and if they ask, don't reply. They might try to keep your deposit and then you get double :)
This isn't quite right. The unit must be "reasonably clean" and RTB policy goes over what that means. It doesn't matter how clean the carpets were on move-in, they still need to be steam cleaned on move out, if the tenancy was longer than a year.
There is a common misconception that the unit needs to be returned to the the state of the unit on move-in. This doesn't account for the actual law in terms of the unit being reasonably clean or wear and tear. A unit could be in worse condition than when they moved in and be completely fine, or the unit could be in similar/same condition but still need to pay for carpet cleaning if it was not cleaned as per the policy.
Great response, thank you.
I managed a building in Van, tenants who didn't want to clean the carpets, etc, could request that a portion of the deposit be held to cover that cost. During the exit inspection, we'd go over everything and make notes about anything that wasn't done correctly.
addendums to the RTA contract are enforceable. You will be required to steam clean the carpets. Generally, you'd hop over to save-on or where ever rents steam cleaners, give the carpets a good steam and call it a day. However, if the owner/management company requires a pro-clean, you will have to. I'd say, if you are in good communication with the management, ask if you could just rent a steam cleaner. Keep the receipt, but you can tell when carpets have been cleaned. at the end of the day, a rented steam cleaner could be considered professional, this might be a way to cover the carpets incase all the vacating tenant does is vacuums.
Blinds, wipe the down with a damp cloth, or swifter dust them and then wipe them with spray cleaner or lysol type wipes. If there are fabric curtains, you might have to wash them or have them dry cleaned.
You are responsible for cleaning all appliances (in and out) and surfaces. I believe filling of any holes in the walls, nails, screws, etc. is considered normal wear and tear, but if it's excessive, you might want to just do it.
If you do not bring the unit to the standards when you took possession, the landlord is within their rights to withhold all or a portion of the deposit to recoup costs. If you did an initial walk through when you took possession, it should have been documented and notes made about any issues.
If you don't bring the unit to acceptable standards, the landlord will need to cover costs to bring it up to standards for the next tenant. In the end, if the landlord has to pay for something that the tenant should have, they will keep all or a portion of the deposit.
It's best practice to read the RTA for your rights and responsibilities. If the landlord tries anything uncouth, you'll know your rights and can stand up for yourself.
You would be wrong. See the below case where the landlord did not successfully get money when the tenant did the cleaning on their own
https://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2022/02/022022_Decision1098.pdf
I love this.
What happens in situations where a landlord has a legitimate claim to damages (as agreed by the RTB), but the deposit has already been returned and the tenant refuses to pay for the damages?
Small claims court usually.
Thanks 🙏🏻. But doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of having a damage deposit in the first place? Or is the system set up where a landlord can deduct an amount for mutually agreed damage value before returning the deposit?
At the end of the tenancy the landlord can get the tenant's permission to retain some/all of the deposit or they can file with the RTB for them to make a binding decision. While waiting for the hearing, the LL can retain the full deposit (or what they think is owed to them + filing fee).
the deposit is only doubled if the LL doesn't do one of those 2 things within 15 days of the tenancy ending/address being provided, or if they didn't do a conditional move in or out report.
Appreciate the detailed response 🙏🏻
[deleted]
Deposit must be returned in 14(15?) days or LL owes double, regardless of if a future judgment comes against the tenant. Tell the the RTB issues judgment within 14 days, lol. Much of the system is very biased against landlords, which it seems is because landlords are seen as some large faceless entity, when they are quite often just a homeowner.
This is wrong. If the LL files a RTB claim, they can hold onto the deposit in the meantime until the judgement is complete. The 14 days timeline is paused.
It sort of works where it’s voluntary an in many cases probably most the tenant and LL can agree what is reasonable. But yes it’s a little odd that the deposit is first returned then if proven at RTB then a judgement is issued. The risk to not agreeing to valid damages is both time and additional costs that the tenant would bare. So it does incentivize both sides to be reasonable and I would think the vast majority of move outs are fairly reasonable. A small amount the LL have no clue and or do and are trying to abuse and a small percentage of tenants want to play the system. But it mostly works
This is not the process though. The damage deposit is retained by the landlord while waiting for the RTB hearing. The deposit is not doulbed as long as the application was within the 15 days (and conditional inspection reports were done)
Ohhh right gotcha makes sense thanks. So the risk to not being reasonable is just the cost to bare if one loses. I’m sure there are borderline cases but most are probably pretty clear who is being unreasonable.
Yup, my response of small claims was only to the specific situation in which the landlord returned the deposit already as the poster asked. In reality this is an unlikely situation because it goes as you say.
Mostly it does defeat the purpose, Don’t know why you are being downvoted. I have no idea why a deposit is paid if you both have to agree to let the LL keep any of it. Any reasonable tenant would pay a bill, and irresponsible won’t. Either way having their deposit doesn’t change the outcome at all.
The landlord would need to go through the courts to enforce the order, eg wage garnishment
They wouldn't give back the damage deposit if there was damage.
Roger. That’s what I was hoping to clarify. Previous responses made it sound like the landlord is required to repay all damage deposit (regardless of damage) and then try and claim back amounts via the RTB after refunding, which didn’t make any sense to me. Appreciate the response
So basically if the carpets are reasonably clean I don’t even need to rent a carpet cleaning machine to do it my self correct?
Just in case you miss my other comment, no, they need to be cleaned with a steam cleaner/shampoo if you've been a tenant for a year or longer - or had a pet/smoked indoors.
I was renting from them and when was leaving I just rented carpet cleaner and did it myself. No issues
Y’all animals think you can just not clean the carpets y’all disgusting. I’ve seen renters live in places for 15 years not clean the carpets once. It’s like not cleaning your toilet seat for 15 years it’s covered in doodoo y’all disgusting.
Carpets have to be cleaned after a year, but it doesn’t have to be professionally cleaned. Tenants can rent the steam cleaner and do it themselves
Nobody is saying the carpets don't have to be cleaned. They are saying they don't have to hire a third party to do it for them.
[removed]
Your post violated Rule 9: Give correct advice and has been removed.
In BC super common if you've lived somewhere over a year. You don't need professional services though, just rent a carpet cleaner from Save On.
It’s technically not required but I’d recommend borrowing or investing in a Little Green Machine to clean any stains or high-traffic areas of the carpet so you don’t lose any of your deposit to an ugly carpet.
You cannot opt out of the terms of the RTA, which says the unit must be reasonably clean. Reasonably clean carpets are interpreted by the RTB policy to be those that are shampooed or steam cleaned for tenancies over 1 year. There’s no requirement that it be professionally done.
I would just get a quote from a professional company. You can compare that to the cost of renting a steam cleaner and doing it yourself. Might be easiest to just pay it.
It's unenforceable. I actually wrote something like that into a purchase agreement when I purchased my house. I turned up and the place was filthy stains on carpets dirty shower stalls dirty floors and there was really nothing I could do oh well
If you're moving every couple of years, do yourself a favour and buy yourself a carpet shampooer which can be obtained relatively cheaply from Costco. I did this after I got sick of renting them. When you're moving, it's a trip to the store to rent the steam cleaner, then a trip back, and they do expect the steam cleaner to be returned clean. I did my best, but when I returned the steam cleaner they went over it with a fine comb and found a couple of stray pet hairs in the rollers, and tried to charge me.
So you have the LL looking for any excuse to keep your money, and also the store where you rented the steam cleaner doing the same. Easier just to have your own steam cleaner.
You can just rent one from Home Depot or do it yourself. I bought one on Amazon and I regularly deep clean my carpets every 6 months!
If you’re good at carpet cleaning, then you’re a professional. Go rent a carpet cleaner. It will do the same thing you pay someone else to do the labour for.
If it has to be done by a “company”, write up an invoice to yourself from whatever cleaning company name.
My mom recently moved out of her apartment and landlord requested she pay a 100.00$ fee to have them "professionally clean" the carpets . Well luckily i thought since my partner and I have a professional industrial floor extractor for our cleaning business I told mom not to worry since shes my mom i told her we would happily do it for her for free... we'll... we never did end up getting to do that for her because the landlord would not agree to her hiring a professional cleaner of any kind i even told mom i would write her out a 100 dollar recipt that she could give her landlord but no that was not going to be the way it was going to be done according to landlord and they proceeded to demanded she was to pay them the 100.$ to have it cleaned or else she would lose 250$ from her deposit ! In the end we could technically have fought and won because it stated in her lease they wanted the floors to be "professionally cleaned , They did not specify a cleaning done "strictly" by them, the lease only said to have a "professional" carpet clean done upon move out . So we would have won it no problems fair and square and personally i would have took the time to fight it but mom doesnt like conflict what so ever and so in the end she just paid the 100$ so that she could get out of there without any extra head aches.
That being said there is many slum lords all around and greedy individuals who do anything for a little extra $ times are only getting harder and it will only get worst ...my advise to you is to be cautious and always keep your lease and read it throughly make sure you pay close attention to the terms and conditions fine print or even just the way things may he worded upon moving into any place I also would suggest to always take befor and after pictures of any place you move into and move out of .. hope that helps good luck ..cheers
Landlords like to put illegal and unenforceable terms in leases, while quoting “the Act”. Don’t think you have to do what a lease says, because the RTA may make a term unenforceable - like this one.
Landlord can insist all they want, but the law wins. The RTB will not enforce any clause that requires professional cleaning. I guarantee the landlord knows this, and just wants you to pay for their cleaning bill - they will never go to the RTB over this, as they know they will lose.
If the carpets were not steam cleaned or shampooed the landlord can very much go after them through RTB for those costs and be successful in their claims under the act, even though this specific term in the agreement is not enforceable. Some landlords may not bother if that is the only cost, but some may do it anyways if they got the time/energy or will be much more likely if there are other claims to be made, even if potentially just shots in the dark.
Don't even worry about it
How so
If the tenancy act doesn't allow it what makes you think they'd be successful in enforcing it? They can't, so don't stress
If you signed it on the tenancy agreement then you must abide by the contract you signed. Otherwise they’ll take it from your damage deposit. Happened to me! I rented a carpet cleaner, did it myself and it wasn’t per the contract. They took it from my damage deposit and the tenancy agreement was enforced because I signed it on the contract. Small claims court won’t help you since you signed it.
This is incorrect and has been upheld by the RTB on a number of occasions. Not only is requiring professional cleaning an unenforceable clause, but neither party (LL or Tenant) can contract between themselves a term that is explicitly against the RTA, so “you must abide by the contract you signed” is simply not the case if those types of terms are what is in dispute.
Perhaps you could share the decision ID in your case so we could review the rationale the arbitrator had for your decision?
Oh lord. It was 10 years ago now. I don’t have any of that info on me anymore. But I absolutely had it enforced and the money was deducted from my damage deposit. I was absolutely gutted because I thought I was in the right.
Doesn’t Vancouver have renting laws that overrule basically all landlord/tenant contracts?
The province has laws, but there is nuance to it, which is why the OP is posting in this sub to ask.
Not everything a landlord wants to put in the agreement is contrary to the RTA.
You don't need carpet professionally cleaned it is thevlandlors job
Nah, it's the tenant's job to have the carpets steam cleaned or shampoo'd, but they don't need to hire professional cleaning services.
Lol that is what I said tenant don't need to have it professionally cleaned if landlord want to then landlord can go ahead an pay for it
the bolded part above implied it was the landlord's job (responsibility) to clean the carpets, which is not true. Next time, maybe clarify a bit more if you're going to try to offer advice.
Lol only on reddit you get downvoted for saying you don't need to get carpet "professionally" cleaned.