What TDS Case Studies Teach Us About End of Tenancy Cleaning, Damage, and Deposit Deductions

Introduction

End-of-tenancy cleaning and deposit disputes are a leading source of conflict in the UK rental sector. The Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) provides invaluable insight into how adjudicators interpret evidence, legal obligations, and the difference between cleaning, fair wear and tear, and actual damage. By examining real TDS case studies, landlords, tenants, and agents can better understand what is fair, lawful, and effective in resolving these disputes.

Case Study 1: Sofa Stain – Cleaning vs. Replacement

A landlord claimed for the cost of a replacement sofa (£450) after finding a stain at tenancy end. The tenant admitted causing the stain but argued they weren’t responsible as the sofa should have been treated with a stain repellent. The adjudicator rejected this defence, noting tenants must return items in the same condition as at the start, allowing for fair wear and tear. Crucially, there was no evidence that cleaning had been attempted and failed. The adjudicator awarded only the cost of cleaning—not replacement—highlighting that cleaning is always the first remedy, and full replacement is only justified if repair is impossible and evidenced.

Key Lessons:

• Cleaning/repair must be attempted first; replacement is a last resort.

• Claims for permanent stains require evidence from a professional cleaner that cleaning was unsuccessful.

• Tenants should document and report damage quickly; landlords should keep detailed inventories and evidence.

Case Study 2: Mould and Redecoration – Proportionality and Evidence

Following a harsh winter, a landlord sought to deduct cleaning and redecoration costs due to mould. The tenants agreed to pay for cleaning but contested paying for redecoration, as the décor was not new at move-in. The adjudicator considered the age and condition of the décor, the check-in report, and the lack of evidence for the costs claimed. Only a contributory award was made, not the full amount, since awarding the full cost would have left the property in better condition than at the start.

Key Lessons:

• Landlords can’t expect the property to be returned in better condition than at move-in.

• Claims for redecoration must be supported by evidence of age, condition, and cost.

• Tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear or full redecoration unless damage is excessive and new.

Case Study 3: Pet Permissions – Breach vs. Evidence

A landlord claimed £100 for kitchen lino damage and flea treatment after discovering an unauthorised cat. The check-out report, however, did not refer to lino damage or flea infestation, and cleaning invoices showed the property was left in a high standard. The adjudicator found insufficient evidence to support the claim, despite the breach of the pet clause. The claim was denied, and the deposit was returned to the tenant.

Key Lessons:

• Breach of contract (e.g., unauthorised pets) does not justify deduction without evidence of actual damage or cleaning required.

• Detailed inventories, photos, and professional reports are essential for successful claims.

• Pet clauses should specify the tenant's responsibilities for cleaning and pest control if consent is given.

Case Study 4: Mould – Cleaning and Redecoration Claims

A landlord claimed for both cleaning and redecoration due to mould. The adjudicator reviewed the check-in/check-out reports, the age of the décor, and the absence of supporting invoices. A partial award was made, not the full amount, as the property should not be left in better condition than at tenancy start. Landlords must provide evidence for every aspect of their claim.

Key Lessons:

• Claims must be proportionate and supported by dated, itemised invoices or quotes.

• Full costs are rarely awarded unless fully justified by evidence and property condition.

• Tenants should report and address issues like mould promptly to avoid escalation.

Overarching Principles

• Evidence is paramount: Detailed check-in/check-out reports, photos, and professional invoices support fair outcomes.

• Fair wear and tear is not deductible: Only actual, evidenced damage or cleaning beyond normal use can be claimed.

• Cleaning is not restoration: Cleaning cannot make old, faded, or permanently stained items look new. Replacement/compensation is only justified with proof cleaning/repair failed.

• Proportionality: Claims must be reasonable and reflect the property’s condition at move-in, not an ideal standard.

Conclusion

TDS case studies confirm that deposit deductions for cleaning or damage are only justified with robust evidence and a fair, proportionate approach. Both landlords and tenants should prioritise documentation, communication, and realism about the limits of cleaning versus restoration. For more guidance, visit the TDS Help Centre.