My tenant has been charged £150 for dust on skirting boards at checkout, is that legitimate?

In short: Almost certainly not, unless there’s a detailed, photographed check-in inventory proving the skirting boards were spotless at the start and a genuine, itemised cleaning invoice supporting the £150 figure. Vague, generic, or disproportionate cleaning charges are one of the most commonly overturned deductions in deposit disputes, and adjudicators consistently side against landlords who can’t produce solid comparative evidence. If you’re the landlord charging this, expect it to be challenged and likely reduced or thrown out entirely if it goes to adjudication.

Why this kind of charge usually fails

A £150 charge for dust on skirting boards fails on several fronts that deposit scheme adjudicators specifically look for:

Disproportionality, dusting skirting boards is a five-minute task with a cloth. £150 bears no relation to the actual labour or cost involved, and adjudicators regularly reduce or reject charges that look like a flat “professional clean” fee applied to a trivial issue.
No comparative evidence, a charge is only justifiable if you can show the property’s condition at check-in was meaningfully better than at check-out, for that exact area. “Dust on skirting boards” without a check-in photo showing spotless skirting boards is essentially unprovable.
Confusing cleanliness with damage, a dusty skirting board is not damage, and in many cases isn’t even a cleanliness failure serious enough to justify a charge; a light layer of dust after a tenancy of any real length is arguably fair wear and tear from ordinary occupation, not neglect.
No genuine invoice, a charge should be backed by an actual receipt or invoice from a cleaner, itemising what was done and why, not just a number picked by the landlord or agent.

Fair wear and tear vs genuine cleaning/damage deductions

As covered in Q36, fair wear and tear is the gradual, unavoidable deterioration of a property through ordinary use, it’s not chargeable. Genuine cleaning deductions are reserved for cases where the property is returned in a materially worse cleanliness state than at check-in, e.g. grease-caked ovens, ingrained carpet stains, mould from lack of ventilation caused by tenant behaviour, or a general level of griminess well beyond “lived in.”

The test isn’t “is it perfectly clean”, it’s “is it reasonably clean, comparable to how it was handed over.” Minor dust, a few marks, or general softening of newness after a year or more of occupation typically doesn’t meet the bar for a deduction.

The inventory is everything

The single biggest determinant of whether a cleaning or damage charge survives a dispute is the quality of your check-in inventory. To make any deduction defensible:

Use a detailed, room-by-room, item-by-item inventory completed before the tenant moves in
Include time-stamped photographs (and ideally video) of every surface, appliance, and fixture, including skirting boards, behind doors, inside cupboards
Get the tenant to sign or otherwise formally acknowledge the inventory (or at minimum, send it to them with a reasonable window to dispute any entries)
Repeat the same process, room by room, at check-out, so you have a genuine like-for-like comparison
Many landlords and agents use an independent, professional inventory clerk for this precisely because independence carries more weight in a dispute than a landlord’s own account

Without this, any cleaning or damage charge is essentially your word against the tenant’s, and adjudicators default toward the tenant when there’s no verifiable “before” evidence.

The deposit dispute process

If a tenant disputes a deduction like this, here’s what happens:

Your deposit must be protected in one of the three government-approved schemes, the Deposit Protection Service (DPS), mydeposits, or the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS), within 30 days of receiving it. This is a strict legal requirement; failing to protect a deposit (or failing to serve the “prescribed information”) exposes you to a claim for 1–3 times the deposit amount in compensation, separate from the deposit dispute itself.
At check-out, if you and the tenant can’t agree on deductions, either party can refer the dispute to the scheme’s free Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service rather than going to court.
Both sides submit evidence, typically within 7–10 days of the referral, including the check-in and check-out inventories, photos, invoices, the tenancy agreement, and any relevant correspondence.
An independent adjudicator reviews the evidence and makes a binding decision on how the disputed portion of the deposit is split.
Vague, generic or unevidenced charges, a £150 line item for “cleaning” or “dust,” with no invoice and no comparative photos, are exactly the kind of claim adjudicators routinely knock down, sometimes entirely.

Best practice to avoid disputes like this altogether

Commission a professional, photographed inventory at check-in and check-out, it typically costs £50–£150 and is far cheaper than losing a dispute or damaging your reputation
Only charge for cleaning when there’s a genuine, evidenced decline in condition, not routine dust or minor marks
Get an actual invoice from whoever does the cleaning, itemising the work, before deducting anything
If in doubt, ask: would this charge survive being shown to an independent adjudicator with only the evidence I currently have? If the honest answer is no, don’t make the deduction.

Charging tenants for trivial issues like dusty skirting boards, without solid evidence, is a fast way to lose a dispute, generate a negative review, and, if it becomes a pattern, attract scrutiny from the redress scheme if an agent is involved.

Sources

This is general information, not legal, tax, or financial advice. Rules referenced are accurate to the best of available information as of July 2026 for England unless stated otherwise. Always check current government guidance (gov.uk) or consult a solicitor for your specific situation.

Last Updated on September 30, 2026

Own a rental property in London?

Table of Contents