Forced to pay for someone else’s mess

If SiT is not satisfied with a tenant’s daily cleaning, it levies a 1000 NOK fine for every person renting the apartment. Håvard Bergo, student, was one of the people fined this year by SiT. “At the end of July, I suddenly received a fine for 1000 crowns. At that point, I had already been home for the summer for a month,” says Bergo.

The fine was sent to Bergo and his 3 flat mates despite the fact that only one of them had lived in the apartment during the summer. Bergo’s neighbor, Åse Sørgaard, has no qualms admitting that she was responsible for the messy apartment. “I lived there the entire summer, and the apartment was dirty. You don’t have time to clean your place every day. No one has time for that.”

Refuses to Pay

Bergo is irritated that he has been responsible for another person’s lack of regular cleaning. He has been in contact with SiT several times to try and have the fine waived. “Time and time again, I’ve tried to get an answer as to why I’m considered responsible for someone else’s deficient cleaning and to ask if they even have the right to fine people this way, but it doesn’t seem like they’ve listened to my arguments.”

According to several legal experts that Under Dusken has contacted, the entire proceeding is illegal. The Norwegian tenant law states clearly that a landlord cannot demand economic compensation for lack of cleaning while the tenants still live in a rental unit. “This practice is illegal and must be stopped right away. If SiT wants to fine their tenants in a legal way, they need to lodge a complaint for lack of proper maintenance and demand improvement in a formal, written statement to the tenant,” explains Anne-Mette Hårdnes of the Tenant Society.

Must pay back the fines

Lawhelp, a pro-bono legal organization, and the Consumer Advocacy Bureau agree with Hårdnes’ statement. “These fines can be regarded as illegal payments. Everyone who has paid such fines can demand a reimbursement with interest from the day that the fine was paid,” says Gaute Auset, Lawhelp I Mid-Norway.

The communal and regional departments agree with the statements regard the illegality of the practice and emphasize that SiT is not exempt from Norwegian law. “There are certain exceptions for the Student Associasion’s rental units, such as the processing of deposits and sublettling. Besides these exceptions, the tenant law is applicable in its entirety,” writes counselor Marianne Frisvold Furuset from the communal and regional department.

Rejects the criticism

The legal advisor for SiT’s rental department disagrees with the criticism and believes that SiT has the law on their side:

“We cannot go in to an individual’s room and demand better cleaning more frequent cleaning there, but the common areas are different. In this case, the tenant has not upheld the cleaning obligations as stipulated by the lease which they have signed,” says Kristiansen.

Kristiansen believes that 1000 NOK is an acceptable sum for the cleaning. She states, “Cleaning often takes several hours carry out and we often take on larger costs than 1000 crowns. If the parties involved wish to see a receipt for the cleaning, it can be made available.”

She believes the legal experts are incorrect in stating that the cleaning fines are illegal. “When a tenant loses their key, they must replace it before they can receive a new one. This is a good example of how we can demand payments other than the deposit, utilities or rent.”

Per Oddvar Pallum, lawyer for the Tenant Society, disagrees with Kristiansen’s statements. “It’s only at the end of rental period that lack of cleaning can hurt your wallet.”

He is not convinced by Kristiansen’s comparison between lack of regular cleaning and losing your keys. “Kristiansen’s example is not valid. If a tenant has several copies of his key, he can wait until he moves out to replace the lost key. It is therefore not the same kind of demand that SiT places on its tenants for lack of cleaning.”

Don’t pay!

Pallum says that reimbursement for cleaning can be legal in some cases, but that a fine is a breach of tenant law. First, if on one of the habitants complains that the apartment is too messy, the habitants can discuss who will pay what, but in this case there is no occasion to demand a standard reimbursement as SiT does.

“If someone is to be forced to cover the cost of cleaning, SiT must first find out who is responsible for the mess. There is never occasion to levy a collective fine.”

Pallum believes that the students should stand up for themselves, and that SiT has little legal basis for their actions.

“I would advise students not to pay such fines. If SiT later tries to keep part of the deposit or tries to take legal action to demand payment of the fine, the student would win in atenant dispute case.”