Home / Kitchen Extraction Cleaning / Guide
Kitchen extraction cleaning - auditing
Paying for an extraction clean is not the same as knowing it was done properly. Auditing the work means checking, systematically, that the contractor delivered what you paid for: the whole system cleaned to standard, evidenced by photographs, a report and a certificate - and spot-checking the system itself. Here is how to audit the work a contractor has done, so you can be sure. This is general commentary on auditing contractor work.
The short answer
It is easy to pay a contractor and assume the job was done properly - but assuming isn't knowing, and for something like an extraction clean (where much of the work is hidden), a systematic check is worth doing. Auditing the work is how you verify you got what you paid for. This is general commentary. Why audit at all. Extraction cleaning is largely hidden work (the ductwork and fan are out of sight), and a clean done badly can look fine from the kitchen (the visible canopy clean while the hidden parts were skimped). So there is a real risk of paying for a whole-system clean and getting only a partial one - without knowing, unless you check. Auditing the work catches this: it verifies, systematically, that the whole job was done to standard. It also, done routinely, keeps contractors honest (they know the work is checked) and gives you the evidence you need for your own records (fire risk assessment, insurers). The two parts of an audit. Auditing the work has two complementary parts: checking the evidence (the documentation) and spot-checking the system (the physical result). Part 1: Check the evidence. A proper clean is documented, so the first part of the audit is checking that documentation against what was agreed: (a) Before-and-after photographs - do they show the whole system (especially the hidden ductwork and fan) before and after cleaning, proving the hidden parts were done? Photographs only of the visible canopy, or none, are a red flag. (b) The report - does it describe what was cleaned, and does that match the agreed scope (the whole system)? (c) The certificate - is the clean certified to a recognised standard (TR19 Grease)? So the evidence should prove the whole system was cleaned to standard. Checking it against what you agreed (scope, standard) is the documentary audit. Part 2: Spot-check the system. Evidence can be checked further against reality - so the second part is a spot-check of the actual system: for instance, opening an access panel to look at the ductwork inside (is it clean?), and checking the fan. This confirms the physical work matches the evidence (clean duct at the panel supports the photographs; grease there contradicts them). You needn't check everything, but a spot-check or two verifies the reality. Compare against what you paid for. The audit's purpose is to compare what was delivered (evidenced and spot-checked) against what you agreed and paid for: the agreed scope (the whole system), the agreed standard (TR19 Grease), the whole job. If the evidence and the system match that, the contractor delivered; if there are gaps (missing evidence, grease left, scope not covered), they didn't - and you can raise it. A good contractor and a healthy relationship. A reputable contractor confident in their work provides the evidence readily and welcomes the audit (they have nothing to hide, and it demonstrates their quality). Resistance to being checked is itself a warning sign. Auditing routinely (not just once) keeps the work honest over time. So audit the work a contractor has done by checking the evidence (photographs, report, certificate) and spot-checking the system, against the agreed scope and standard - so you know you got the whole-system clean you paid for. So auditing verifies you got what you paid for. This is general commentary on auditing contractor work.
Key points
Why audit the work
The reason to audit a contractor's work is simple: paying for a job is not the same as knowing it was done properly - especially for hidden work like extraction cleaning. Much of an extraction clean is out of sight (the ductwork and fan), and a clean done badly can look fine from the kitchen (the visible canopy clean while the hidden parts were skimped). So there is a real risk of paying for a whole-system clean and receiving only a partial one - without ever knowing, unless you check. Auditing the work is how you find out.
Auditing systematically verifies that the whole job was done to standard - closing the gap between assuming and knowing. It has other benefits too: done routinely, it keeps contractors honest (a contractor who knows the work is checked has every incentive to do it properly), and it gives you the evidence you need for your own records (your fire risk assessment and insurers rely on the clean being properly done and documented). So auditing is not distrust for its own sake - it is due diligence on work you can't fully see, protecting you from paying for a clean that wasn't really done. So why audit the work: paying isn't the same as knowing. The following sections cover how - checking the evidence and spot-checking the system. So paying isn't knowing - audit to be sure. This is general commentary.
Check the evidence
The first part of auditing the work is checking the evidence - the documentation a proper clean provides - against what was agreed. Before-and-after photographs: these are the key evidence for hidden work. Check that the photographs show the whole system (especially the hidden ductwork and fan) before and after cleaning - proving those hidden parts were actually done (grease before, clean surface after). Photographs only of the visible canopy, or no photographs, are a red flag (the hidden parts aren't proven). The report: check that the report describes what was cleaned, and that it matches the agreed scope - the whole system (canopy, filters, ductwork, fan), not just part.
The certificate: check that the clean is certified to a recognised standard - TR19 Grease - so it was done to the proper standard, not just 'cleaned' vaguely. (You can also verify the certificate is genuine, as covered in the verifying-a-certificate page.) So the evidence audit is a check that the documentation proves the whole system was cleaned to standard: photographs of the hidden parts done, a report matching the agreed scope, and a recognised-standard certificate. Checking this against what you agreed (the scope and standard) tells you whether the paperwork supports a proper clean. Missing or inadequate evidence is a sign the work may not have been fully done. So check the evidence - photographs, report and certificate - as the first part of the audit. So check the photographs, report and certificate. This is general commentary.
Spot-check the system
The second part of auditing the work is to spot-check the system itself - looking at the actual physical result to confirm it matches the evidence. Documentation can and should be checked against reality: the most useful spot-check is to open an access panel and look at the ductwork inside - if it is clean, the duct was cleaned (supporting the photographs); if it is still greasy, the duct wasn't properly cleaned (contradicting any claim it was). You can also check the fan (if reachable) and look at the general result. This physical spot-check confirms whether the actual work matches what the evidence claims.
You don't need to check every part exhaustively - a spot-check or two (the ductwork at an access panel being the key one) is usually enough to verify the reality. If the spot-check matches the evidence (clean where the photographs show clean), it confirms the work; if it contradicts it (grease where the photographs claim clean), it exposes a problem. So the spot-check is the reality-check on the documentation - making the audit more than a paperwork exercise. Together, the evidence check and the spot-check give you a well-founded judgement of whether the work was really done. So spot-check the system - look at the actual result - as the second part of the audit. So spot-check the actual system too. This is general commentary.
Compare against what you paid for
The purpose of the audit is to compare what was delivered - as shown by the evidence and the spot-check - against what you agreed and paid for: the agreed scope, the agreed standard, the whole system. So having checked the evidence and spot-checked the system, judge it against the agreement: Was the whole system covered (canopy, filters, ductwork, fan), as agreed - or was part skimped or skipped? Was it cleaned to the agreed standard (TR19 Grease)? Does the evidence prove this, and does the spot-check confirm it? In short, did you get the whole-system clean to standard that you paid for?
If the evidence and the system match what you agreed (the whole system cleaned to TR19 Grease, proven and confirmed), the contractor delivered - and you have both the assurance and the records. If there are gaps - missing evidence of the hidden parts, grease found where clean was claimed, scope not covered - then the contractor didn't fully deliver, and you can raise it (asking them to complete the work properly, per the spotting-a-bad-clean page). So the audit comes down to this comparison: delivered versus agreed. It turns a vague 'I paid, so it must be done' into a clear judgement of whether you got what you paid for. So compare against what you paid for - scope, standard, whole system. So compare delivered against agreed. This is general commentary.
A good contractor welcomes it
A final point: auditing the work is not adversarial - a good contractor, confident in their work, provides the evidence readily and welcomes the audit, and routine auditing keeps the work honest over time. A reputable extraction cleaner does the whole system properly and documents it, so they have the photographs, report and certificate to hand and are happy for you to check them (and to spot-check the system) - they have nothing to hide, and the scrutiny demonstrates their quality. So a contractor who welcomes the audit is a good sign; one who is resistant to being checked, or can't provide the evidence, is a warning sign in itself.
And auditing routinely (checking the work each time, or regularly, not just once) keeps the quality up over time: a contractor who knows their work is audited has every incentive to keep doing it properly, while one who is never checked may let standards slip (especially on the hidden parts no one looks at). So auditing is good practice for the ongoing relationship - not distrust, but the reasonable diligence that keeps hidden, fire-safety-critical work reliably done. So build auditing into how you manage the contractor: check the evidence and spot-check the system each time, welcome a contractor who welcomes it, and keep the work honest. So a good contractor welcomes it - scrutiny that keeps the work honest. So auditing keeps the work honest, and good contractors welcome it. This is general commentary on auditing contractor work.
Questions
Check the evidence (before-and-after photographs of the whole system, the report, the certificate) and spot-check the system itself (open an access panel to check the ductwork), comparing both against the agreed scope and standard. Auditing the work has two parts. First, check the evidence: the before-and-after photographs should show the whole system - especially the hidden ductwork and fan - before and after cleaning; the report should describe what was cleaned, matching the agreed scope; and the certificate should be to a recognised standard (TR19 Grease). Second, spot-check the system: open an access panel and look at the ductwork inside (clean means it was done; greasy means it wasn't), and check the fan if reachable. Then compare what the evidence and spot-check show against what you agreed and paid for (the whole system, to standard). If they match, the contractor delivered; if there are gaps, raise it. So audit by checking evidence and spot-checking, against the agreement. So check the evidence and spot-check the system. This is general commentary.
The before-and-after photographs (of the whole system, especially the ductwork and fan), the report (matching the agreed scope), and the certificate (to TR19 Grease) - the documentation that proves the whole system was cleaned to standard. A proper clean provides documentation you can audit: before-and-after photographs showing the system - crucially the hidden ductwork and fan - before and after cleaning (proving the hidden parts were done); a report describing what was cleaned (which should match the agreed whole-system scope); and a certificate stating the clean was done to the recognised TR19 Grease standard. Check each against what you agreed: do the photographs show the hidden parts cleaned? Does the report cover the whole system? Is it certified to TR19 Grease? Missing or inadequate evidence (especially no photographs of the ductwork and fan) suggests the work may not have been fully done. So check the photographs, report and certificate against the agreed scope and standard. So check the photographs, report and certificate. This is general commentary.
Open an access panel and look at the ductwork inside - clean means it was cleaned, greasy means it wasn't - and check the fan if you can reach it; a spot-check or two verifies the reality against the evidence. You don't need to inspect everything, but a physical spot-check confirms the documentation matches reality. The most useful check is to open an access panel and look at the internal surface of the ductwork: if it's clean, the duct was cleaned (supporting the photographs); if it's still coated in grease, the duct wasn't properly cleaned (contradicting any claim it was). If the extract fan is reachable, check whether it looks cleaned or still grease-laden. These spot-checks verify the actual result against the evidence claimed. A match confirms the work; a contradiction (grease where clean was claimed) exposes a problem. So spot-check by opening an access panel to check the ductwork, and checking the fan. So open an access panel and check the duct. This is general commentary.
Raise it with the contractor - show the gaps (missing evidence, grease found where clean was claimed) and ask them to complete the whole-system clean properly; if they won't, get a competent cleaner to do it. If your audit finds the work fell short (the evidence doesn't prove the hidden parts, or your spot-check finds grease where clean was claimed, or the scope wasn't covered), raise it with the contractor: show them the specific gaps and ask them to complete the whole-system clean properly and provide the proper evidence. A reputable contractor will put it right. If they won't or can't, get the whole system cleaned by a competent extraction cleaner who does the whole system to TR19 Grease and provides the proof - so the fire risk is actually addressed and you have the records. And factor the experience into whether to use that contractor again. So if the audit finds problems, challenge the contractor and, if needed, get a proper clean. So raise it and get it put right. This is general commentary.
A good one won't - a reputable contractor confident in their work provides the evidence readily and welcomes the check; resistance to being audited is itself a warning sign. A reputable extraction cleaner does the whole system properly and documents it, so they have the photographs, report and certificate to hand and are happy for you to check them and to spot-check the system - they have nothing to hide, and the scrutiny demonstrates their quality. So a contractor who welcomes the audit is a good sign. Conversely, a contractor who is resistant to being checked, evasive about the evidence, or can't provide it, is showing a warning sign - possibly that the work wasn't fully done. So don't hesitate to audit for fear of offending a good contractor; they'll welcome it. And treat resistance as informative. So no - a good contractor welcomes it; resistance is a warning sign. So a good contractor welcomes the audit. This is general commentary.
Ideally check each clean at least briefly (the evidence, and a spot-check now and then), and audit more thoroughly periodically - routine checking keeps the work honest over time. Auditing works best as a routine, not a one-off: at minimum, check the evidence (photographs, report, certificate) after each clean, and do a physical spot-check (opening an access panel) at least occasionally. A more thorough audit periodically keeps standards up. The value of routine checking is that a contractor who knows their work is regularly audited has every incentive to keep doing it properly, while one who is never checked may let standards slip on the hidden parts. So build a habit of checking each clean's evidence and spot-checking the system from time to time - keeping the quality reliable over the ongoing relationship. So check each clean's evidence and spot-check periodically. So check each time, and spot-check regularly. This is general commentary.
We clean the whole system to TR19 Grease and provide the before-and-after photographs, report and certificate to audit it against - and welcome you spot-checking the ductwork at an access panel, because we clean it properly and can prove it. Ask us for a clean you can verify. This is general commentary on auditing contractor work.
