Home / Kitchen Extraction Cleaning / Guide
Kitchen extraction cleaning - leases
Who is responsible for cleaning the kitchen extraction - the landlord or the tenant? The answer is in the lease - and getting it wrong, or assuming the other party is handling it, is how extraction cleaning falls through the gap and a fire risk builds unmanaged. Here is how landlord and tenant compliance duties for the extraction typically divide in a lease, and why you must check yours. This is general information, not legal advice.
The short answer
In a leased commercial kitchen, a basic but crucial question is: who is responsible for cleaning the extraction and its fire-safety compliance - the landlord or the tenant? The answer isn't automatic; it depends on the lease. Getting this clear matters, because ambiguity is how the cleaning falls through the gap. This is general information, not legal advice; your lease and a solicitor determine your specific position. It depends on the lease. There's no universal rule that 'the landlord does it' or 'the tenant does it' - the division of responsibility for cleaning and maintaining the kitchen extraction (and the associated fire-safety compliance) is set by the terms of the particular lease. So the first and essential step is to read the lease to see what it says about the extraction, the ductwork, repairing and maintenance obligations, and fire-safety compliance. The typical position. That said, there's a common pattern: the tenant, as the operator of the kitchen, usually holds responsibility for cleaning the extraction serving their kitchen. This makes sense - the tenant's cooking creates the grease and the fire risk, and the tenant is typically the responsible person (under fire safety law) in occupation and control of the kitchen. So very often, cleaning the extraction is the tenant's duty. But not always, and not entirely. It isn't automatic, and several things can place duties on the landlord or split them: the demised extent - what the tenant actually leases (the extraction may or may not be within the demise); shared or building-wide ductwork - if the duct is shared with other units or runs through the building's structure, the landlord may hold or share responsibility for it; repairing obligations - the lease's repair and maintenance clauses (who maintains what); and service charges - the landlord may maintain certain shared systems and recover the cost via service charge. So the landlord can have duties for parts of the extraction (especially shared or structural ductwork), and the split can be more complex than 'tenant does it all'. The real danger: assumption. The biggest practical risk isn't the legal complexity itself but assumption - the tenant assuming the landlord cleans the ductwork (perhaps because it runs through the building), and the landlord assuming the tenant cleans their own extraction. So neither does it, the extraction falls through the gap, and a grease fire risk builds up unmanaged (and a fire, or an insurer, later exposes the gap). This is a common and dangerous failure. So read it and be clear. The essential response is to read the lease and be clear who is responsible for the extraction cleaning and compliance - and to ensure it's actually being done (not assumed by either party). Where the lease is unclear or the division ambiguous, get legal advice and clarify it (with the other party). And whoever is responsible must then actually do it - to standard, with records. So landlord vs tenant extraction duties are set by the lease: read it, be clear, and never assume the other party is doing it. So check the lease and make sure it's actually done. This is general information, not legal advice; check your lease and take advice.
Key points
The lease decides
The first thing to understand about landlord and tenant extraction duties is that there's no universal rule - the lease decides, so you must read yours. There's no automatic answer that 'the landlord always cleans the extraction' or 'the tenant always does' - the division of responsibility for cleaning and maintaining the kitchen extraction (and the associated fire-safety compliance) is set by the terms of the particular lease. Different leases divide it differently.
So the essential first step, in any leased kitchen, is to read the lease to see what it says: about the extraction and ductwork specifically (if mentioned), about the repairing and maintenance obligations (who maintains what), about the demised premises (what the tenant leases), and about fire-safety compliance and service charges. These terms determine who is responsible for cleaning the extraction. Assuming a default (either way) without checking is a mistake, because the lease may say otherwise. So don't assume - read the lease. The following sections cover the typical position and the complications, but the governing point is that your specific lease decides your specific position. So the lease decides - no universal rule, read yours. So read the lease to know who's responsible. This is general information, not legal advice.
The typical position
While the lease decides, there's a common pattern worth knowing: the tenant, as the operator of the kitchen, often holds responsibility for cleaning the extraction serving their kitchen. This is a frequent arrangement, and it makes sense: the tenant's cooking is what creates the grease and the fire risk in the extraction, so it's logical that the tenant, who generates and benefits from the cooking, cleans the resulting grease. And the tenant is typically the responsible person under fire safety law - in occupation and control of the kitchen - so the fire-safety duty for the kitchen (including managing the extraction grease risk) usually sits with them.
So in many leased kitchens, cleaning the extraction is the tenant's duty - part of operating the kitchen responsibly and complying with fire safety. If you're a tenant operating a leased kitchen, the default expectation (subject to the lease) is often that keeping your extraction clean is your responsibility. So don't assume the landlord is doing it just because the ductwork is part of the building. That said, this is the typical position, not a universal one - and there are important qualifications where the landlord may have duties, covered next. So the typical position - often the tenant, as the operator - is a useful starting expectation, but must be confirmed against the actual lease. So often the tenant holds it, but confirm. This is general information, not legal advice.
Where the landlord comes in
The tenant doesn't necessarily hold all the responsibility - several things can place duties on the landlord, particularly around shared or building-wide parts of the extraction. The demised extent: what the tenant actually leases (the 'demise') matters - the extraction, or parts of it (especially ductwork running beyond the tenant's unit), may or may not be within the demised premises; parts outside the demise may be the landlord's. Shared or building-wide ductwork: if the extraction ductwork is shared with other units, or runs through the building's structure or common parts (as it often does, running up through the building), the landlord may hold or share responsibility for that ductwork (as the party responsible for the building's structure and shared systems).
Repairing obligations and service charges: the lease's repair and maintenance clauses allocate who maintains what, and the landlord may maintain certain shared systems (recovering the cost through the service charge). So the landlord can have genuine duties for parts of the extraction - typically the shared, structural or building-wide elements - even where the tenant cleans the parts serving and within their own kitchen. This means the responsibility can be split (tenant for their kitchen's extraction, landlord for shared/structural ductwork), which needs to be understood so nothing is missed. So where the landlord comes in - shared ductwork and building parts - is an important qualification to the typical tenant responsibility. So the landlord may hold shared or structural parts. This is general information, not legal advice; check your lease.
The danger of assumption
The biggest practical danger isn't the legal complexity itself but assumption - each party assuming the other is cleaning the extraction, so neither does, and it falls through the gap. This is a common and dangerous failure: the tenant assumes the landlord cleans the ductwork (perhaps because it runs through the building, or 'it's the landlord's building'), while the landlord assumes the tenant cleans their own kitchen's extraction (because it's their cooking). So each believes the other is handling it - and nobody actually does.
The result is that the extraction goes uncleaned, the grease builds up, and a fire risk develops unmanaged - until it's exposed (by a fire, an insurer checking after an incident, or a fire risk assessment or inspection finding the neglected system). By then, the gap has allowed a serious, unmanaged fire risk to build. And there may be a dispute about who was responsible (each pointing at the other) - but a dispute doesn't undo the neglect or the danger. So the assumption gap is exactly how extraction cleaning gets neglected in leased premises - not through anyone deciding not to do it, but through each thinking the other would. This is why clarity (not assumption) is essential. So the danger of assumption - each thinking the other does it - is the real risk to guard against. So don't assume; the gap builds a fire risk. This is general information.
Read it, be clear, do it
So the essential response to landlord vs tenant extraction duties is: read the lease to know who's responsible, be clear (clarifying any ambiguity), and ensure the cleaning is actually done - not assumed. Read the lease to establish what it says about the extraction, ductwork, maintenance and fire-safety compliance - who is responsible for what. If it's clear, you know your duties (and the other party's). If it's unclear or ambiguous (as leases can be about extraction specifically), get legal advice and clarify it - ideally agreeing expressly with the other party who cleans what, so there's no gap. So read it and be clear.
Then, crucially, act - ensure the extraction is actually cleaned by whoever is responsible: if it's you (often the tenant, for your kitchen's extraction), arrange the cleaning (to TR19 Grease, at the appropriate frequency, with records); if it's the landlord (for shared/structural ductwork), ensure they're doing it (and that you have evidence, since a fire risk assessment and insurer may ask about the whole system). The goal is that the whole extraction is cleaned and no part falls through the gap between the parties. So read it, be clear, do it - clarity and action, not assumption. Getting this right (knowing the duties, and discharging them) is how a leased kitchen keeps its extraction clean and compliant, and avoids the dangerous assumption gap. So establish who's responsible and make sure it's done. So read the lease, be clear, and ensure it's actually cleaned. This is general information, not legal advice; check your lease and take advice.
Questions
It depends on the lease - there's no universal rule; often the tenant (as operator of the kitchen) holds it, but shared or structural ductwork can be the landlord's, so read your lease. Responsibility for cleaning and maintaining the kitchen extraction (and its fire-safety compliance) is set by the terms of the particular lease, not by a fixed rule. A common pattern is that the tenant, as the operator whose cooking creates the grease and fire risk (and who is typically the responsible person in occupation), cleans the extraction serving their kitchen. But it isn't automatic: the demised extent, shared or building-wide ductwork, repairing obligations and service charges can place duties on the landlord (especially for shared or structural ductwork) or split them. So the answer is in your lease - read it to see who is responsible for what. Where it's unclear, get advice and clarify. So it depends on the lease; read yours. So the lease decides - read it. This is general information, not legal advice.
Because if each assumes the other does it, neither does - so the extraction goes uncleaned, the grease builds up, and a fire risk develops unmanaged until a fire or inspection exposes the gap. The most common way extraction cleaning is neglected in leased premises isn't a deliberate decision but assumption: the tenant assuming the landlord cleans the ductwork (it runs through the building), and the landlord assuming the tenant cleans their own kitchen's extraction (it's their cooking). So each thinks the other is handling it, and nobody does. The result is an uncleaned, grease-laden extraction - an unmanaged fire risk building up - until it's exposed by a fire, an insurer after an incident, or a fire risk assessment or inspection. By then the gap has allowed a serious danger to develop (and there may be a dispute over who was responsible). So the assumption gap is how the cleaning falls through - which is why clarity, not assumption, is essential. So assumption leaves it undone and a fire risk building. So because the gap leaves it uncleaned. This is general information.
The demised extent (what the tenant leases), any clauses on the extraction/ductwork, the repairing and maintenance obligations, provisions for shared or building-wide systems, and the service-charge arrangements. Several lease terms bear on who is responsible for the extraction. The demised extent defines what the tenant actually leases - the extraction, or parts of it, may or may not be within the demise. Specific clauses may address the extraction, ductwork, or duct cleaning (as covered in duct-cleaning-clauses-in-commercial-leases). The repairing and maintenance obligations allocate who maintains what. Provisions for shared or building-wide systems (like ductwork running through the building) may place those on the landlord. And the service-charge arrangements may cover the landlord maintaining certain shared systems and recovering the cost. So reading these terms together tells you how the responsibility divides. Where it's unclear, take legal advice. So the demise, specific clauses, repairing obligations, shared-system provisions and service charge all matter. So those lease terms decide it. This is general information, not legal advice.
Possibly - shared or structural ductwork running through the building can be the landlord's responsibility, but it depends on the lease; don't assume - check, because the tenant may still be responsible for it or for their kitchen's part. Ductwork running up through the building's structure or shared with other units may fall to the landlord (as the party responsible for the building's structure and shared systems) - so it can be the landlord's job. But this isn't automatic: the lease determines it, and the tenant may still be responsible for the extraction serving their kitchen (including its ductwork) even where it runs through the building, or responsibility may be split. So the fact that the ductwork runs through the building doesn't by itself make it the landlord's - you must check the lease. The key is not to assume (either way) but to establish from the lease who is responsible for which parts, so the whole system is covered. So possibly the landlord's, but check the lease - don't assume. So possibly, but the lease decides. This is general information, not legal advice.
Get legal advice and clarify it - ideally agreeing expressly with the other party who cleans what - so there's no ambiguity or gap; and meanwhile ensure the extraction is actually being cleaned. Leases can be unclear or silent about extraction cleaning specifically, leaving the division ambiguous. If yours is, don't leave it to assumption (the dangerous gap) - get legal advice to interpret the lease, and clarify the position: ideally agree expressly with the landlord (in writing) who is responsible for cleaning which parts of the extraction, so there's no ambiguity. Meanwhile, don't let the uncertainty mean nobody cleans it - ensure the extraction is actually being cleaned (arrange it, or confirm the landlord is, and keep evidence), because the fire risk doesn't wait for the legal question to be resolved. So clarify the ambiguity (with advice and express agreement) and make sure the cleaning happens in the meantime. So get advice, clarify it, and ensure it's cleaned. This is general information, not legal advice; take advice on your lease.
Yes - whoever holds the duty must have the extraction cleaned to the TR19 Grease standard at the appropriate frequency, with records; knowing who is responsible is only the start - it must actually be done properly. Establishing who is responsible (landlord or tenant) is necessary but not sufficient - the responsible party must then actually discharge the duty: having the extraction (their part of it) cleaned to the recognised TR19 Grease standard, at the appropriate frequency for the cooking, with the records to evidence it. So a tenant responsible for their kitchen's extraction must clean it properly; a landlord responsible for shared ductwork must clean that properly. And each should have evidence of the whole system being cleaned (since a fire risk assessment and insurer look at the whole extraction). So the point is both to know who's responsible and to ensure they do it properly - clarity and proper action together. So yes - it must be cleaned properly to standard, with records, by whoever holds the duty. So yes - knowing who isn't enough; it must be done. This is general information, not legal advice.
Whoever is responsible under your lease, the extraction must be cleaned to TR19 Grease with records. We clean the whole system and provide the evidence - so you can meet your duty, or show the landlord's part is done, and nothing falls through the gap. Ask us about extraction cleaning for your leased kitchen. This is general information, not legal advice; check your lease.
