Landlords

Hi all,

I have some tenants who have moved out of a property I own.
In one room there is a stain (about 8 inches by 6) on the carpet which won't come out.
The management company have said that to replace the carpet (which was brand new when the tenants moved in) would be about £150 incl fitting but that because it's 2 years old and we should accept £50. They have said that the tenant would not have to pay for the replacement carpet, just the bit that's damaged.

Sounds complete rubbish to me. Anyone got experience of such things?

thanks

[PyroUK]

Ish.

Same as insurance, take in to account wear and tear and that kinda stuff hence the £50.

Sadly you don't have much protection on this as the law is pretty much on the side of the tenants.

[shiftin_gear98]

Sounds like your managing company is ****, but just like all the others.


If that's the worst you have to pay out after getting shot of a tenant then you did better than me.


I had a to evict my up until then perfect tenant - was in flat for 5 years. Nearly lost me the sale of the flat due to the delay, and cost nearly £750 all in.
Plus as she hadn't damaged anything I wasn't entitled to keep any of her deposit.


Beatch.

[ophic]

Wear and tear for a carpet is usually calculated on expected lifetime. This is normally around 10 years iirc. So you wouldn't expect 2/10ths of the value back, leaving the tenant liable for the other 8/10ths. Yes they are liable for the whole carpet, not just the stained bit.

So 8/10ths of £150 is £120. It's up to you whether that £70 difference is worth arguing over.

[Red Herring]

I bet you could find another £100 worth of damage if you looked hard enough.....

If it was carpet tiles they'd only be liable for the stained ones but unless people regularly replace patches of carpet I'd say they're liable for the whole piece of carpet.

If They were suggesting £100 I'd say its probably not worth fighting it but £50 is ridiculous.

Personally after 2 years in a flat (assuming the same tenant for the length of the carpet) I'd be ****ed off it they tried to charge me for the replacement of the carpet. It's like scratching a rental car and being asked to pay for a complete respray rather than a small charge proportional to the actual loss. Fact is the carpet still fulfils all of the functions it needs to except slight cosmetic damage. Unless the tenant was negligent (having a pet against letting agreement or slaughtering goats in the front room).

The carpet was clean when they moved in and they have stained it. Nothing to do with wear and tear....it's not like they have been walking on it and it's worn through!

They are liable for the whole carpet as you cannot just replace the stained bit.

Ask for the full amount. The claim will be lodged on the Deposit Protection scheme holder and they will "decide" if there is opposition from the tenant.

Btw I manage 9 properties so I speak from a position of experience.

Not entitled to pay the full replacement cost. Wear & tear deduction represents 2 years use, not the stain. So, just as a car depreciates after use over time - even if its in perfect mechanical condition - its value decreases. I agree that the calculation is a proportion of the carpets value, but note that this value is based on "like for like" replacement (which is unlikely as its 2 yrs old, but not impossible). So the old "10 year lifespan" argument (which is of course subjective) correctly suggests a 2/10th deduction in replacement cost. But this is only one common way of making such a calculation. Others can be used as long as they're reasonable and proportionate.

Ask for the full amount. The claim will be lodged on the Deposit Protection scheme holder and they will "decide" if there is opposition from the tenant.

I'd be incredibly surprised if the DPS agree to a full charge in the circumstances.

Originally Posted by SvNewbie

Personally after 2 years in a flat (assuming the same tenant for the length of the carpet) I'd be ****ed off it they tried to charge me for the replacement of the carpet. It's like scratching a rental car and being asked to pay for a complete respray rather than a small charge proportional to the actual loss. Fact is the carpet still fulfils all of the functions it needs to except slight cosmetic damage. Unless the tenant was negligent (having a pet against letting agreement or slaughtering goats in the front room).

It's more like scratching a rental car and having to pay to have the panel resprayed.

Which is what would happen. He's not asking for new carpets throughout the house, just the one that has been damaged.