What is a fair damage deposit retention for carpet stains?

anselld

Hi,
On checking out, tenant has caused several carpet stains which will not budge dispite professional clean.

Check in inventory (signed) states VG condition no stains.

Carpet is still useable, but obviously devalued significantly beyond normal W&T.

So how should I (as LL) calculate a fair charge for these stains?

thx

BitterAndTwisted

The useful life of the carpet minus how old it is now equals current value.

So, if you accept that the carpet in a rental property would need to be replaced in five years and it cost a grand then that's £200 per annum depreciation

westlondonbuyer

What does the check-out inventory state?

Can you ask your tenants about how the stains occurred? Do you have inventory photos of the carpet before they checked in? Could you ask them to suggest what would be a fair price for you to deduct for the damage?

BitterAndTwisted

How the stains occurred doesn't matter: it's damage. There's no need for photos the inventory states "VGC no stains". What the tenants think is a fair price is immaterial really, it's the replacement value which counts and that's based on the original cost less the age

westlondonbuyer

I agree with you in principle, Bitter and Twisted. In practice, it's usually less stressful and less expensive for all concerned to try and resolve landlord/tenant disputes amicably.

If the tenants know how the stains occurred, they can be asked to clean them first; they should be given the chance to do this before they're told a deduction on their deposit is inevitable. If they know themselves that the stains are irregular (eg adults leaving felt-tip stains or nail varnish stains on carpets) they won't kick up a fuss. The problems are likely to start if they claim the stains are regular wear and tear.

No carpet stays pristine in use. A brand new carpet - even one marked "VGC no stains" on the inventory - will never be returned in the same condition. If the matter goes to court, "reasonable" will be the key word. Is the landlord being "reasonable" in not tolerating this level of damage? Is the landlord being "reasonable" in the size of deduction being made? Far better to agree this at the close of the tenancy between yourselves, than later in the small claims court.

tbs624

How long has T been in situ?

How old was carpet at the start?

Are you intending to actually replace the carpet or leave it as is?

anselld

T in situ 1 year. Damages appear do be drinks spillages, but T has not confirmed this.

Not sure how old carpet because I only purchased property (with carpet fitted) a few months prior to T moving in.

T did engage professional cleaners ( actually it was one of the other T sharers) but there remain definate visible stains which were not present at check in.

Check out inventory is not yet written but I have photos.

I realise I cannot charge for full replacement cost. It doesn't even seem fair to charge replacement less previous depreciation as the carpet is still useable in future. But neither does it seem fair to charge nothing when there is clear damage.

westlondonbuyer

It is a tough one, and I applaud you for wanting to be fair to all parties. Hence why I think you should ask your tenants what they think is a reasonable amount for deduction, tell them what you think is a reasonable amount for deduction, and hopefully meet halfway. Bitter and Twisted's depreciation post makes sense to me, as it's the same logic insurance companies use. I'd probably charge half annual expected depreciation in your shoes.

anselld

westlondonbuyer wrote: »

I'd probably charge half annual expected depreciation in your shoes.

That does sound reasonable to me. Thanks.