Carpet in rented property

Yorkie1

sidvermawt wrote: »

Its a critical question whole money landlord will no pay neither tenanat. I would advice you to contribute equally for buying the new carpets.That will make happy both of parties.

There is a thread on here from a tenant who replaced carpets at their own expense and found themselves on the wrong end of a s.21 notice within a very short time.

The notice was probably completely unconnected with the carpet, but the LL did very very well out this and the tenant lost out completely.

There's no way I would contribute 50/50 - or at all - to the LL's getting new carpets. By way of analogy, if the carpets are indeed reaching the end of their estimated lifetime, if the tenant had actually caused damage to them, any deduction from deposit must be reduced according to how much lifetime they have left. If the carpets are several years old, the tenant is unlikely to have to pay 50% of the replacement cost at arbitration. Why would a tenant voluntarily fund 50% replacement when they have done no wrong?

redped

As a landlord, I wouldn't expect our tenants to pay anything towards the carpets; if nothing else, this would potentially cause problems when they move out, and point out that they own half the carpets.

Benji

Just to follow up on Artfuls post.

It is not good for tenant or landlord to use expensive carpet in rental acommodation.

It is bad for the landlord due to cost and the potential for a large loss if damages can not be recovered from tenants.
It is bad for tenants because if there are damages, the cost of replacing the carpet will result in a larger deposit deduction. This can be a dramatic difference:

example 1 - 20sqm @ 4.99 damaged after 3 years (5 yr lifespan) = £39.92
example 2 - 20sqm @ 35.00 damaged after 3 years (12 year lifespan) = £525

00ec25

I find these carpet related threads highly amusing for the figure apparently plucked from thin air re carpet lifespans

my own home: 2 lodgers plus wife, purchased 1991 (house, not the wife!)
original carpets still in place, no idea when previous owners fitted them, so at least 20 years old
Apart from a gum "clot" on stair step no2 ("damage" caused by lodger #1) they are perfectly good and as far as I am conerned have an indeterminate lifespan still left in them,
what constitutes "knackered" for a carpet?
Mine certainly are nowhere near having threadbare patches or other signs of knackeration... I agree that my parents carpets were knackerd after 42 years - obvious threadbare patch .... but only in one place and so easily capable of patch repair.

Benji

00ec25 wrote: »

I find these carpet related threads highly amusing for the figure apparently plucked from thin air re carpet lifespans

Oh, I agree, but one has to have some way of measuring what amount of financial damage has been caused when a carpet bites the dust. Usually nowadays one can ask the manufacturer for an expected lifespan.

My own lounge carpet has been down since before we bought the house 13 years ago. It has survived 2 adults, a growing child (now 16) and assorted dogs. It has the odd mark on it, but is physically still perfectly serviceable. Now if I did deposit deductions based on 20 years life left in a carpet, the cost to the tenant would be too high and difficult to justify to a judge or adjudicator.