End of Tenancy Charges - Reasonable Wear & Tear?

tomro88o

Hi,

My friend and I have just moved out of a flat after 13 months of living there and the letting agent has gone to the property and conducted an inspection to calculate any additional costs to be taken from our deposit. I disagree with a couple of the points (which I believe are fair wear & tear) and am wondering what rights I have to argue against their assessment?

The main points I disagree with are:

2 x dining chair backs broken (new required) - £70+VAT (£84)

The backs are made of two faux-leather pieces of material that are stitched together. The stitching over time has come away and the pieces of material are coming apart such that the back no longer sits at the top of the seat. We haven't done anything that's caused this to happen other than sit on them normally, so I'm unsure how this can be classed as anything but fair wear & tear?

Frying pan burnt - £15.00
Replacement labour - £30.00

I believe they are implying here that it costs £30 worth of labour to replace a frying pan. That seems excessive and unfair to me, and I would be happy to provide them with a brand new, boxed one myself. Should I be able to do that?

2 x Double mattress protector stained @ £10.00 each

The mattresses certainly haven't had anything spilled on them and they weren't new when we got there (they look too old) but we didn't check them for stains prior to moving in (they weren't on the checklist so we didn't think). I also didn't notice anything when I stripped off my bedding, which leads me to wonder how they can be in such a state as needs a replacement.

3 seater sofa has burn mark - picture attached

There's no cost attached to this but from the total they've quoted it looks like around £60. The couch hasn't been burnt and the damage looks more like just a bit of wear, or like something in someone's back pocket has caught it and it's got a little worse over time. It's approximately 2cm squared. How far does reasonable wear & tear go? I'd have thought it would cover this.

I'm going to start by putting similar points to these in an email reply to them, but what I'm most interested in is should 'reasonable wear & tear' cover me on most of these and what do I do if they argue back against all my points?

Thanks for any help you can offer!

-Tom

benjus

"Reasonable wear and tear" does not cover any form of damage. If you caused damage to an item you should expect to pay a contribution towards it. However, the contribution will be calculated to bring the items back to the condition they were in when you moved in - for example, if the frying pan was 2 years old when you moved in and is now ruined, an adjudicator would only award the value of a 2 year old pan, or a proportion of the cost of a new one (based on the age and expected lifespan of the item). I very much doubt that an adjudicator would award £30 towards the labour of replacing a frying pan.

Do you have a signed inventory that documents the condition of the items they are trying to claim for? Without that, it's going to be very hard for them to prove that you caused the issues. And without proof, an adjudicator isn't going to give them anything.

I would suggest looking at some of the case studies on the deposit protection companies' websites and make it very clear in your communications that you will expect justifications and evidence to the same criteria and standards of an adjudicator if you are going to accept any claims on your deposit. Don't forget that the money is yours until you accept a claim against it or an adjudicator or court makes a decision.

tomro88o

Thanks very much for the reply. Been away for a few days so just getting round to replying.

benjus wrote: »

However, the contribution will be calculated to bring the items back to the condition they were in when you moved in - for example, if the frying pan was 2 years old when you moved in and is now ruined, an adjudicator would only award the value of a 2 year old pan

That's an interesting point. Looking at the inventory for the items that we signed at the start of the tenancy, many items are marked as 'GOOD CONDITION (GC)' which they state as meaning 'they are in new or good condition'. While no items at all were brand new, I'm guessing that by saying something is in good condition I don't have much of a leg to stand on to argue that I shouldn't pay the full cost towards items marked as good condition?

benjus wrote: »

Do you have a signed inventory that documents the condition of the items they are trying to claim for?

As mentioned above, yes we do and it details most as 'GC'. My main argument is against the chairs which, once the stitching started fraying from every day use rather than us damaging them, couldn't be helped and deteriorated quickly. I've detailed this in my response.

benjus wrote: »

I would suggest looking at some of the case studies on the deposit protection companies' websites

Useful tip, thanks. Unfortunately the site for my company says these are 'coming soon', but I imagine ones from other companies will be equally as valid.

benjus wrote: »

make it very clear in your communications that you will expect justifications and evidence to the same criteria and standards of an adjudicator if you are going to accept any claims on your deposit.

Have requested they provide more evidence/justifications for several of the items.

benjus wrote: »

Don't forget that the money is yours until you accept a claim against it or an adjudicator or court makes a decision.

Also easy to forget, makes me feel a bit better about the situation!