Renting, being charged for carpet cleaning and replacement of carpet

MRSB

Hi everyone,
If anyone can offer any advice it would be so gratefully received, I'll try and keep this post as brief as possible!
We are in the UK, and £700 of our deposit is protected, with £200 being kept personally by the Landlord as pet deposit (in our pet contract).
Basically we lived in a rental property for 2.5 years and have just moved out. We had cats at the property and signed a pet agreement stating that carpets had to be professionally cleaned prior to final inspection.
We agreed for this to be arranged by the letting agent as we moved out early and it is to be deducted from our deposit. (Lounge, stairs, small landing and two bedrooms - £183.10) All fine.
We have now been told post final inspection that we are also going to have the cost of brand new lounge and stairs carpets deducted from our deposit as they are claiming they have been damaged beyond repair by our cats, and there is a clause in our pet agreement stating that if this is the case we are liable for the whole replacement cost of £321.
I have several issues with this. Firstly, there has been no mention of 'cat damage' during any of our previous periodic inspections (the last one being only two months ago), however, I did mention where the carpet had come away from the edges of the room, especially at the door bars and had started to fray. Therefore, why were we told to get the carpets cleaned if they knew the state of them and that they think that they need replacing? Is this a reasonable argument?
Secondly, the carpets were not new when we moved in, and it is noted in our inventory that they were in 'fair condition' with marks and wear. Taking this into account and the two and a half years wear and tear during our tenancy, it seems ludicrous to charge us the full amount for the new carpets, but I think they are pinning their hopes on the pet agreement clause.
We have print out photos of the carpets from when we moved in but they are not very detailed, and we have lots from when we moved out, so I'm not sure if that's very helpful.
Any thoughts welcome, we aren't trying to con the Landlord out of any money we owe, (have agreed to other minor repairs being deducted and a light clean as it was unoccupied for a couple of weeks prior to final inspection etc.) but we find this a bit ridiculous.
Thanks

BitterAndTwisted

You cannot be charged the full replacement cost of two and half year-old carpets. That would be "betterment". However £321 for lounge and stairs carpets doesn't sound like the full cost to me.

MRSB

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

You cannot be charged the full replacement cost of two and half year-old carpets. That would be "betterment". However £321 for lounge and stairs carpets doesn't sound like the full cost to me.

Hi, thanks for your reply. I've been told that the £321 is the full quote, and that because of the clause in our pet agreement the rules around betterment don't apply.
The landlord lived in the house before we started renting it and I'm not sure how old the carpet is, it certainly wasn't new when we moved in. I don't know if this affects the depreciation of the carpet either, as in, whether depreciation is calculated by how old the carpet is, or how long it has been there while the house has been rented out.
Not sure how to move forward really. Thanks again.

BitterAndTwisted

Of course the rules on betterment apply!

The carpets weren't brand new when you moved in, they were 2 1/2 years older than that when you moved out, so why would the landlord be entitled to the entire cost of new carpets now?

The landlord is entitled to charge you for the useful life of the carpets that you have deprived him of. If you'd be prepared to accept for argument's sake that the expected life of carpets in a rental would be five years and they were installed the week before your tenancy started you would owe him half of the replacement value.

TBagpuss

It soubnds as though the disagreement is over whether the carpets have been damaged beyond repair by your cats, or whether the damage is due to fair wear and tear.

I would suggest that you write to the landlord to say that you agree to them retaining £183 from the £200 pet deposit to cover the costs of the professional cleaning of the carpets as per the pet agreement, but that you do not agree to any deduction from your protected deposit as there has been no damage caused by your pets, and the carpets re in the same condition as when you moved in, save for the reasonable wear and tear to be expected over a 2.5 year period.

had they inspected it prior to you getting the carpets cleaned? If they did, then it seems unreasonable for them to charge you for both cleaning and alleged damage. However, from what you describe, the agreement was that you would have the carpets professionally cleaned prior to the final inspection, so at the time you asked the agents to arrange the cleaning, they had not inspected so would not know about the damage. Of you reported the damage before, did you do it in writing? Did they query at that time whether it was wear and tear or caused by your pets.

As your deposit is protected, claim it back and let the landlord dispute it .

MRSB

Hi again, thanks for the speedy replies. We had inspections every three to six months throughout our tenancy, with the last periodic inspection happening just two months before we moved out. This is when I told the Letting agent that came to inspect about the fraying around the edges of the carpets, (when I hoovered or if someone didn't deliberately avoid stepping near to the edge of the carpet, frayed bits of carpet would get caught on them. I tried to help this by stopping hoovering the edges regularly and tucking any loose carpet back down but was not very successful). He said that the carpets didn't look very well fitted and nothing ever about cat damage. I didn't get this in writing but remember the inspection very well, I don't think that helps a lot though! I feel this makes our argument about them knowing about the state of the carpets justified but have no proof and the letting agent refused to send me a copy of his notes from the inspection.
The carpet is the same throughout the house and is a felt backed synthetic Berber loop style.
I have just had another look at the pictures from just before the final inspection (after the carpet cleaning), and can see some flattened piled, stains and marks documented by the inventory (none caused by us), and some areas of fuzzing in high traffic areas where the loops aren't well defined anymore with a couple of tufts rather than loops, and of course the fraying as mentioned.
The lounge is a through way to the kitchen also as there is no hall, so the carpet does look more worn than in the bedrooms.
I will await a response from the letting agent and let you know what he says.
Thanks so much. Thought with buying a house, moving in and moving out of our rental the stress was over! Evidently not!

MRSB

And I will post the clause that supposedly stops the betterment rules from applying when I get a chance. Thanks.

MRSB

Hi again all,

I've had the reply from the Letting agent today again stating that we are responsible for the cleaning and recarpeting cost regardless as they are stating the damage is cat damage. The clause in the pet agreement is below;

'Any damage to the exterior or interior of the property, grounds, flooring, walls, trim, finish, tiles and carpets, or any marks, smells, stains etc. caused by the cat will be the full financial responsibility of the tenants, and the tenants agree to pay all costs in the restoration to its original condition. If, due to any stains, smells, marks etc said damage is such that it can't be removed, then the tenants hereby agree to pay the full expense for the replacement'

Can this really cancel out the betterment rules?

I am requesting a copy of the notes from the letting agent from their last periodic inspection before we moved out, (the one two months before our final inspection), as I told the letting agent specifically about issues to do with the carpets poor fitting at that time so I'm hoping they will be on the notes. I'm not hopeful that they will give them to me though, given their current rate of cooperation.

We are gearing up to dispute through the deposit scheme now but really didn't want it to get to that. There is no movement because of the clause above for apportioning the costs etc. so we either pay it all and lose our entire deposit unfairly or dig in and fight.

Thanks everyone, any replies would be so gratefully received.

00ec25

a deposit is a deposit whether it is against a specific expectation ("cat") or against general damage

they have acted illegally by not protecting the "cat deposit" notwithstanding the "cat clause" as contract terms cannot overwrite statute law

I would use that against them and state that you intend to take legal action for non protection of the whole of your deposit

dgtazzman

Sounds like you are going through what I expect to go through next month. The carpets in our rental are to my best knowledge/research 8 years old now and we are leaving next month. We have been here for 4 years, the carpets were already in at that time and looking far from new.

As we have cats, we are to have the carpets professionally cleaned, all fair and not an issue. The carpets have come away from the edges in a few places (especially a few door bars) and started fraying, they have also started letting loose on some of the stairs. I have even had to cut them back in 2 places as they were catching on the internal doors, making the damage worse by the day. I informed the LA about this, sent them pictures and asked they if they still wanted to have the cleaning done, or if the LL would prefer the cost of this cleaning just be deducted, towards new carpets.

I was told the LL had no intention of replacing the carpets (even though they are 2 years past their 'best before date' in my opinion) and that they were to be cleaned, should the carpets need replacing, they would be chasing us for more of our deposit. I have already argued with them that with the carpets being the age they are, any deduction for them will be contested as betterment, so we'll see, certainly wish you the best of luck.