Replacing damaged carpet - tenant

martindow

How old is the carpet - was it new when you moved in?

hollip0p

martindow wrote: »

How old is the carpet - was it new when you moved in?

Hi,

It wasn't new when we moved in, but I'm not sure how old it was.

We didn't get a list of anything when we moved in - we went to the estate agents, got the keys and off we went. Nobody did an inventory check, but the landlord did come out to meet us a couple of days later. At the time I did make sure he was aware that the carpet in the living room (not the rabbit room) had an iron burn and a couple of cigarette burns from the previous tenant. So it's not like all of the carpets were in the best condition to start with. However, the burn marks aren't massively noticeable - the damage caused by the rabbits definitely is!

thesaint

bod1467 wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

The general legal principle is that if one party suffers loss/damage then the remedy must be proportionate and not lead to betterment. Therefore if the carpet was 8 years old (for example) then the remedy is to replace it with an 8 year old carpet (or a monetary amount to the equivalent value)... replacing with a new carpet would be betterment.

I've explained why I believe I'm right. Now it's your turn to explain why you think I'm wrong.

I am unaware of shops selling 8 year old carpets to be honest. It must be a custom local to you.

Unless, they are in abundance on Ebay or Gumtree?

The proportionate value of a carpet is more than it's 2nd hand value.

DoaM

thesaint wrote: »

The proportionate value of a carpet is more than it's 2nd hand value.

What is that supposed to mean? Sorry but it makes no sense - the value is the value.

Regardless, the remedy for recompense for damage to an old carpet is certainly NOT the cost of a new carpet. That is betterment, plain and simple.

thesaint

DoaM wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean? Sorry but it makes no sense - the value is the value.

Regardless, the remedy for recompense for damage to an old carpet is certainly NOT the cost of a new carpet. That is betterment, plain and simple.

If I were to attempt to sell my lounge carpet that I have been using for the last 2 years, I would get precisely nothing for it.

If I had a tenant in the property for 2 years, and he ruined it, then the proportionate cost of the carpet to me is more than zero. Get it?

DoaM

You can get off-cuts. You can buy second hand carpets.

Regardless, a landlord STILL cannot insist on the full cost of a brand new carpet .... period. There is absolutely no lawful way around this. No amount of trying to move the discussion will negate this fact.

martindow

thesaint wrote: »

If I had a tenant in the property for 2 years, and he ruined it, then the proportionate cost of the carpet to me is more than zero. Get it?

I don't think anyone disagrees with you, do they?

Betterment applies so the LL can ask the T to pay the proportion of its value that has been lost. If the carpet had a life of 10 years that would be 80% of the cost of replacement (assuming the carpet was new when this tenancy started).

kinger101

DoaM wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean? Sorry but it makes no sense - the value is the value.

Regardless, the remedy for recompense for damage to an old carpet is certainly NOT the cost of a new carpet. That is betterment, plain and simple.

The carpet would be depreciated over it's useful life. Perhaps on a straight-line basis for the purpose of the deposit protection schemes.

Say I spend £400 on a carpet with an 8 year durability. If I choose to sell it after 2 years, I wouldn't get £300 for it on ebay. I'd be lucky to get £1 given its cut to fit a particular room, and there's almost no market for second hand fitted carpets.

If the tenant damaged it and moved out after 2 years, the DPS would very likely allow the £300 deduction. So there's more than one way to value the carpet. In this case, it's based on cost less depreciation.

It's a basic of accountancy. Fixtures and fittings are based on the value of the asset with the business as a going concern. Not their liquidation value.

TheGardener

thesaint wrote: »

I am unaware of shops selling 8 year old carpets to be honest. It must be a custom local to you.

Bizarrely - I recently bought a carpet and thought at the time it looked familiar - then realised it was the exact same as one my Dad bought 15 years ago and still has in the back bedroom at his place :rotfl:

DoaM

kinger101 wrote: »

It's a basic of accountancy. Fixtures and fittings are based on the value of the asset with the business as a going concern. Not their liquidation value.

I accept that argument completely. However, the basic tenet of the discussion (which thesaint tried to move once they realised they weren't going to win) was betterment.

What you've described is not betterment - it is proportionate adjustment as compensation for breach/damage. I have no issue with that at all.