Bath panel

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

That's very specific, especially considering that bath panels can easily cost in excess of that and you have no idea what type it was.

£70 is not unreasonable for a bath panel. It might be unreasonable for some bath panels and cheap for others. How you can say "it should have been £50" is beyond me.

G_M

I've not been responding from a moral perspective. I've been attempting to explain the legal position.

* if damage occurs, the LL can charge/make deposit deductions
* previous damage does not prevent a LL charging for subsequent damage (but see 'betterment')
* A LL has no legal obligation to use money received for damage on repairs/replacement
* a LL cannot charge for 'betterment'

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

I made it clear in the first post I was speaking morally.

EmmyLou30

I agree no landlord should benefit/profit from a tenant's deposit, that's not only morally wrong but also legally wrong (and impossible to do these days anyway because of the deposit scheme). In the old days a landlord would redecorate for his next tenants paid for by the outgoing tenants deposit or replace an entire worktop with a new one for some minor damage or at least charge as if he was going to - that was morally wrong so the deposit protection schemes were brought in to rightfully protect tenants.

My argument was that becuase I can't charge for betterment (even though I may have had a perfect worktop 5 years old that looked as fresh as the day it was installed that I will now have to pay full price to replace with a brand new one to leave myself with another perfect worktop not to mention fitting costs), I would be seriously out of pocket due to the tenants damage and legally I'm stuck with that so I wouldn't repair or replace the worktop because I know it's likely to happen again and leave me out of pocket. But I would charge my tenant the ammount I'm legally allowed to as this would go a small way towards my bill in the future to replace the worktop if that makes sense? So I wouldn't be attempting to profit from a tenant's deposit.

So no, it'd be morally wrong and legally impossible to charge multiple tenants for the full replacement cost of the worktop. But as a landlord I'd also be sure to charge each tenant for the repsective damage they did in the hope of going someway to paying for a new one in the future. As a landlord I'd be annoyed I was still out of pocket from a clumsy tenant (in 12 years of home ownership and previous years as a tenant I've never once so much as lightly scratched a worktop and would expect to pay for it if I did) but then that's what happens in the course of being a landlord and running a business, there are costs involved. Most landlords accept this, but you can't blame them for charging when they can in order to minimise their losses.