Dispute regarding carpets

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I don't think it's appropriate to look for relevant laws to help out with not paying the cost in full here. I.

Have you forgotten which web site you're posting on?

AdrianC

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I bought all the carpets for current house in my early 60s when I got the house.

I don't expect to have to replace them ever - at my age.

"They'll see me out..." - those (im)mortal words that you can read into the dogeared RightMove photos of every single threadbare probate-sale property...


Seriously, though. It's a simple fact of life that things like carpets in rental properties have to expect a harder life than in owner-occupied properties. And it's not financially sensible to spend top dollar on top quality unless you're dealing with a seriously top-end property - in which case, life expectancy will still be shorter, simply because they will need to be in absolute top-notch condition at every check-in.


Equally, buying the cheapest rubbish is a false economy, simply because it won't last ten minutes.

Rambosmum

Was the deposit protected? If so go through the scheme, with a view to paying 50% of the replacement costs as stated above.


If it wasn't protected, well... we all know how that ends.

need_an_answer

I suppose the question to ask is in losing the £1200 deposit is that only sufficient to cover a percentage of the replacement costs of the carpet.

Was it just one carpet or several?

7 Years ago we had wool carpets fitted in our house in 2 rooms hall stairs and landing and the cost came to well in excess of £1200.
They are still extremely serviceable and look in very good condition so whilst I acknowledge that there needs to be a sliding scale for "carpet life" defined by DPS or whomever 5 years may not be realistic for a total carpet change in all circumstances.
I don't agree that rental properties take more of a hit over owner occupier in fact I would say that some of my tenants treat the carpet in a much better fashion than I would!

I'm just saying that if the problem extended throughout the house then its not inconceivable that the deposit will only fund some of the replacement costs.

elsien

For those being precious about the cause of the stains being a dog being sick, any tenants with children have potentially had vomiting and assorted other bodily fluids leaking onto the carpet from nappies.
Or indeed those without children but with more interesting life styles. No one expects carpets to be replaced following each tenancy in these circumstances if they're properly cleaned and the stains lifted.

Not relevant to the OP who acknowledges the carpets are now beyond redemption due to the cleaner, but a general comment that if you think too hard about previous tenants and what they may/may not have dropped, maybe renting isn't for you.

missprice

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The thought of what has happened to those carpets - ie a dog repeatedly being sick on them - is something that would cause me as tenant to think "I can't expect anyone else to have to live with those carpets - even if they weren't stained or damaged by wrong cleaner being used".

As a new tenant - I would want those carpets out pronto - as the mere thought of what had happened would put me right off.

So I agree with the landlord/lady personally and would be replacing the carpets with new ones and expect you to be the ones to pay for it (it was your dog that was being repeatedly sick like this).

I don't think it's appropriate to look for relevant laws to help out with not paying the cost in full here. It's appropriate behaviour to not expect anyone else to put up with carpets that have had that happening to them.

Dear god, how would you know what happened on the carpets?
I had toddlers once upon a time many years ago. They threw up, had toilet accidents, and once spectacularly deliberately blocked the toilet with toys and flushed til there was a tsunami down the stairs (not on my watch btw)
When I sold the house, no one asked about stains.

This doesn't sound like a mega high end rental going by the deposit. I would bet actual money the landlord doesn't replace with nearly the same quality as is allegedly in now.

And the law about what can be deducted from deposits is in place precisely because landlords took the Michael. You can't simply ignore it.

parkrunner

need_an_answer wrote: »

I suppose the question to ask is in losing the £1200 deposit is that only sufficient to cover a percentage of the replacement costs of the carpet.

Was it just one carpet or several?

Good question. OP how many square metres are needed to replace the damaged carpets?

D_M_E

As advised you need to dispute it with the deposit scheme and point out that on your move in inventory they werte listed as being worn and with minor - whatever that means - stains present.

Accept that more "minor" stains were caused during your occupancy and make an offer of £50 or £100 max to cover this and let the scheme decide.

Don't argue anymore, go straight to the scheme and let them arbitrate and decide.

westernpromise

I have a 2-bed rental, and a few tenancies ago, the tenant on checkout indicated that a carpet stain on one room had been caused by a bottle of hair dye having been overturned.

The carpets were new when they arrived but they'd been there 3 years; only one room was affected. The bill for fitting the underlay and the carpets was IIRC about £4k, so my proposal was

- assume carpets last 7 years so 4 more left
- assume half the cost was the underlay
- so the current value of all the carpets if intact would be 4/7 * 50% of £4,000 which is £1,142
- the flat has four areas of roughly similar size - 2x bedroom, 1x lounge, 1x hallway / stairs
- only one area has been stained, which is 25% of all the carpets
- therefore my loss is 25% of £1,142, or £285
- why don't we call it £200, because the mark's in a corner?

The tenants agreed to this, but in the course of the amicable discussion (they started out a bit defensive because they assumed I'd demand £4,000 or something mad, then relaxed a bit) it transpired that their contents insurance would have paid for this anyway!

Owain_Moneysaver

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I don't think it's appropriate to look for relevant laws to help out with not paying the cost in full here. It's appropriate behaviour to not expect anyone else to put up with carpets that have had that happening to them.

It's not appropriate for the tenant to have to pay for the landlord getting expensive new carpets when the tenant is only responsible for the damage, not for general wear and tear and depreciation.