Damage to floor - what percentage reasonable for tenants to cover?

Bossypants

I have a flat which I rent out through an agent. The most recent tenant (of 18 months) has just moved out and has left behind two tears in the kitchen lino. They are not repairable and the whole lino needs to be replaced in order to get the place looking decent again. The tenant's explanation for the tears is that they had to move appliances out of the way to allow damp experts to look behind, and it was during this that the tearing happened. These were people the tenants themselves had instructed, without notifying the agent. My take on it is that 1) they should have gone to the agent and not brought their own experts in; 2) if they did bring their own people in, there was still no need to move the appliances (damp is way above the appliances on a different wall, there is no reason to suspect a connection); and 3) if their experts did move those appliances and damaged the floor in the process, they should have covered it. As it is, I would like the tenants to cover most of the cost of replacing the lino, as it would have been perfectly viable for a good few years if not for this damage.

Just to be clear, I have been actively trying to rectify the damp problem. 12 months ago when I was made aware of it, I had a damp-proofing company come in and do extensive work, and when the problem reappeared in the beginning of the year, I wanted to rectify it asap. The work that needed doing was fairly invasive, so we tried to work with the tenant to find a convenient time for them, but they ignored voicemails, texts and emails on the subject for about six weeks. At that point they announced their intention not to renew, so I decided to just leave it until they moved out, since they didn't seem concerned and it would be easier to do a thorough job in an empty property. It's only now that they've moved out that I've discovered they were getting their own experts in, and they have now complained about having to put up with it. Have learned my lesson on this one, next time I will insist at the time the issue arises.

Now my question is, what percentage of the cost of replacing the lino is it reasonable to expect the tenants to cover?

anselld

How old is the lino?
What is the quality of the lino (expected life)?
What was the condition recorded at checkin?

eg Cheap lino, already 5 years old.... nil.
Expensive lino, 1 year old ... 90%
Already worn or damaged at checkin ... less.
No checkin inventory ... probably nil. (you cant prove they did it)
etc, etc.

Bossypants

Thanks for the reply! Lino was about three years old, no visible wear at check-in (flat had only been lived in for about six months between lino being put down and these tenants moving in), middling quality, expected to last another 5 years or so.

50% maybe? Is that too much?

ThePants999

If it's three years old and should have lasted another five, my GCSE Maths says they should cover 62.5% of the cost.

anselld

Bossypants wrote: »

Thanks for the reply! Lino was about three years old, no visible wear at check-in (flat had only been lived in for about six months between lino being put down and these tenants moving in), middling quality, expected to last another 5 years or so.

50% maybe? Is that too much?

This suggests expected lifespan 5-10 years...
https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/resources/files/Product%20Lifespans%20Guide_DIGITAL.PDF
.. so you might get away with 8 for "middling".

In which case 5/8 to pay, ie 62%.

lookstraightahead

How much did the lino cost

Bossypants

Thanks for the precise calculations! I think I'll just call it 50%, they took good care of the place otherwise, even if they were a bit awkward about weird things.

Doozergirl

Bossypants wrote: »

Thanks for the precise calculations! I think I'll just call it 50%, they took good care of the place otherwise, even if they were a bit awkward about weird things.

...Like damp. That caused them to move out.

You'd be better off posting for advice over the damp problem that you've already been ripped off over than how to charge tenants for trying to sort it out themselves.

lookstraightahead

Doozergirl wrote: »

...Like damp. That caused them to move out.

You'd be better off posting for advice over the damp problem that you've already been ripped off over than how to charge tenants for trying to sort it out themselves.

This is what I thought to be honest. Op, looks to me like the damp proofing had never been sorted out properly and the tenants got fed up with it, which is why they are leaving. Based on what you've said, I wouldn't be happy as a tenant to pay for something that got accidentally ruined while trying to sort out a landlord problem. They've already mentioned why it was ripped and will probably take anything you charge them to arbitration.

[Deleted User]

Given the problems you caused by not properly remedying the damp (so the tenants felt ignored and tried to sort it themselves) I think the least you can do is put the cost of replacing three year old lino down as a business cost, maybe even a learning experience. If it had been installed properly, it would have been very difficult to tear.

The tenants wouldn't have moved out if they were happy, would they? Would you be happy living with damp for three years and all the disruption probably 'free' damp surveys recommended (a bit of googling into the causes of damp might have been more useful)? Although you say you did everything possible to remedy it, when you finally had a solution that would solve it, you delayed.

Its a learning experience on how to be a LL. Treat it as such.

Bossypants

I wrote a post here explaining the situation, but I have decided to remove it. In my heart I am comfortable that I have done right by the tenants and treated them as I have wanted to be treated when I was in rented accommodation. I will just say that the 'awkwardness' I referred to was nothing to do with the damp problem, but disturbances caused by the tenants to the upstairs neighbours (which did stop after the tenants were told off, so that's something) and dogs brought in against the terms of the lease.