Ruined Carpet

katieort

Hi there,
I think I already know the answer, but just wanted to check and get some advice.
Back story, basically my dog decided to be a pain and rip up the carpet in the lounge, it is utterly destroyed about a metre square patch by the door and we have just cut it down so it doesn't drag or get worse. We can live with it so not particularly fussed.
I am nearing the end of my tenancy, currently in process of buying a house so will be leaving soon hopefully.

We have just had a house inspection and they have said that as the dog destroyed the carpet, we are financially liable for it. Now we were a little sneaky and said we spilt paint on it rather than blaming the dog. However in their letter they have said it is the dog and so we have to pay.

Basically where do I stand on this, will I have to stump up the cash for this, or can I wait til I leave and have them take it from the deposit, but only a fraction of the cost to replace, I've heard talk of betterment etc. If so how is best to go about this?
Other carpets in the house are really rubbish too, not ripped, just old and worn, so just thinking they'll try and stitch us for them too. When they were definitely rubbish when we moved in.

If it is down to me to sort, it isn't the end of the world, the LA pretty much said to get the cheapest carpet possible, (its a crappy one anyway) and I've seen one for about £60 and my dad can fit it when we move out anyway.
I am leaning towards the latter as my guess is I would have to pay more for them to sort as they would have to pay for a fitter as well.
Any advice/opinions?

G_M

Whether it was spilt paint or the dog makes not a ha'pence of difference!

It's damage and you are liable. You can

* fix it yourself so that when you leave the carpet is as good as before (less fair wear and tear). Must be a like-for-like carpet of similar colour and quality. or
* leave it for the LL to fix - he'll likely charge you either from your deposit or by presenting an invoice for you to pay.

Note that
* he can probably claim for the full room carpet replacement, not just the meter square patch as the patch would almost certainly be obvious.

However he can't claim 'betterment', So he can't expect you to pay for a brand new carpet if the old one was already, say, halfway through it's life. You'd only have to pay 50% (or 20%, or 70% etc depending on its age/quality)

Squirtle17

It is irrelevant how the carpet got damaged, so it wasn't really sneaky to say what had happened, just pointless.

You do not have to pay anything until the end of your tenancy. When you leave, they will be entitled to take from your deposit the cost of a new carpet minus a percentage based on the expected life of the carpet and how old it is.

How old do you believe the carpet to be? Do you have evidence of the condition when you moved in? Based on these factors you will have to decide if you feel the cost of the proportion of new carpet will be more or less than the £60 you believe you could get it for. Bear in mind that the proportional cost from the landlord is likely to include fitting and potentially a more expensive carpet.

Mr.Generous

Are you looking at re-carpeting the whole lounge for £60? Amazing.

HampshireH

Your answers are above giving a legal stance.

Personally I would be mortified if my dog did that in someone elses house and would be going out of my way to have replaced it. I would feel morally obliged even if its a cheap carpet I got.

PhilE

They probably rented with old carpets and pets allowed, as untrained pets rip the place up.

You are liable for the damage caused and should not be trying to lie your way out of it. That will only make matters worse.

Mutton_Geoff

How long have you lived there? As a landlord, I gave my rental property carpets 5 year lifespans. On two occasions, over 2 year rental periods, the tenants in two different properties trashed the carpets so they were replaced and the tenants paid 60% of the cost (3/5ths) since I was deprived of the remaining three years of their use.


Once tenant paid reluctantly and then wanted to come and collect the dog pee stained carpets I had replaced. The other cost me a county court claim and the financial reputation (via CCJ) of the tenant who lost the case.


I was still out of pocket since those carpets should have run for 5 years minimum were it not for the inconsiderate actions of tenants.


I'd suggest owning up properly and meeting your liability.

PhilE

Mutton_Geoff wrote: »

Once tenant paid reluctantly and then wanted to come and collect the dog pee stained carpets .

Another reason why I wont be allowing pets when I rent. What sort of owner would let their dog pee on carpets?!

lookstraightahead

HampshireH wrote: »

Your answers are above giving a legal stance.

Personally I would be mortified if my dog did that in someone elses house and would be going out of my way to have replaced it. I would feel morally obliged even if its a cheap carpet I got.

It's your house while you live in it. The landlord isn't doing the tenant a favour.

ognum

PhilE wrote: »

They probably rented with old carpets and pets allowed, as untrained pets rip the place up.

Wow, sweeping statement that you don’t know is true. I let a house which has very good carpets to a family with dogs. I also own a dog who has never ripped up a carpet!

katieort

Yeah I am fine about paying for the carpet, not denying that it was my fault, just wondering what the cheaper option would be, but I think to be honest, sorting myself would be easiest and best. I have lived here for 2 years, and the carpets were there before and likely there for the previous tenant too. It looked old and rubbish when I moved in anyway. No photos etc as no move in check done.

£60 would be the cost of the carpet, I got a few samples online and checked which would be best and the cheapest actually works the best which is handy! My dad can fit it as he has done carpets before, so saves £50+ too.

Just to add to the story too, the LA have now emailed me to say that I have to sort this out, and a couple of other little bits NOW and not at the end of the tenancy, and they will come back in about a month to check. Seems a bit rude and harsh as they actually said whilst doing the check that as long as everything was made good at the end of the tenancy that was fine.
Like I said, I am fine with sorting everything out, my fault after all, but insisting I sort now rather than when the place is empty and easier to sort seems unfair.

The plan was to sort out the carpet etc. either the weekend before we get the keys/give notice to the new place, or right after so we can move the sofa out of the way, so it would still look fresh and new and we wouldn't need to clean again and that. In that time, there would be no way they could organise viewings or anything for literally a couple of days after we give notice, we were going to request a weekend leeway anyway so we could move everything out anyway without people in the way to view.

Where do I stand on this? I was literally going to ignore and wait for them to check again and see what happens, or should I email and say what I was going to do? I've read the worst they can do is try and kick me out, but they have to give notice anyway, and I'll probably be moving in 2 months anyway.