End of tenancy - new carpets?

Brogantonge

So my boyfriend and I have moved out of our rented house of a year. We had 2 cats (that the landlord allowed) and they damaged carpets the house - all except the dining room and lounge. These carpets apparently were ‘new’ when we moved in - I have asked for a receipt of this and the move in inventory said “appear to be new”.

The LL originally tried claiming £1395.60 for costs of replacing the carpets with the exception of the dining room. I then asked for a re-quote as the check out report stated that the lounge did not need replacing. They came back with a figure of £1108. However, upon looking at the breakdown, the carpets they are replacing with are more expensive (twist pile, had a loop pile) than what was originally in the property when we moved in. I asked for them to re-quote for a loop pile carpet due to betterment not allowing them to request I pay for better carpets and they basically said no because they’ve already purchased the new carpets; this is when I asked for a receipt of the new carpets when we moved in and if they couldn’t provide me with this then I’d be taking it to the DPS.

From my understanding, they must also take into wear and tear even if the damages are caused by me/the tenants (have to take into account the amount/who the tenants are) and I agree to that. I have asked for the calculations for apportioned amount of this. I have worked it out to be around £220 that I should have removed (£1108/5 years life span).

Am I right in disputing this if the LL refuses any sort of deductions? I believe I am right in my knowledge however would like some more advice if possible.

The cheeky little [Removed] also tried deducting for ‘drains and guttering’ even though the tenancy agreement states it is the landlords responsibility. When I came back with this they said they’d only remove it if the rest of the claim was accepted. LOL try wining that one?!?!

gary83

Raise the dispute you're right, the landlord can't claim for betterment, he also doesn't get to claim new for old, for instances if the carpets could realistically be expected to last five/eight/ten years and they need replacing after only 2 you pay for the proportion of the cost that is due to your actions

need_an_answer

Raise a dispute with the deposit service that protects your deposit if you feel you have a claim

And perhaps think about toning down the language in your last paragraph please....

G_M

* Deposits: payment, protection and return

saajan_12

Brogantonge wrote: »

So my boyfriend and I have moved out of our rented house of a year. We had 2 cats (that the landlord allowed) and they damaged carpets the house - all except the dining room and lounge. These carpets apparently were ‘new’ when we moved in - I have asked for a receipt of this and the move in inventory said “appear to be new”. - okay, so you should pay for materials and labour to replace 1 year old equivalent quality carpets.

The LL originally tried claiming £1395.60 for costs of replacing the carpets with the exception of the dining room. I then asked for a re-quote as the check out report stated that the lounge did not need replacing. They came back with a figure of £1108. However, upon looking at the breakdown, the carpets they are replacing with are more expensive (twist pile, had a loop pile) than what was originally in the property when we moved in. I asked for them to re-quote for a loop pile carpet due to betterment not allowing them to request I pay for better carpets and they basically said no because they’ve already purchased the new carpets; this is when I asked for a receipt of the new carpets when we moved in and if they couldn’t provide me with this then I’d be taking it to the DPS. - you're not entitled to a receipt, but its irrelevant as you should only pay for a like for like replacement. If they want to upgrade, the difference is at the LL's cost.

From my understanding, they must also take into wear and tear even if the damages are caused by me/the tenants (have to take into account the amount/who the tenants are)- correct, but even knowing there's a cat doesn't mean "destroyed" carpets are FAIR wear and tear.. the LL should only allow for normal wear and tear. and I agree to that. I have asked for the calculations for apportioned amount of this. I have worked it out to be around £220 that I should have removed (£1108/5 years life span). - Your calc is backwards.. If LL should have 5yrs useful life, they've only and 1 year lost 4 years due to the cats, so charge should be 4/5 x £1108 = £886 not £220. Also 5 years is on the low side, the LL could argue 10yrs lifespan, of which they've lost 9yrs so charge becomes £1108x9/10 = £997

Am I right in disputing this if the LL refuses any sort of deductions? I believe I am right in my knowledge however would like some more advice if possible.

The cheeky little [Removed] also tried deducting for ‘drains and guttering’ even though the tenancy agreement states it is the landlords responsibility. When I came back with this they said they’d only remove it if the rest of the claim was accepted. - that's effectively them offering to settle at a compromise. If their compromise is still unfair then ignore suggest your deductions (£0 for drains etc) and dispute wiht the deposit scheme if they disagree. LOL try wining that one?!?!

I would try presenting your proposed deductions once more, saves the hassle in getting formal evidence together for the deposit scheme which will only give you one shot.

1) Only charged for areas damaged beyond fair wear and tear (ie not dining or living room)
2) Like for like replacement (if they want to upgrade, the difference is at their cost)
3) Only pay for lost useful life ie 80% if 5yr lifespan, 90% if 10yr lifespan
4) You would need to pay for the appropriate % of materials + labour (not sure whether the figures above include that, but if not, beware they could add it if you go to the scheme)

fishpond

Sounds like a nice tenant?

ScottishSaver14

Like other posters have said, you shouldn't have to pay for a higher quality version at the full price, however you may want to think of how you could avoid a similar situation at your next property.

Loop carpets are specifically not advised for pet owners because the claws get caught in loop pile, and it's tempting for cats...bad combo. So that's on the landlord for not thinking of that when renting to you knowing about the cats.

However, we rent a flat which had new carpets laid before we moved in last year. Our cat has a liking for carpets, so we were wary when we moved in and sprayed him (or shook the bottle) with some water when he started doing his thing.

He has multiple scratching posts dotted around, and he doesn't bother with the carpets.

There are things that both sides could have done to avoid this, but as it is.. hopefully you can just pay the fair amount and be done with it

fishpond

ScottishSaver14 wrote: »

Like other posters have said, you shouldn't have to pay for a higher quality version at the full price, however you may want to think of how you could avoid a similar situation at your next property.

Loop carpets are specifically not advised for pet owners because the claws get caught in loop pile, and it's tempting for cats...bad combo. So that's on the landlord for not thinking of that when renting to you knowing about the cats.

However, we rent a flat which had new carpets laid before we moved in last year. Our cat has a liking for carpets, so we were wary when we moved in and sprayed him (or shook the bottle) with some water when he started doing his thing.

He has multiple scratching posts dotted around, and he doesn't bother with the carpets.

There are things that both sides could have done to avoid this, but as it is.. hopefully you can just pay the fair amount and be done with it

Having never had cats, it is not something I for 1 would think about.
But to save all the grief associated with pets and tenants that do not keep them under control. A No pets clause is simple to implement and saves a lot of trouble allround.
Because of these sorts of inactions/no control by the owners of pets, it is becoming even more difficult for pet owners to rent property.

ScottishSaver14

Having never had cats, it is not something I for 1 would think about.
But to save all the grief associated with pets and tenants that do not keep them under control. A No pets clause is simple to implement and saves a lot of trouble allround.
Because of these sorts of inactions/no control by the owners of pets, it is becoming even more difficult for pet owners to rent property.

I agree, and for that reason we made sure that we haven't given our LL any reason to regret their decision and use it against future tenants with pets.

My point was that from the LLs point of view, it was irresponsible on their part to have loop carpet laid (which before purchased, there is/should be a warning given about clawed animals) and then allow someone with two cats to live in the property. If they don't mind about pets, loop carpet should be out. If they do care about the carpets,pets should have been out imo.

On the OPs side, it's not a 'cats will be cats' situation and there was plenty that could have been done to prevent the majority of the damage. However as above, loop carpets suffer considerably more wear and tear by animals simply walking on them over time.

:j

[Deleted User]

I think you will need to find the carpet that was there, get a quote of the cost, then compare that to the cost of the new carpet.

But I am sorry, having cats that do this to carpet in a rental property with loop carpet wasn't the best choice on your part either. Its incidents like this that make LL's view pet owners as an increased risk. I have 2 dogs and have always taken it on myself to repair any damage they do (which fortunately has been minimal, because I do my best to keep them behaving and don't leave them for long periods unsupervised). You could at least have minimised damage by not letting the cats into more than one room or given them scratch posts or even put down old/cheap rugs in favourite scratch areas. Its a pain keeping doors closed, but its the responsible thing to do.

So if you have to pay for the damage, I don't really have too much sympathy. The cost should be fair, of course. Your problem is going to be getting quotes for the cost of the original carpet.

FBaby

And this is exactly why many tenants refuse pets. In real life, you expect a carpet to still look nice after one year and certainly not require replacement. Yet the rules of W&T mean that they might discount 1/5 of the costs and not into account costs of labour. This will leave the LL quite a bit out of pocket having no real choice but to replace.

If I was the LL and the carpet is in such a state that it required replacing, I would make a case that it wasnt a case of W&T but damage. Previous tenants tried to use the W&T argument when they broke the handle of a window. I said that it was damage and the DPS agreed and ruled for the cost of repairment.