Landlord claiming £12k though TDS!

Pacerpilot

Can confirm nothing was new moving in. Carpets were past their best upon start of tenancy so a good 10-12 years minimum

RHemmings

bunnygo said:

the words 'it doesn't work like that' come up in big flashing letters. He's trying for betterment, but English law allows for wear and tear. Carpets, decor etc are deemed worthless after about 6 years even if brand new at the start of the tenancy. The deposit scheme will laugh in his face, so just follow the process to dispute it and all will be well..

This is my prediction too. 

coffeeplease

In my experience TDS is very aware of some of the ways that LLs try and pass on costs to vacating tenants. They will recognise that this is what happening and you will not be held liable for outrageous claims. Because these deductions are simply not allowable under deposit legislation. I will look for an update. I hope it is soon that you can start your new life without stress -this is supposed to be a happy time for your family, and you deserve it. 

Murphybear

RHemmings said:

bunnygo said:

the words 'it doesn't work like that' come up in big flashing letters. He's trying for betterment, but English law allows for wear and tear. Carpets, decor etc are deemed worthless after about 6 years even if brand new at the start of the tenancy. The deposit scheme will laugh in his face, so just follow the process to dispute it and all will be well..

This is my prediction too. 

The issue about carpets is not so straightforward.  A really high quality carpet would be expected to last about 10 years.  A very cheap one may only last 2-3 years.  There’s some helpful information on this on the TDS and Propertymark website.  Propertymark is aimed at agents but it is also incredibly useful for tenants and landlords.  

GDB2222

We still have the carpets that were not new when we moved in 25 years ago. They are definitely in need of replacement now, but I have no idea where people get this idea that carpet only lasts a few years. 

Some of the cheaper carpets (eg Gala, beloved of landlords) last for decades. Polyprop is not luxurious, but it is extremely hard wearing.

RHemmings

I agree that carpets can last a long time. But, I think that in terms of taking things out of the deposit because a carpet hasn't lasted - that the measures are (or at least should be) more strict. 

My rental property before this one. It had old carpets and not new decoration in general when we moved in. When we moved out 15 years later, no redecoration had been done. 

GDB2222

"I agree that carpets can last a long time. But, I think that in terms of taking things out of the deposit because a carpet hasn't lasted - that the measures are (or at least should be) more strict. "

That's an interesting point of view.  I absolutely agree that a conservative estimate of the average life expectancy should be used, rather than the best possible case. But, why go below that?

RHemmings

GDB2222 said:

"I agree that carpets can last a long time. But, I think that in terms of taking things out of the deposit because a carpet hasn't lasted - that the measures are (or at least should be) more strict. "

That's an interesting point of view.  I absolutely agree that a conservative estimate of the average life expectancy should be used, rather than the best possible case. But, why go below that?

Because an average lifespan is an average lifespan. But, reasonable wear and tear in my mind shouldn't be limited to average wear and tear. I'm not sure where the limit should be put between reasonable and unreasonable, but I don't think it should be at the average. Someone who is at the 60% level, where 60% of people would have created less wear and tear and 40% of people have created more - I don't think they should be penalised and pay out of the deposit. I might even go to 80%. 

I'm not sure I've made myself clear here, and if anyone queries I will try again.

theartfullodger

Sounds like a greedy landlord who doesn't understand the process and betterment not being permitted.

Dispute through scheme.

Artful, Landlord since 2000

GDB2222

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

"I agree that carpets can last a long time. But, I think that in terms of taking things out of the deposit because a carpet hasn't lasted - that the measures are (or at least should be) more strict. "

That's an interesting point of view.  I absolutely agree that a conservative estimate of the average life expectancy should be used, rather than the best possible case. But, why go below that?

Because an average lifespan is an average lifespan. But, reasonable wear and tear in my mind shouldn't be limited to average wear and tear. I'm not sure where the limit should be put between reasonable and unreasonable, but I don't think it should be at the average. Someone who is at the 60% level, where 60% of people would have created less wear and tear and 40% of people have created more - I don't think they should be penalised and pay out of the deposit. I might even go to 80%. 

I'm not sure I've made myself clear here, and if anyone queries I will try again.

You are perfectly clear.

TDS have an article on fair wear and tear here:
https://www.tenancydepositscheme.com/asktds-what-is-fair-wear-and-tear-in-a-rental-property

"Essentially, any damage that occurs as a result of ordinary use and can’t be attributed to a specific incident or misuse by the tenant can be considered fair wear and tear."

So, a landlord who lets to a family should expect more wear than if he lets to a single person. Fair enough. 

However, TDS don't say anything there about estimating the lifetime of carpet. Maybe they do elsewhere?