A dispute arose between the landlord and tenants due to the condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claimed a £616 contribution towards redecoration of the property, referring to an issue with mould and stating that poorly painted areas were left by the tenants.

The tenants disputed the claim entirely, arguing that the property had an issue with damp and that they were therefore not liable for redecoration costs.

Check-in and check-out reports were submitted by the landlord.

The check-in report showed that the walls had not been newly decorated at the start of the tenancy with some defects noted at that time.

The check-out report recorded additional marks and painted-over defects.

The parties accepted there was an issue with mould during the tenancy. However, mould was not present at check-out.

The landlord did not provide a specialist damp report to show that the issue with moisture was caused by the tenants’ lifestyle rather than a defect within the property.

While the evidence showed some deterioration to the décor, the adjudicator did not find the claim to be justified.

The décor was not recorded as newly/freshly painted for the start of the tenancy, which had lasted almost five years and recorded that some defects were pre-existing.

The adjudicator concluded that the décor was at the end of its natural lifespan and the landlord would have needed to complete redecoration to the property due to fair wear and tear alone as part of landlord maintenance. No award was made to the landlord.

So, what are the key points here?

A TDS adjudicator must take account of an appropriate amount of fair wear and tear, the length of the tenancy, the original condition of the décor, the residual lifespan, the number of occupants, the location of the room and the extent of the damage identified.

The TDS Guide to Product Lifespans is a useful guide which outlines lifespan in tenanted properties.

Had mould been present at check-out the adjudicator would have expected to have been provided with a specialist damp report to say that the cause of mould present at check-out was a direct result of the tenants’ lifestyle.

In this case the pre-tenancy condition of the décor and the duration of the tenancy was such that the landlord would have been required to complete redecoration due to normal use alone.

There was no evidence to show additional work, beyond that expected of the landlord, was required due to the tenants’ occupancy.

* Sandy Bastin is head of dispute resolution at the Tenancy Deposit Scheme