This month’s dispute relates to a landlord’s claim to repair several deep scratches to the wooden flooring in the living room and hallway after a five-year tenancy. The invoice provided by the landlord was for more than the amount claimed, but the landlord was claiming for a contribution only.

Claims related to wear and tear in flooring are common, especially when a tenancy runs for several years. Tenants often consider that scratches or marks result from normal everyday use.

The evidence

In this case, the tenant while accepting there were scratches that occurred during the tenancy, insisted this was to be expected, that the age of the property suggested the flooring was older than advised, that it was scratched at the start of their tenancy and in any event, it was their view that the flooring had reached the end of its natural lifespan.

The landlord, however, contested this view and provided evidence of the age and cost of the floor and that the flooring was top of the range engineered oak. The check-in report and accompanying photographs supported the landlord’s position, showing the floor was in an excellent condition at the start of the tenancy. In addition, the landlord supplied invoices for professional sanding and refinishing of the floors after the tenancy ended, outlining the cost and extent of the repairs.  

The outcome

The adjudicator had to decide whether the scratches went beyond what would be considered fair wear and tear over five years. The check-in report did not support the tenant’s argument that the flooring was scratched when they moved in, nor was there any evidence provided to show that the tenant made any amendments to the check-in report.  Whilst it is expected that some deterioration is to occur, the adjudicator concluded that the premium quality and relatively recent installation of the flooring meant it should have lasted longer without needing refurbishment. The professional invoices further supported the landlord’s claim that the damage exceeded normal use.

The adjudicator was satisfied that the landlord’s claim was fair and reasonable as it was for a contribution only, allowing for the principle of betterment and awarded the amount claimed to the landlord.

So, what are the key points here? 

+ Evidence of the quality and the expected lifespan of the flooring was key when assessing claims related to wear and tear.

If you are interested in further guidance relating to deposit disputes, visit the Help Centre at TDS to browse further. 

Sandy Bastin is director of resolution at TDS Adjudication Services – the only not-for-profit tenancy deposit protection scheme.