This month’s dispute relates to a landlord’s claim for £95.00 to replace a heavily stained section of carpet in a bedroom at the end of a three-year tenancy. The contractor’s invoice exceeded the amount claimed, but the landlord sought only a contribution towards the overall cost of the replacement.

Claims about carpet damage are frequent, particularly where stains cannot be removed by routine cleaning. Tenants often argue that discolouration results from ordinary use, or that carpets naturally deteriorate over time. In this case, the tenant accepted that a stain was present but maintained it was minor and should have been treatable with a standard professional clean.

The evidence

The landlord, however, presented a different account. The check-in inventory described the carpet as “newly fitted” and “spotless,” and the accompanying photographs supported this. The landlord also provided an invoice for a professional cleaning attempt carried out after the tenancy ended. The cleaner’s report noted that the stain was caused by a spilled cosmetic product and could not be removed, recommending replacement of the affected section.

The tenant contended that the carpet’s light colour made it more susceptible to visible marks and that some dulling should be expected after three years of use. They argued that the landlord’s decision to use a very pale carpet increased the likelihood that a replacement would be needed irrespective of any accidental spill.

The outcome

The adjudicator had to determine whether the stain fell outside normal wear and tear. While some fading and light soiling are expected over a three-year period, the adjudicator concluded that a permanent cosmetic stain – especially one confirmed by a professional cleaner as non-removable –exceeded what would be considered ordinary use. The evidence showing the carpet was newly installed at the start of the tenancy further strengthened the landlord’s position.

On this basis, the adjudicator awarded the claimed amount to the landlord.

So, what are the key points here? 

+ The initial condition of items, particularly where they are newly installed, is significant when assessing whether damage exceeds fair wear and tear.

+ High-quality check-in reports and dated photographs are vital when establishing the original state of fixtures and fittings.

+ Independent professional assessments, such as cleaning reports or contractor invoices, can strongly support the reasonableness of a claim.

+ Some deterioration is inevitable, but permanent stains or damage that cannot be remedied through normal –SYcleaning routinely fall outside wear and tear.

By following these tips and using a trusted deposit protection scheme like the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, landlords and letting agents can ensure disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly.

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

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