|
|
Question Title: Dilapidation Assessment
| Question: 201 |
| I have three tenancies at the moment where the tenants have admitted to causing accidental damage to carpets, coffee stains, iron and cigarette burns. What is the general rule of thumb in such cases when trying to ascertain how much deposit to retain ?
|
| Answer: |
| Unfortunately, there are no strict rules regarding what deductions a landlord may charge for dilapidations generally. Each case will turn on its own facts but it is possible to give some guidelines based on previous court decisions and general professional practice. The tenant will normally be liable for any loss or damage caused to the landlord's property, save for 'fair wear and tear'. What is 'fair wear and tear' depends on the circumstances. Any dilapidation or depreciation brought about by reason of lapse of time, action of weather and normal use, would fall within the meaning. Generally, a landlord will be demanding compensation for one of three remedies; replacement of the damaged article, re-instatement (generally repair or cleaning) or compensation for diminution of value. In each case, it must be reasonable to follow the approach adopted (i.e. a landlord should not make a claim for replacement if it is practical and more economical to repair the article). If the claim is for replacement, then the landlord is obliged to make a deduction equivalent to the depreciated value of the item up the point of replacement in order to cover the useful life already gained from the item. Where re-instatement occurs, similarly, the landlord may only claim for the cost of restoring the item to the condition prior to the damage or loss. Thus, the cost of removing a localised stain from a carpet could be fully charged but a claim for the cost of entirely repainting a scratched door would need to be reduced proportionally in order to reflect previous wear and tear. Some minor damage may not be capable of remedy or be economically repairable without excessive expense (e.g. a stain to a mattress or a burn mark to a worktop). Compensation for such damage is probably the most difficult to assess since the damage might shorten the useful life of the article, or reduce the general quality of the accommodation but will not result in immediate replacement (until perhaps there are several marks or stains in the respective item). An appropriate figure needs to be arrived at which reflects the loss of value of the item but again taking into account previous wear and tear and the reduction of its useful life before replacement. A stain to a mattress would not warrant immediate replacement in most types of letting, yet it might be justifiable to charge £25 for the damage on the basis that a further stain would make the item sufficiently unattractive to warrant early replacement.
|
|
References:
|
Pages:
|
Hyperlinks:
|
|
Letting Update Journal |
April 2002 page 18 |
letting-update-journal.html
|
|
Letting Update Journal |
Jan 2001 page 25 |
letting-update-journal.html
|
|
Letting Handbook |
Chapter 3 |
letting-handbook-and-factsheets.html
|
For more information, discuss on the Forum
|
|
