Deposits
Fair wear and tear vs damage: where the line actually sits
3 min read
Almost every deposit dispute comes down to one line: is this fair wear and tear, or is it damage? Wear and tear the landlord absorbs; damage the tenant can be charged for. The trouble is the line is not obvious, and both sides tend to place it wherever suits them. Adjudicators, though, apply it fairly consistently — and once you know how, most arguments answer themselves.
What fair wear and tear actually means
Fair wear and tear is the deterioration you would expect from normal, reasonable use of the property over the length of the tenancy, by the number of people living there. A carpet thins along the route from door to sofa. Paint dulls and picks up light scuffs. A hinge loosens; a worktop shows fine surface marks. None of this is the tenant's fault — it is the cost of a property being lived in, and it cannot be charged to the deposit.
What counts as damage
Damage is deterioration beyond that reasonable baseline — usually because something was done to the property that ordinary use would not cause:
- A large red wine stain ground into a carpet, versus general flattening of the pile.
- A cigarette burn or a tear, versus a threadbare patch.
- A hole in a wall or a shelf ripped out, versus a light scuff behind a sofa.
- A cracked hob or a mould bloom from never opening a window, versus limescale on a tap.
The two questions an adjudicator asks are simple: is this worse than you would expect from normal use over this period, and is there evidence it was caused during the tenancy rather than already there? That second question is why the check-in inventory matters so much — it fixes the starting point the damage is measured from.
Betterment: why you can't bill for a new one
Even where damage is clear, the landlord is not automatically owed a brand-new replacement. This is the principle of betterment: a deposit compensates for the loss, it does not fund an upgrade. If a tenant ruins a carpet that was already five years into a ten-year life, the landlord is owed the remaining value — roughly half — not the full price of a new carpet. You cannot end the tenancy with better fittings than you started with and send the tenant the bill for the difference.
The tenant pays for the damage they caused, apportioned for the age and condition of what was damaged — never for a like-new replacement.
How to keep it out of dispute
The line between wear and damage is only arguable when the starting condition is unclear. A dated, specific check-in record and a like-for-like check-out remove most of the ambiguity: the adjudicator can see exactly what changed, and how old the item was when it did. Get that right and "wear or damage?" stops being a fight and becomes a calculation — which is precisely what an evidence-led report from InventorySafe is built to make possible.
Common questions
- Can a landlord charge a tenant for worn carpet?
- Not for normal wear — a flattened traffic path or general thinning over a tenancy is fair wear and tear and cannot be deducted. A landlord can charge for actual damage such as a burn, a large stain or a tear, but only for the remaining value of the carpet given its age, not the cost of a brand-new one.
- Is scuffed paint fair wear and tear?
- Light scuffing and a few marks from normal living are generally treated as fair wear and tear, especially over a longer tenancy. Repainting to cover ordinary wear is not usually a valid deposit deduction; deliberate marks, holes or unapproved colours can be.
- How does an item's age affect what I can be charged for damage?
- The older an item, the less you can be charged to replace it. Compensation is apportioned to the item's age and expected lifespan, so a tenant pays the remaining value of what was damaged rather than the price of a brand-new replacement. A worn, near-end-of-life carpet has little value left to charge for at all.
- Who decides whether something is wear and tear or damage?
- If the parties cannot agree, the tenancy deposit scheme's adjudicator decides, comparing the check-out report against the dated check-in inventory. Without that evidence the deduction usually fails, because the landlord cannot prove the condition changed during the tenancy.