What approach would be recommended to a chipped wash basin? When our tenants moved in the bathroom had recently been refurbished with a brand new wash basin unit in perfect condition. On a recent visit (while the tenants were away and agreed with them in advance to carry out other work) we noticed the basin rim had been repaired. The repair looked professional but was clearly visible (a different shade of white).
We have a good relationship with our tenants (who in every other respect are looking after the flat well) so we were disappointed that they hadn’t told us about the damage. When it comes to the exit check, should we expect them to pay to have the basin replaced? Or should we regard this as fair wear and tear?
That is a personal choice, and one that you will make taking into consideration the state of the rest of the house, and how long they have lived there etc.
Make sure you have taken photos so you have contemporaneous documentary evidence.
When reporting to tenants on outcome of inspection, let them know you found this. And that whilst you appreciate them being proactive in getting repairs done, in future please can they let you know when items are damaged so that together you can agree how best to deal.
I think it may be a bit harsh at exit to charge for a new whole new basin - but it does depend on the nature of the chip and repair - if small and doesn’t stand out unless looking for it that would be harder to justify a new basin needed.
Thanks for this. Attached is a photo of the repair. I appreciate it is ultimately up to us but the Flat was in excellent condition when let and we will probably need to replace the basin in order to maintain this standard
That doesn’t look.like from wear and tear. It looks like damage from some sort of accident which tenant is responsible for. Ask how the chip happened and get in writing (either if they reply by email or if verbal then send back in writing “you said the chip was caused by…)
If they accept they caused damage then you can claim back cost to reinstate to original condition. You may want to offer replacing basin as an option now rather than at end of tenancy when will cost more
Good luck
ps some advice online about basin chips below
Whether chips in a basin are considered normal wear and tear largely depends on the cause, size, and material of the basin.
Minor cosmetic chips or small scuff marks that accumulate over time from routine, careful daily use might be classified as normal wear and tear, especially in older basins or those made of more fragile materials.
Larger chips typically resulting from a specific, accidental impact (e.g., dropping a heavy object like a glass bottle or pan) are generally considered damage rather than normal wear and tear.
Hairline cracks due to age, house settling, or improper installation (such as an overtightened drain) are often considered the landlord’s responsibility (in a rental context) and not tenant damage.
Key Distinctions (in a rental context)
When determining responsibility (e.g., between a tenant and a landlord), the following distinctions are often made:
Feature
Normal Wear and Tear (Landlord/Owner Responsibility)
Chargeable Damage (User/Tenant Responsibility)
Cause
Gradual deterioration from everyday use, age, or structural issues.
Caused by a specific, identifiable accident, negligence, or misuse.
undefined
----
----
Size/Severity
Minor surface scuffs, light scratches, or very small chips that don’t affect function.
Deep chips, significant cracks, or holes that may compromise the integrity or function of the basin.
undefined
----
----
Material
Worn enamel in old bathtubs/sinks is expected over time.
Damage caused by harsh, incompatible cleaning chemicals is often chargeable.
The deposit schemes don’t give much for cosmetic damage if the item still functions properly. I think you’d be lucky to get anything worth bothering with if you have to claim from the deposit.
Thanked them for getting the repair done so as to not leave a jagged edge exposed which could have caused an injury.
Mentioned that obviously, once they leave, I’ll have to replace the sink to bring the flat back up to the standard they had it when let.
Mentioned that obviously this damage will impact their deposit and judged their response to this.
Depending on their response, I’d either let them know a) the cost of a full replacement, b) a contribution of some amount to the estimated cost of replacement or, if their response was negative, c) I’d simply forget claiming anything and make a mental note that the relationship may prove problematic in the future and move on.
Thanks tatemono and Leslie1. I think that’s a sound approach. They are good tenants so I hope they will stay for some time but I would like any future tenant to be able to move into a flat that is in the same (i.e. excellent) condition they found when they started.
