Deductions for removed items

Hi, I have let a property for four years. The tenant has left recently and we are in dispute about the deposit.

It should be noted the property flooded twice (about an inch or so to the ground floor during the tenancy.
We paid for the cost of carpet replacement, cleansing and dehumidying etc. The tenant chose to remain in the porperty during and after this time. We gave notice with the intent of relocating back there.

The tenant had not informed us of any damages etc in the property, however, at the close of the tenancy, we discover the tenant has removed all light shades, curtains, blinds and ward robe curtains. She has stated she put these in plastic bags in the garage, but they were damaged (damp) by the flood and were disposed of. Various items are no longer working (lights, extractor hood, broken key in window lock, others worked so loose they won’t hold locked.
A glass kitchen table and a chair are broken. She claims flood damage though I cannot see how this could be.

In her defence, she has also painted and wall papered various room (though without permission). Upstairs 3 rooms were recarpeted, even though the carpet was only a year old at start of tenancy, however, one room is left with off cuts unlaid…

It is my belief she should pay for the replacement of all items no longer in the property. Once she removed them from their correct places, she assumed responsibility for their safe keeping. Any damage incurred once relocate are her responsibility. Also the carpet to the final bedroom.

Your thoughts would be appreciated


That’s not quite right, but you are due compensation by the sound of it. You take the original price of everything your claiming for that cant be repaired and depreciate it by its age at the start of the tenancy and then subtract any residual value to give the figure you can claim. If you have good evidence of the condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and the end then you can make a claim against her deposit or sue her through MCOL. The only caveat I would add is that if she can show that the damage was due to the floods and the floods were not her fault, then you probably won’t get much, if anything.

Thanks for your help David