At the end of a tenancy a landlord can claim against a tenant deposit for damages but not normal wear and tear. Also, a landlord cannot improve their property at the tenant’s expense e.g. replace a basic damaged tap with a designer gold-plated tap!
However, what about the case of deterioration? For example, a wardrobe is fixed to the wall but the tenants remove it and end up breaking a panel at the base. It would be unreasonable to replace the wardrobe with a new wardrobe as it is still useable yet the broken panel is unsightly and out of keeping with the well-maintained property and the wardrobe would have been weakened from being moved. It would also be unpractical to change the panel as it would mean taking apart the wardrobe and making a new made-to-measure panel as spare parts are not available for wardrobes!
Perhaps you can think of some other examples where a property or its fixtures and fitting have deteriorated due to tenant negligence but a straightforward repair or replacement doesn’t seem to be the right course of action.
Since the tenant has caused the issue, if a straightforward repair is not feasible then I would deduct of the cost of new wardrobe. If you can keep any documentation such as quotes for new made to measure panels, etc, you may need to provide these in the event the tenant disputes this.
Tenants stains a fitted carpet (accidents happen!) but does not attempt to clean it (negligence, as all reasonable people know you need to react fast to a stain to at least limit the damage). By the time the landlord/agent sees the stain it cannot be removed with a professional clean. It is not reasonable to remove and change the whole carpet but shouldn’t the tenant face some responsibility for the deterioration of the carpet and the keeping of a well-maintained property?
And another…
Tenants remove some beading from UPVC windows (stranger things have happened!). Replacement beading cannot be found to the same profile. It wouldn’t be reasonable to change the entire glazed unit but on the other hand it is not fair that the tenant should remove the beading. On the one hand a contribution for the deterioration might sound fair for whenever the glazed unit is replaced or toward the bringing down the character of the property but on the other hand it might sound like the landlord is fining the tenant for negligence
I may be wrong (it has happened) but all 3 scenarios you described wardrobe,stain and beading I personally wouldnt class as deterioration I would say they are damage and a deliberate act by the tenant (tenant removed it from the wall , tenant neglected to deal with spill tenant removed the beading from the window) there for deductable from the deposit (obviously subject to TA etc) in the case of the window if same beading cannot be found I would get aquote of how much to re-bead (i don’t know if thats the technical term) and then go from there
Deterioration to me is habing to replace a carpet after x no of years due to it being walked on alot or having to renew or replace something through natural wear and tare associated with constant use not an act deliberately by the tenant
As i always Caveat with I am not and never have been (and possibly never will be) a landlord though so this is only my opion (but dont tell the.mrs I have an.opion)
The deposit schemes have guidelines on the difference between damage and wear & tear. All your examples are damage and the loss in value of the item should be compensated. If they cant be repaired then you replace the minimum amount of the item that you reasonably can. If it has to be the whole window then thats what youd do. With the carpet, it would be only replacing the carpet in that room/area, even if the carpet no longer matched the rest of the property. You can’t usually replace a whole set of something if the items are not sold individually, such as a plate or a chair. You would replace with something similar. The one area of variability Ive found is for cosmetic damage, which is often disregarded if the item is still functioning, but you can make a case for it, particularly if its a high spec property.