Fair Wear and Tear: The Line Everyone Argues About

Everything here earned its place by changing an outcome. Nothing about the boundary between ordinary use and damage is included to round the number up.

The concept and why it exists

Property deteriorates through being lived in, and a rule requiring tenants to reverse that deterioration would make renting impossible for anyone. Wear and tear therefore describes the deterioration that ordinary, reasonable occupation produces over the period the tenant was there. The landlord absorbs that cost as part of the economics of letting, which is one of the things rent is understood to cover.

Damage is something else: deterioration caused by an event, by carelessness or by use that goes beyond what the property was intended for. The two categories shade into each other, which is why the line is drawn case by case rather than by any fixed formula.

Time is the first factor

The same scuffed skirting board reads very differently after six months of occupation than it does after six years. Adjudicators routinely ask how long the tenancy ran before deciding whether the condition observed is more than ordinary use would explain. That is why the check-in record ideally notes the apparent age of decoration and flooring rather than simply calling them good.

Read strictly, a property let with decoration that was already several years old cannot fairly be expected back in showroom condition. Landlords who redecorate between every tenancy are making a commercial choice, and the cost of that choice is not generally a tenant's liability.

Occupation and intensity

A family with young children and a single professional occupant will produce visibly different levels of wear in the same period. Where the landlord accepted a tenancy for a family, the wear consistent with a family living there is part of the bargain. The same reasoning applies to pets where they were permitted, though damage clearly attributable to an animal is treated differently.

Read strictly, this is why tenancy agreements are careful about who may occupy and whether animals are allowed, since permission shapes the expectation. Occupation beyond what was agreed changes the analysis and can raise separate issues under the agreement itself.

Cleaning, which is treated separately

Cleanliness is not really a wear and tear question, because dirt is not deterioration and cleaning restores rather than replaces. The usual expectation is that the property is returned at a comparable standard of cleanliness to the one it was let at.

On the face of the agreement, that standard is established by the check-in record, which is another reason for photographing the property when it was clean at the start. Blanket clauses requiring professional cleaning regardless of condition have been restricted in some jurisdictions, and this is a local question. Cleaning is also the deduction most easily avoided, since a tenant who cleans thoroughly removes the entire category of complaint.

Marks that usually count as damage

Burns, tears, deep scratches, holes from fixings and staining that penetrates rather than sits on the surface are typically treated as damage. Mould raises a more complicated question, because it can result from ventilation habits, from building defects or from both together. Where a tenant reported a damp problem during the tenancy and it went unaddressed, that record substantially changes the discussion.

Damage caused by a third party, such as a visitor, is generally still the tenant's responsibility under most tenancy agreements. Reporting damage when it happens, rather than hoping it goes unnoticed, produces better outcomes and often cheaper repairs.

Resolving the argument sensibly

Most wear and tear disputes involve modest sums where the cost of arguing quickly exceeds the amount in question. Setting out each disputed item separately, with the check-in entry, the check-out entry and a proposed figure, narrows the disagreement quickly.

Read strictly, it is common for both sides to concede several items once they are examined individually rather than as a single total. Deposit scheme adjudication, where it exists, is designed for exactly this and is usually free or inexpensive to the parties. Where no such scheme exists, a small claims procedure is the usual route and is designed to be used without a lawyer.

Everything above, in order of what to do first

1. The concept and why it exists. Property deteriorates through being lived in, and a rule requiring tenants to reverse that deterioration would make renting impossible for anyone.
2. Time is the first factor. The same scuffed skirting board reads very differently after six months of occupation than it does after six years.
3. Occupation and intensity. A family with young children and a single professional occupant will produce visibly different levels of wear in the same period.
4. Cleaning, which is treated separately. Cleanliness is not really a wear and tear question, because dirt is not deterioration and cleaning restores rather than replaces.
5. Marks that usually count as damage. Burns, tears, deep scratches, holes from fixings and staining that penetrates rather than sits on the surface are typically treated as damage.
6. Resolving the argument sensibly. Most wear and tear disputes involve modest sums where the cost of arguing quickly exceeds the amount in question.

The takeaway

Argue item by item with dates attached, because that is how the line gets drawn in practice. General explanation only; this is not legal advice.

Most disputes are settled by whoever kept the better record.