Can my LL charge me for repairs when he is definitely not going to carry them out?

[superwoofer]

I'm just wondering really. We are moving out of a rental because it is being sold. They have exchanged and are just waiting for us to move out so they can complete. The new owners are going to do an extensive refurb.

We've been here three years and given it a bit of a beating. In particular, the carpet in one of the rooms is completely ruined. It's a large room so I imagine it would cost quite a lot to replace. There was an inventory when we first signed a contract, although the contract was never formally renewed after the first year, so we're on a statutory AST.

We will pay what we have to pay - but I was wondering, do we have to pay for damage that the LL is not going to repair?

It would be interesting to know. I don't think my LL is going to charge us - but I'd like to know my legal position if he does.

If it on your contract that you pay for repairs, then yes you do have to pay. It is up to the LL if they actually do the repairs. The house is meant to be left as you took it (with reasonable wear and tear).

Thanks choccy, we have a statutory AST (if that's how you describe it, when your signed contract lapses). We have done repairs as necessary and our relationship with our LL is very good.

This is damage rather than repair, and is completely undeniable (DH's desk chair has shredded the hessian). I just wondered if they could claim for a new carpet if they are not buying a new carpet.

I don't know legal details but I think morally the money is due to the LL - if the house had been in better condition he could have sold it for more, possibly could have attracted more interested potential buyers, so if you've caused damage beyond fair wear an tear then you've contributed to a reduction in value that it's morally right that you should pay towards. Similarly if someone was renting a furnished place and they damaged the furniture beyond fair wear and tear then it would be only right for a depreciated value to be deducted from the deposit, even if the LL wasn't planning to replace, because without the damage there would have been resale value. If the damage has been done then it's right to pay.

I have definitely caused more than usual wear and tear. The carpet was not new when we moved in but in reasonable condition. I have no objection to paying for the carpet if that is what is legally our obligation.

Fish It's interesting point that he might have got a higher price - I hadn't considered it from that angle. However, he sold for 1.5 million (and no, we're not in London!) and it is in bad repair (old house, no money spent for years) with extensive damp, so I don't know. I think the sort of buyers he attracted wanted it for what they could do and bought it knowing it needs a lot of money spent on it. However, you do have a point.

I was hoping this might be covered under the deposit scheme regs

I was also going to say that the carpet damage deduction will be pro-rated for the age of the carpet. The area damaged is also taken into account.

unless the carpet was brand new (it wasn't) and it is only a year or so since then (it isn't) your deposit deduction will probably be well under £100.

been there; carpets burnt with irons, pissed on and wrecked by cats...bugger all money back because those are the rules.

whether the landlord actually fixes it is irrelevant. Obviously you don't fix carpets anyway.

Great, thanks so much. I'm not trying to stiff the LL or anything (I am a LL myself so treat as would be treated) - I was just interested to know where I stand if they take the full deposit for a new carpet.