After rent landlord has issue

[Enko]

We have just left a rental. there were 2 main issues 1 was a cistern lid had been broken (accident) In the downstairs toilet. we have searched high and low for somewhere to replace it but have not found an exact match.

another issue is a broken piece of carpet.

We have offered £500 to pay for the cistern lid and the carpet plus the few cosmetic paint pieces. there was.

The landlord has come back they claim the toilet (and sink - nothing wrong with sink) is a designer range and they want £4000 to replace it. She doesn't want to give back any of the deposit and wants to keep the 11 days worth of additional rent we have paid. (was paid monthly we overpaid the last month)

Now we are disputing. (deposit is in rent scheme) however, my husband is worried if the despute is settled can they then sue us? He feels they have taken legal advice.

Can they go to the small claim court? Yes, they certainly can. However, it would be seen as wasting the courts if they refuse to go through the deposit scheme and therefore likely to go very much against them.

They can go after going through the deposit scheme, and their case will be considered, but they would have a very strong case as to why the deposit scheme got it wrong. Again, unlikely to go in their favour.

There is a misconception that everything issue is counted as wear and tear. It doesn't. Damage can very much be counted at the cost of replacing. This was the case when my tenants broke a window handle. The windows were a few years old but I got the whole cost of replacement because it was damage through neglect, not W&T.

So they might have a case with the cistern for a replacement, but £4K???? Highly unlikely because who is stupid enough to buy such an expensive toilet for the purpose of renting a standard house, not high market. I would be very surprise if they got more than £500.

The carpet will depend on how old it is and how long you've been there, whether only a step can be replaced, which it might very well be.

Remember that it's up to the landlord to make their case of loss, not you to evidence that your case, only to defend your position against what the landlord claims.

I have had contact with a guy who specialises in replacement old toilet parts. (never knew someone could know that much about toilets) I asked him what he would estimate the cost of the toilet would have been new.

he replied it was hard to say but at a guess in the late 80s when this toilet was out it was a cheap import to compete with the luxury version of another (better) brand
Made me smile.

we will wait and see what happens. For now, we have requested our outstanding rent back.

A landlord can't charge a tenant to replace an old carpet with a brand new one. It's not the tenant's responsibility.

yes of course they can if the tenant has damaged the carpet.

If the carpet is a few years old then the landlord probably needs to replace it anyway. Carpet should last more than a few years! And in any case, it is irrelevant how old the carpet is.

You might find this useful:-

www.propertymark.co.uk/professional-standards/consumer-guides/landlords/fair-wear-and-tear.html

Fittings such as carpets, bathroom suites etc are deemed to have a finite life.

Fittings such as carpets, bathroom suites etc are deemed to have a finite life.
Of course they do, but not damage. If you have a 5 year old carpet in perfect order and spill paint all over it, the arbitration team will consider its age, but also the damage cause so the landlord would likely get more of the tenant than if their were just claiming that has been overused.

Sit tight OP and hold to that info if indeed, they dare to claim that the toilet is a luxury items!