I’m surprised OP that you are just letting this go.
Your tenant has removed and disposed of carpet which given he was only there a year, should have been usable by the next tenant/ your DD. Repairing damage done by installing doors and replacing curtains etc will all close money.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread. Yes, when a tenant is renting a property it does become their home and they are entitled to quiet enjoyment of it and for the LL to maintain it. They are not entitled to make changes to the property without permission. They are entitled to their contractual terms and to be given legal notice.
When tenants move out, LLs or their agents look at the property and assess it. Normal wear and tear is expected and many LLs won’t look to withhold any of the deposit for minor things beyond normal wear and tear. If there is damage beyind normal wear and tear, evidencing it and supplying it to the deposit holding organisation, along with the original inventory for comparison is perfectly normal and expected.
To be honest, this tenant has been trying it on. Saying he was ‘improving the property’ are excuses for what he has done. It is simply not allowed and ‘improving’ is such an arbitrary idea that tenants are not allowed to make that decision. The property is as the LL supplied it and expects it back…not in a different state of layout/flooring/decoration, regardless of the quality. Theoretically a tenant could replace everything in a property with newer and more expensive things and deposit withheld in order to return the property to how it was before. Quite simply the decoration, layout, curtains etc belonged to the LL and whilst the tenant might choose to take down something like curtains and use their own whilst renting, they must be in place by the return.
Making a claim to the deposit holding scheme should be pretty straightforward. They are neutral and will look at the facts. Often LLs are still left with costs after the scheme approves the withholding of some element if the deposit, so often a tenant doesn’t pay the full cost of damages they have done. But getting something g back is usually straightforward when there is a genuine case. And in OP’s scenario it seems really straightforward and clear.
Yes, the tenant is vulnerable and the LA is now involved. It is something for LLs to consider and if he was only there a year, presumably OP knew the kind of tenant she was taking on. Vulnerability however doesn’t mean the LL needs to expect to accept any limitless level of damage or breaking of tenancy terms that occur, without seeking redress. In this case, I’d imagine most LLs woukd seek some form of limited redress. The cost of replacing carpets and making good damage to walls and replacing curtains is likely to be well over £1k of costs and seeking several hundred from the deposit or a proportion of the costs isn’t unreasonable. I would also say it’s actually important that tenants like the one OP has had, understand there are terms in tenancies that need sticking to and there are financial consequences of not doing so. Otherwise, people continue to think they can do whatever they want with no consequence.
When you’re a LL, you certainly need to let some things go sometimes and pick your battles. Tenants moving out smoothly on the date expected counts for a lot, plus of course someone who has paid their rent on time is to be valued. These things are of course contractual agreements but in reality cannot always be relied upon. If I had a tenant who had paid their rent and moved out smoothly, I’d certainly cut them some slack on minor damages and be happy to provide good references. But I wouldn’t be sucking up multiple hundreds of pounds of cost to replace carpets if just installed the year before and which had been removed without my permission. And to be honest, a LL who doesn’t feel able to communicate with the tenant about something like this or to go to the deposit scheme to request holding onto some of the deposit, probably doesn’t have the skills to be a successful LL. Sometimes there are tricky conversations to be had and actions to be taken. It’s all part of it. So maybe it’s better that OP is no longer a LL and instead has her DD living in the property. Even when you have an agent, you have to make some decisions when the agent comes to you and ask you what to do. having an agent can mean you do t have to speak with the tenant yourself, but someone else will have the conversations that some LLs don’t want to have. If however, you don’t have an agent and you’re a LL. you really need to understand when you start up as a LL that you are likely to need to pursue late rent or damage at some point and be prepared to.
To those who are tenants, LLs absolutely should respect the fact that during the tenancy, the property is the tenants’ home. Yes, they need to recognise that the tenant pays a lot of money to live there and consequently is entitled to speedy repairs and quiet enjoyment. But no, the fact they pay rent does not entitle them to make significant changes to the property or to not be held to account via the deposit scheme if they do. Some people seem to think that because tenants pay large rents (and they do) they can then do as they wish and that because a LL has received rent, they have to accept whatever a tenant throws at them in terms of writing off rent arrears, damage, failure to vacate according to legal notices etc. No, tenants are not entitled to these things and just because a LL owns a rented property and the tenants don’t own a property, does not give them a right or excuse to break these terms or think they will get away with it, or elicit sympathy for their actions. OP was sympathetic to the tenant being vulnerable. She was happy to wait for the LA to get invovled in future hosing and to cut him some slack…that’s being human and is always required. Being taken for a total ride isn’t required.