Real-life case studies
Case studies: pet damage and deposit disputes
A landlord and tenant disputed £550 of a £985 deposit at the end of a tenancy involving cats. The tenant argued that the landlord was aware of the pets from the start and never raised concerns during visits. They also claimed the curtains were already worn and offered £150 as a fair contribution, considering the home was pet friendly.
The landlord disagreed, stating he had raised concerns during inspections and that the damage worsened after the tenant adopted a third cat. He claimed £360 for replacing curtains and £190 for repairing scratched stair woodwork, emphasising that the costs were reasonable and did not cover full redecoration.
After reviewing the tenancy agreement, check-in and check-out reports, photographs, emails, and repair invoices, the adjudicator found the damage exceeded normal wear and tear. The tenant was held responsible for both claims, but because of the curtains’ original condition and age, only £270 was awarded for their replacement. The full £190 was awarded for the woodwork, totalling £460.
This case highlights the importance of thorough documentation and that pet damage is not considered fair wear and tear.
In another dispute, a tenant moved out of a property where they had kept a cat. The tenant said the landlord visited regularly and never objected to the cat. They insisted the carpets showed only normal wear and tear and that the cat always used a litter tray, never urinating on the floors.
However, the letting agent found a strong smell of cat urine at the end of the tenancy. Despite professional carpet cleaning, the odour persisted.
The check-out report, which compared the property's condition at the start and end of the tenancy, confirmed that the odour had not been present initially but had become evident by the end.
While initial professional cleaning was deemed a reasonable and necessary first step, it ultimately failed to resolve the problem, meaning that the carpets required full replacement to restore the property to a lettable standard.
A contractor’s report, supported by UV photographs, showed that urine had penetrated through the carpet into the floorboards, which also required treatment.
Thanks to clear inventory reports, regular inspections, and professional evidence, the adjudicator awarded £540 of the deposit to the landlord and returned £260 to the tenant.
This case underscores the importance of documentation and inspections to protect landlords from pet-related damage claims, as well as the value of professional evidence in resolving deposit disputes.
