Tenant Damage Versus Fair Wear And Tear

The question at the end of every tenancy is the same. Is this damage, or is this what four years of normal living does to a property.

Getting it right is mostly evidence and partly knowing what each item is actually supposed to last.

The distinction in practice

Fair wear and tear is deterioration from ordinary use over time, with no carelessness involved. Carpet flattened in the traffic path. Paint scuffed along a hallway at hand height. A tap washer worn out. Silicone discoloured in a shower. A door seal gone hard.

Damage is the result of an act, a neglect or a use the item was not meant for. A hole in a wall. A cracked basin. A burn on a benchtop. A door off its hinges. Grout gone black because nobody ever cleaned or ventilated the bathroom.

The practical test is whether the item would be in that condition if an ordinary careful person had lived there for the same period. Which puts the age of the item at the centre of the answer.

Age changes the answer entirely

A six month old carpet with a traffic path worn through it is damage. A twelve year old carpet in the same condition is finished regardless of who lived there.

Which is why the useful first question on any disputed item is how old it was at the start of the tenancy, and the second is what its normal life is. Paint on a rental interior has a life. Carpet has a life. A hot water unit has a life, and the question of replacing one rather than repairing it is the arithmetic in [hot water, when to repair and when to replace](/blog/hot-water-when-to-repair-and-when-to-replace).

An item already at the end of its life when the tenant moved in cannot be charged to them, whatever state it is in now.

The condition report decides it

Almost every dispute we see is lost on evidence rather than on principle.

Which means the entry condition report is the document that matters: dated, detailed, photographed room by room, with the existing marks recorded rather than described as good. A report that says "walls: good" is worth very little when there is an argument about a mark.

The exit inspection then compares against it, item by item, with photographs from the same positions. Two photographs of the same wall, dated, settle in seconds what a paragraph argues about for weeks. That is the whole of [the photo report and why it settles arguments](/blog/the-photo-report-and-why-it-settles-arguments).

And anything repaired during the tenancy gets its own record, because a repaired item is a new baseline for the exit comparison.

The items that cause most of the arguments

Walls and paint. Scuffs and small marks along traffic routes are wear. Holes, large gouges, crayon, and unapproved colours are damage. Picture hooks sit in between and usually come down to what the lease permitted. The repair itself is rarely a touch up, which is the point of [painting over a failed surface](/blog/painting-over-a-failed-surface).

Carpet. Traffic wear and flattening are wear. Stains, burns, pet damage and tears are damage.

Bathroom grout and silicone. Discolouration over years is wear. Black mould through the whole bathroom with a working exhaust fan that was never used is closer to neglect, which is the mechanism in [bathroom condensation, mould and the exhaust fan](/blog/bathroom-condensation-mould-and-the-exhaust-fan).

Benchtops. Light scratching is wear. Burns, chips and water swelling at a joint are damage, and the repair is covered in [kitchen benchtop and splashback replacement](/blog/kitchen-benchtop-and-splashback-replacement).

Doors and hardware. A latch worn out is wear. A door dropped off its hinges or kicked is damage, and the diagnosis between the two is in [doors that drop and hinges that fail](/blog/doors-that-drop-and-hinges-that-fail).

Blocked drains, which is the most common disputed item of all. A drain blocked by tree roots or a collapsed pipe is the owner's. A drain blocked by what was put down it is the tenant's, and what the blockage is made of answers the question, as in [blocked drains and what the blockage tells you](/blog/blocked-drains-and-what-the-blockage-tells-you).

Water damage from a reported leak is the owner's. The same leak unreported for four months is a different conversation.

What makes the claim stand up

A dated entry report with photographs, item by item.

An invoice for the repair, showing the actual work and the actual cost rather than an estimate.

Evidence of the item's age, from the previous invoice or the records, so the apportionment is defensible.

An apportioned amount rather than a full replacement, where the item was part way through its life. Charging a full carpet replacement on a seven year old carpet does not survive scrutiny; charging the remaining life does.

A photograph of the repaired condition, so the file is closed.

Where it gets easier

The reason this is painful for most managers is that the repair, the quote, the invoice and the photographs come from four different places at four different times.

One team scoping the exit list means the whole thing arrives as one document: what is wear, what is damage, what each repair costs, and what it looks like when it is done. Which is a claim that can be lodged rather than assembled.

And the same list becomes the relet scope, done in one pass before the property goes back to market, which is the approach in [end of lease, made re-let ready, fast](/blog/end-of-lease-made-re-let-ready-fast).

Our maintenance work. Talk to us about a property.