Resolution case study - pet damage - carpets

What happened?

The tenant said:

• they accept a dog was there when the agent visited the property
• they were dog sitting for a sick relative who could not look after it an it was only there for about two weeks
• The carpets were not in good condition when they moved in
• the property was properly cleaned before they left and did not smell of a dog
• the landlord is claiming for both cleaning and replacing the carpet because of the damage
• this is unreasonable as they cannot be responsible for both in any circumstances

The agent responded, saying:

• when the mid-term inspection was done, numerous items were seen around the property which suggested a dog was living there, without permission
• the tenant was asked by the agent if they wanted the landlord’s permission to allow an animal to live in the property permanently, however the tenant said they were only looking after a small dog temporarily, for their sick relative
• as discovered shortly afterwards, the block of flats’ head lease did not permit pets and the tenant was told this
• when a contractor visited the property to carry out work about 10 weeks later, they confirmed the work had been completed and happened to mention that the dog had been a real nuisance and the flat was a mess
• another property visit was organised, at which time the dog and all possible connected items had been removed, although the carpet and other areas looked in poor condition
• it was only on check-out that the inventory clerk recorded remnants of dog hair, the dog bowl, pet smells throughout and stains on the carpet
• the landlord is claiming towards replacing the carpet and cleaning to put the property back to the same standard as shown in the check-in report

What evidence was provided?

Independent check-in and check-out inventories, mid-term inspection reports, contractors report, emails and invoices

What was decided and why?

The following points were taken into consideration when making the decision about this case:

Replacement carpet

1. The check-in report records the carpets as being in good clean condition when the tenant moved in, 12 months earlier. The good quality photographs supported this comment showing very few marks and overall good clean condition
2. The mid-term inspection recorded signs of a pet, with the tenant commenting at the time that they were dog sitting for a sick relative
3. The contractor who carried out work during the tenancy emailed the agent with the invoice, including a comment about the dog
4. The check-out report noted stains on all carpets and pet hairs, as well as a smell
5. One of the invoices provided was for carpet cleaning, attempting to get rid of the stains and smell, which was unsuccessful. The invoice included a report from the contractor that the likely cause was dog urine
6. The adjudicator decided that the tenant was responsible for causing the damage and was therefore responsible for costs towards both cleaning and replacement, giving credit to the landlord for initially trying to minimise any cost to the tenant and to the contractor for his expert opinion
7. With a carpet cleaning invoice for £85 and a carpet replacement invoice for £340, the adjudicator found it reasonable to award £290 to the landlord taking into account reasonable wear and tear on a carpet that was not new at the start to avoid putting the landlord in a better position than he would have been had the damage not occurred

Cleaning

1. The check-in report summary said the property was clean to a good domestic standard with no evidence of any smells
2. The check-out report was detailed with supporting photographs showing the cleaning still needed and a note of the smell of a pet in all areas
3. The adjudicator was satisfied that the property required cleaning throughout due to the difference between the start and end, and that the landlord should be able to claim costs to remove the pet smell
4. The £175.00 invoice broke down the cost of cleaning each area and the specialist products used to get rid of the smells
5. However as the property was not cleaned to a professional standard at the start of the tenancy, to award the whole amount would put the landlord in a better position than at the start, so found it reasonable to award £131.25 (75%)

Decision

Tenant:          £78.75

Landlord:        £421.25

How can you avoid this happening in future?

• A tenant should always have written permission to keep a pet in the rental property
• Permission can be given right at the start and added into the tenancy agreement or at any point during the tenancy, either by email agreement or more formally by a deed of variation as an addendum to the original tenancy agreement
• Mid-term inspections are a great way of making sure the property is being looked after and recording anything out of the ordinary which can, if necessary, be followed up
• Ultimately, a tenant will be responsible for any damage caused by a pet during the tenancy. Not returning the property in the same condition and standard of cleanliness it was in when the tenancy started is a standard breach of contract
• A contractor going into a property to carry out work may see things that are not evidenced at mid-term inspections and may be able to confirm any suspicions about what is happening, such as a pet in the property without permission

For more guidance on the importance of check-in and check-out reports, and practical advice on how to provide robust and clear documentation, read mydeposits’ guide, advice for check-in and check-out. Also, for further relevant reading Total Landlord, also powered by Total Property, has written an ultimate guide to inspecting your property.  You may also be interested in our guide ‘Pet rent and pet deposits: A landlord’s guide to lets for pets’.