Fair wear and tear

Almost every end-of-tenancy dispute eventually lands on a single question: is this fair wear and tear, or is it damage I can be charged for? The answer matters because adjudicators reject deductions for normal wear and routinely reduce charges for items that have already lived past their useful life.

This guide explains the rule, gives concrete examples, and shows how scheme adjudicators actually apply it.

The definition

The phrase comes from a 1928 House of Lords case (Haskell v Marlow) and has been used in housing adjudication ever since:

In plain English, fair wear and tear covers:

• The normal aging of materials (paint fading, carpets thinning, wood scuffing).
• The expected marks of ordinary occupation (light scuffs on walls, slight indentation under furniture, minor marking on heavily-used surfaces).
• Wear from normal weather, light and humidity.

It does not cover:

• Holes, burns, or deep stains that aren't the result of normal use.
• Damage caused by negligence (water damage from a leaking appliance you ignored, mould from never opening windows).
• Pet damage where the agreement didn't allow pets.
• Items broken or missing.

Examples of wear vs damage

The boundary in practice, item by item:

• Walls. Light scuffs from furniture, slight marks around switches, faint fading: wear. Crayon drawings, large holes, deep scratches, smoke staining: damage.
• Carpets. Pile flattening in walkways, slight colour fading in sunlight, minor marks: wear. Burns, large stains, pet damage, tears: damage.
• Kitchen units. Scratches on worktops from ordinary cooking, slight wear on cabinet edges: wear. Cracked tiles, burn marks, broken doors: damage.
• Bathroom. Limescale build-up, mild discolouration: wear (subject to depreciation). Cracked basin, chipped tiles, mould from never ventilating: damage.
• Doors and skirting. Light scuffs at door handles, slight chips at corners: wear. Holes, broken locks, kicked-in panels: damage.
• Appliances. Normal aging, slight rust on exposed metal, ordinary build-up of grease: wear. Items broken through misuse, missing parts: damage.
• Gardens. Slightly long grass, faded planting, minor weeds: wear. Dead plants in a previously stocked garden, large dug holes, refuse left behind: damage.

Lifespan rules adjudicators use

Adjudicators apply rough useful-life assumptions to depreciate items. These aren't fixed in law but they're applied consistently across cases:

• Interior paint: 3-5 years.
• Mid-range carpets: 10 years.
• High-end carpets: 15 years.
• Kitchen worktops: 10-15 years.
• White goods (washing machine, fridge, oven): 7-10 years.
• Curtains and blinds: 7 years.
• Upholstered furniture: 5-7 years.
• Mattresses: 7-10 years.

This matters when a landlord wants to charge full replacement cost. A landlord can't expect you to fund the replacement of a 9-year-old carpet that you caused some additional wear to. Adjudicators apply pro-rata depreciation.

The betterment principle

The landlord cannot end up better off than they started. If you damaged something five years into its 10-year life, the landlord is entitled to recover, at most, the residual value (50%) — not the full cost of a brand-new replacement.

How to evidence it

If a landlord proposes a deduction you think falls within fair wear and tear, the evidence you need to push back is:

• The check-in inventory. If the item was already showing wear at the start, your case is even stronger.
• Dated photos from move-out. Clear, consistent shots of the items the landlord is claiming for.
• Length of tenancy. Adjudicators expect more wear after longer tenancies. A 5-year tenancy with carpets looking lived-in is not the same case as a 6-month tenancy with the same wear.
• Original install date or estimated age of any item being charged for. If the carpet was already 8 years old when you moved in, the case for full replacement falls apart.

Read alongside our practical walkthrough on how to get your deposit back and the ADR process in deposit disputes.

Frequently asked questions