<p>I manage a rental in California, the tenants severely damaged the carpet in one area, due to the age & wear pattern, it cannot be patched in any way that will look good. There is no way to put in a new carpet just in that area due to the open floor plan.</p>
<p>The options are to replace all the carpet in the house or to replace the flooring in that one area with a hard surface. I am awaiting bids.</p>
<p>How does one determine how much to charge the departed tenants? The rest of the carpet is fine, so does that mean I don’t have to absorb the wear & tear component? This carpet was brand new when the prior tenants moved in for a multi-year lease.</p>
<p>If the floor repair costs more than their deposit, I suppose I can ask for the extra ;)</p>
<p>What was the manufacturer’s advertised life of the carpet? 10 years? 7 years? A friend tried to go after a tenant who completely ruined an otherwise good looking carpet in their apartment. The small claims court decided that since the carpet was rated for 7 years, and the apartment complex was built 8 years ago, the carpet was due for a replacement anyway. The tenant was off the hook.</p>
<p>If the carpet was damaged “due to age & wear pattern”, you’re out of luck. Wear & tear is considered a cost of doing business and is not the renters’ fault in most jurisdictions. (I’m not familiar with CA law specifically.) You can only charge the tenants for damaging property due to negligence.</p>
<p>Also, in TX tenants could argue that you only needed to replace the carpet of the one room and they should not be held responsible for recarpeting the entire house. I’m not sure about the law in CA, though.</p>
<p>It is not ruined due to wear and tear, but a patch cannot work due to wear, it is Berber and the flat vs not flat new section would never look right.</p>
<p>Does that count as wear and tear? I want to be fair to them and to the owner.</p>
<p>Somemom, you have to depreciate the carpet. You can’t just charge them the full cost of new carpet, unless the carpet was new when they moved in.</p>
<p>I’d replace with a hard surface product if you can. Tenants are much harder on things in general than homeowners.</p>
<p>I would think you charge them for what that spot costs to replace. So if the entire carpet costs $1000 and the spot that they damaged is 10%, then you charge them $100 and the landowner pays the rest. Afterall, the owner is the one who will benefit from the entire carpet being replaced…</p>
<p>Obviously I’m sure my numbers are very small, but I’m just throwing out an example…</p>
<p>Put a semicolon after “area” to see what the OP intended: “The tenants severely damaged the carpet in one area; due to the age & wear pattern, it cannot be patched in any way that will look good.” So according to the OP, the tenants DID damage the carpet, if I understand correctly.</p>
<p>If your car had four old but functional tires on it, and you lent that car to someone who destroyed one of the tires, you shouldn’t charge her the full cost of four new tires (assuming that all four had to be replaced because of balance issues): you would charge her for the depreciated amount of the tires that need replacing.</p>
<p>So you can replace the whole thing, but you cannot charge them for new carpet (otherwise, you get a free upgrade from ‘old carpet’ to 'new carpet"). As one poster above said, you can find out how long the manufacturer thinks that the carpet should last. </p>
<p>Your other alternative is to use the entire damage deposit for this (assuming that it is in the range of the depreciated value of the carpet), attach them the bill for the brand-new carpet (which is much higher than the value of the damage deposit), and tell them that you are willing to call it even.</p>
<p>Here’s something from the CA Dept of Consumer Affairs regarding what you are allowed to deduct from the deposit:</p>
<ol>
<li>Carpets and drapes - “useful life” rule</li>
</ol>
<p>Normal wear and tear to carpets, drapes and other furnishings cannot be charged against a tenant’s security deposit.243 Normal wear and tear includes simple wearing down of carpet and drapes because of normal use or aging, and includes moderate dirt or spotting. In contrast, large rips or indelible stains justify a deduction from the tenant’s security deposit for repairing the carpet or drapes, or replacing them if that is reasonably necessary.</p>
<p>One common method of calculating the deduction for replacement prorates the total cost of replacement so that the tenant pays only for the remaining useful life of the item that the tenant has damaged or destroyed. For example, suppose a tenant has damaged beyond repair an eight-year-old carpet that had a life expectancy of ten years, and that a replacement carpet of similar quality would cost $1,000. The landlord could properly charge only $200 for the two years’ worth of life (use) that would have remained if the tenant had not damaged the carpet.</p>
<p>I get what people are saying but am not sure I agree with the depreciation statements. If the carpet is still good and is 10 years old, it may be fully depreciated, but it still does have remaining useful life. Why should I be out to replace it when a tenant ruined a perfectly serviceable carpet?</p>
<p>In my state, farmers and business people pay tax on machinery and equipment, even if it is fully depreciated. The state’s take is the equipment is still in use and working. The lowest value on the tax return is 30% of cost. I see an analogy between this and carpet which would still be used had it not been damaged.</p>
<p>I suppose how much to keep plays out differently in higher rent states. Rent here is $500-650 and so is deposit, so one room of carpet is going to be more than the deposit. After 15 years as a landlord, it’s still incomprehensible to me how very hard renters are on floors and walls.</p>
<p>Thank you for all the thoughts and thank you MaineLonghorn for punctuating my statement properly.</p>
<p>Yes, the ruined a large section of carpet, about 20 sq ft, it does appear I must only charge them the prorated portion of the repair bill. I am endeavoring to figure out the useful life of the carpet now, it was brand new when the tenants moved in, but I was not the one who put that carpet in so don’t have records.</p>
<p>The issue is that the 20 sq ft is in a place which means a pretty big chunk of carpet will have to be replaced. I am getting bids on doing the smaller area with a hard floor option which could be cheaper than getting the larger area of new carpet.</p>
<p>The tenants realtor says to just cover the damage with a runner and leave it!</p>
<p>How long did tenants live in house?
Perhaps while new when they moved in, it just wasn’t very good quality.Is it wool?
Can it be restretched?
Professional installers should be able to take it up and restretch it so wear isn’t as noticeable if the rest of carpet is good.</p>
<p>He would not be doing his job if he did not say it! :)</p>
<p>However, you are entitled to prorated (according to the life of the carpet) costs of replacing whatever area needs to be replaced. Look at it this way: If the tenants put one visible stain in the middle of the room: would you replace just the spot or the entire room. </p>
<p>The 4 tire analogy does not work in your situation. You don’t have 4 rooms, you have large area portion of which is ruined.</p>
<p>The ruined section is in a sort of transitional area, there are several adjoining areas. All the adjoining carpeted spaces have doors EXCEPT one. If I replace the ruined carpet I would need to replace this adjoining room. Multiple professionals have told me that there is no way to patch or match.</p>
<p>I would not be asking them to recarpet the entire house, just the continuously carpeted areas. The repair people are suggesting a cheaper option would be to put a hard floor into the transitional area and leave the adjoining room as is. </p>
<p>I figure the tenant would be liable for 40-50% of the repair</p>
<p>My D’s roommate damaged an area of their carpet. It ruined a large area of the carpet, and the kitchen floor it was a stupid error and was a big burn mark. I think that they were assessed $400 above the deposit. So they lost the deposit and also paid $400. I thought it was fair as it was unsightly and they knew it. </p>
<p>This was a college rental and it was written in the lease that they would be assessed damages.</p>
<p>" If the tenants put one visible stain in the middle of the room: would you replace just the spot or the entire room."</p>
<p>Oh, my ex and I left a small stain-permanent, but small-in our newborn son’s room. I didn’t catch a spill in time and it stained maybe a 6-inch circle of carpet. They replaced the ENTIRE carpet in the room even though it was brand-new. And of course kept our entire deposit. For a 6-inch spot.</p>
<p>I want to know how old this carpet is and what the “life expectancy” is of this kind of carpet is. I can’t see it being in anyway fair to charge the renters to replace entire rooms of carpet for even a large damaged area. It was poor planning on the part of the owner to put in carpet that could not be repaired without redoing entire rooms at a time.</p>
<p>* It was poor planning on the part of the owner to put in carpet that could not be repaired without redoing entire rooms at a time.*</p>
<p>I have to say I agree. You are expecting the renter to recompense for possible inadequate planning on behalf of owner.
How long did they live there?
I dont know anyone who owns a rental ( rather than blocks of them) that has wall to wall.
Not only does it wear more than other surface treatments, its not very hygenic.</p>