Unlike most commercial leases which can require tenants to leave the property as they found it, residential landlords are expected to inherit fair wear and tear by the tenants at our own costs. It goes without saying that there is a very fine line between fair wear and tear and what constitutes damages.
Understandably both parties to a residential tenancy have good reasons to take a diagrammatically opposing view on the what is fair wear and tear, especially when it boils down to bond refunds. Take carpets for example, while cigarette burn holes and rips are obviously damages, the thinning of fibres are usually fair wear and tear. But that said, how thin does the carpet have to get for it to be deemed a damage?
Fair-wear-and-tear vs damages
Current statutory ambiguity and a lack of industry standard have proven unhelpful. In this state of flux therefore, what are your guiding principles to determine fair wear and tear?
The overarching rule is that of betterment. In terms of property condition, a landlord should not be in a better position materially than you were at the start of the tenancy. Unlike commercial tenancies, the bond is not to be used as an insurance policy where you might get full replacement value with no due consideration for fair wear and tear. From there, a few factors can come into play:
