For UK landlords, letting agents & inventory clerks
Most deposit deductions are reduced at adjudication for the same reason: the landlord asked for the price of a new item to replace one that was already part-worn. The deposit schemes call that betterment, and they do not allow it.
What they do allow is apportionment — a share of the replacement cost that reflects how much useful life the item had left when it was damaged. This page sets out the formula adjudicators apply, the lifespans normally assumed for common items, and three worked examples including one where the fair deduction is nothing at all.
This is general information, not legal advice. Every adjudication turns on the specific evidence put in front of it.
Free, no sign-up required · Last reviewed 30 August 2026
A deposit is security against loss, not a fund for upgrading the property. If a tenant leaves a five-year-old carpet damaged and the landlord recovers the full price of a brand-new carpet, the landlord ends the tenancy with an asset worth more than the one they started with. That is the definition of betterment, and all three schemes — TDS, DPS and MyDeposits — will reduce or refuse a claim on that basis.
The principle is not a technicality. It is the single most common reason a deduction is cut at adjudication, and it applies whether or not the tenant accepts responsibility for the damage. Agreeing that the damage happened does not oblige a tenant to fund a replacement beyond the value of what was lost.
The practical consequence is that the age and condition of an item at the start of the tenancy is as important as its condition at the end. Without a dated record of the former, the claim tends to fail on evidence before the arithmetic is even reached.
Apportionment reduces to two steps. First, work out what the item was worth per year of its life. Then multiply by the years it had left.
Annual value = replacement cost ÷ expected lifespan
Remaining useful life = expected lifespan − age at start of tenancy − length of tenancy
Fair deduction = annual value × remaining useful life
Two things follow that surprise people. Where remaining useful life comes out at zero or below, there is no fair replacement claim at all, however real the damage. And the longer a tenancy runs, the smaller any replacement claim becomes, because the tenancy itself consumes part of the item's life legitimately.
Replacement claims are not the only route. Where an item can be cleaned or repaired rather than replaced, the reasonable cost of that work is claimable in full and is not apportioned, because it restores the item rather than renewing it.
Lifespans are not fixed in law. Adjudicators work from ranges that reflect ordinary domestic use, and quality at the top or bottom of the market shifts them. These are the ranges most commonly applied:
Where an item's quality is documented at check-in — a receipt, a brand, a grade of carpet — the range can be argued up. Where nothing is recorded, the midpoint tends to be assumed, and that assumption usually favours the tenant.
A damaged carpet with life left. Replacement cost £800, expected lifespan 8 years, 3 years old at check-in, 2-year tenancy. Remaining useful life is 8 − 3 − 2 = 3 years. Annual value is £800 ÷ 8 = £100. The fair deduction is £300, not £800.
An old washing machine. Replacement cost £450, expected lifespan 10 years, 7 years old at check-in, 2-year tenancy. Remaining useful life is 10 − 7 − 2 = 1 year. Annual value is £45. The fair deduction is £45 — about a tenth of the replacement price.
Redecoration with nothing left to claim. Cost of repainting £600, expected lifespan 4 years, last decorated immediately before a tenancy that then ran 5 years. Remaining useful life is 4 − 0 − 5 = −1. The paintwork had already exhausted its life through ordinary occupation, so the fair replacement claim is nil. Deliberate damage such as a hole in the plaster would still be chargeable as a repair.
Fair wear and tear cannot be charged for at all. It is the deterioration that follows from ordinary use over time: traffic marks along a hallway, light scuffing on paintwork, carpet flattening where furniture stood. No apportionment applies because no claim applies.
Damage is deterioration beyond ordinary use — a burn, a tear, a pet scratch, a stain that will not lift. That is where the formula above operates.
The line between the two is drawn by reference to how many people lived there, how long the tenancy ran, and what condition the item was in to begin with. Four adults over three years will legitimately produce far more wear than one person over six months, and an adjudicator will expect a landlord to have allowed for that.
Cleaning sits apart from both. Since the Tenant Fees Act 2019 a landlord in England cannot require professional cleaning as a blanket condition of the tenancy. A cleaning charge is only recoverable where the property is returned in a worse state of cleanliness than it was let in — which, again, is a comparison that needs a check-in record to make.
Adjudication is decided on documents. Neither party attends, nobody inspects the property, and the adjudicator sees only what is submitted. In practice a claim needs four things:
The most frequent failure is not a weak argument but a missing baseline. A landlord who can prove the end condition but not the start condition has not proved a loss, and the deduction falls away regardless of how obvious the damage looks in the photographs.
The Renters' Rights Act 2025 commenced on 1 May 2026. It did not change apportionment, betterment, or the fair wear and tear principle — those are unchanged.
What it changed is the shape of the tenancy. Assured shorthold tenancies converted to assured periodic tenancies, fixed terms were abolished, and section 21 no-fault possession was replaced by stated grounds. Because there is no longer a fixed end date, there is no longer a natural calendar trigger for booking a check-out.
That makes the documentation problem harder, not easier. A tenancy that can end on notice at any point needs a check-in record that was done properly at the outset and interim inspections that keep the picture current, because there may be very little warning before a check-out is needed.
Can a landlord charge the full replacement cost for a damaged carpet?
Not where the carpet already had age and wear behind it. Deposit adjudicators apply apportionment, so a claim is limited to the value the item still had left. A carpet with a typical five to eight year life that was already four years old at check-in and then saw a two-year tenancy has almost no remaining life, and a new-for-old claim on it would be betterment.
What does betterment mean in a deposit dispute?
Betterment is any deduction that would leave the landlord in a better position at the end of the tenancy than at the start. The deposit schemes do not allow it. Charging a tenant the full price of a brand-new item to replace a part-worn one is the textbook example, and it is the single most common reason a deduction is reduced or refused at adjudication.
How is a fair deduction actually calculated?
Divide the replacement cost by the item's expected lifespan to get an annual value, then multiply by the remaining useful life at the point of damage. Remaining useful life is the expected lifespan minus the item's age at the start of the tenancy, minus the length of the tenancy. Where the result is zero or negative, there is no fair replacement claim, though a repair or cleaning claim may still stand.
What is the difference between damage and fair wear and tear?
Fair wear and tear is deterioration from ordinary use over time, such as traffic marks along a hallway carpet or light scuffing on paintwork. It cannot be charged for at all. Damage is deterioration beyond ordinary use, such as a burn, a tear, or a stain that will not clean. The distinction turns on the number of occupants, the length of the tenancy, and the condition and age of the item at check-in.
How much can be held as a tenancy deposit?
Since the Tenant Fees Act 2019, deposits in England are capped at five weeks' rent where the annual rent is under £50,000, and six weeks' rent where the annual rent is £50,000 or more. The cap limits what can be held, not what can be deducted, but in practice it sets a ceiling on any claim.
Did the Renters' Rights Act change how deposit deductions work?
The apportionment principles did not change. What changed on 1 May 2026 is the shape of the tenancy: assured shorthold tenancies converted to assured periodic tenancies and fixed terms were abolished, so there is no longer a set end date to plan a check-out around. That makes a dated, itemised check-in record and a matching check-out more important than before, not less, because the comparison is the evidence an adjudicator actually weighs.
Checked against these primary sources on 30 August 2026. Law and scheme guidance change — verify before you act.
3 free reports to start · No credit card required
We use cookies that are necessary for this site to work. We would also like to set optional analytics cookies to understand how the site is used. See our Privacy Policy.