Law-Forums.org

[sherborne16]

Your MIL is wrong. If you damaged the carpet you pay to replace it.

Normal wear and tear on a carpet will be barely noticable in 4 years. You would have very slight matting in the walkways, matting that should not be detectable after you vacuum it. Excessive matting, dirt, ans stains are all damage, not normal.

[ammi]

Your MIL is wrong. If you damaged the carpet you pay to replace it.

Normal wear and tear on a carpet will be barely noticable in 4 years. You would have very slight matting in the walkways, matting that should not be detectable after you vacuum it. Excessive matting, dirt, ans stains are all damage, not normal.

[avikar76]

If the carpet was brand new when you moved in, and you damaged it to the point of needing replacement (stains, pet urine, etc), then you are 100% liable for the replacement cost.

However, carpet doesn't automatically have to be replaced just because you are moving out. If you haven't damaged it, then you are only responsible for cleaning, as per your lease (which is not uncommon). There is absolutely no reason why carpet cannot last for 20-30 years, at least.

Again, if you damaged the carpet, then you have to pay. Your "mother-in-law's boyfriend" is an idiot. He might have been thinking about painting, which a tenant cannot be held responsible for after a certain number of years. The same does not apply to carpet.