I think a lot of the official legal standpoint has a grey areas to it.

Officially, landlords can claim full cost of replacement for the items damaged/broken in order to return the property to a rentable condition that is the same or better than the property condition when the lease is signed (less wear &tear) . Which for items within their reasonable life span can be justified as the full cost of a new item.

But as Tenants can 'must return a property in its rented state minus wear and tear'. The Tennants have a duty to the above statement, and as such, they must be allowed to opportunity maintain the property and do actions to "return the property to.." Thus, they have the right to be able to provide the repair/replacement 'like for like' themselves and be entitled to their full deposit. (Ie paint over the stains or repair the surface to a lasting quality) However , Often the contract will include a clause to be carried out by a registered/trained professional, though so you have to watch out for that as the Tennant can then be liable for the Landlord re-repairing if not done correctly. Making sure u have document of landlords agreeing (or refusing

The cost of registered labour is often an area that can play against Tennants with arguing that the item has been already used for 50% of its life expectancy cost. If you argue only owe 50% of the products cost due to its remaining life expectancy, you still have to add 100% of the installation cost to its final value.

But , if a Tennant could prove they below in their dispute quote: * they can purchase a second-hand replacement at a comparitive quality & use. * The item is readliy available, second hand. * quotes if a professional to repair or proof requares dont require a costed profesional.

Then the Landlord would struggle to legally justify a new for old replacement and would have to accept that value.

At the end of the day, all deposits should be held in a suitable scheme to protect the tenants from Deposit grabbing landlords. And all Landlords should have insurance to cover destructive Tennants.
This provides both mediation and protection opportunities from both parties.

I say all this as a person who's been on both sides of the equation.

I think a lot of the official legal standpoint has a grey area to it.

Officially, landlords can claim full cost of replacement for the items damaged/broken in order to return the home to a rentable condition.

But as Tenants can 'must return a property in its rented state minus wear and tear'. This means that a Tennant can provide the repair/replacement like for like themselves and be entitled to their full deposit. (Ie paint over the stains or repair the surface to a lasting quality) Often the contract will include a clause to be carried out by a registered professional, though so you have to watch h out for that.

Because of this , if a Tennant could prove they can purchase a second-hand replacement at a comparitive quality and used state (inclusive of install cost), or provide a clear cost of repair to lasting quality, then the Landlord would struggle to legally justify a new for old replacement, and would have to accept that value.

At the end of the day, all deposits should be held in a suitable scheme to protect the tenants from Deposit grabbing Landlords. And all Landlords should have insurance to cover destructive Tennants.
This provides both mediation and protection opportunities from both parties.

I say all this as a person who's been on both sides of the equation.

My last lodger caused about £5000 of worth of damage if i was to replace and repair the damage to a rentable standard . I would have been well within my rights to take them to small claims court for this value and repair the property to a rentable standard. I obtained advice, and I would have had a clear case to obtain this value providing i had meticulous paperwork trail of the actual cost of repair. With every purchase, clearly justified and proof of every payment that had been made.

I personally didn't want to chase that value from someone who probably couldn't afford it, i didn't have £5000 to repair with official labourers and I really didn't wish to enter a battle.

So, I instead did everything on a careful budget found second-hand where I could. Used low/no cost labour.

The difficulty with secondhand is the amount of research time and efforts to collect items means that if you were to pay an hourly rate, it would often be MORE expensive than new.

I kept every receipt , and photo of FB sales agreements. And sent them a letter with clear photography of damage and itemised costs (approx £2100 total with heavy budgetting) and kept the £500 deposit. That way, if they ever decided to argue and 'small claims me' for the deposit back, i could prove that my cost were actual, reasonable, and justifiable.