A couple who charged tenants for the replacement of 20-year-old carpets have been ordered to return a portion of a deposit after they were found to have laid new ones to increase the resale value of the home.Landlord Gerard Ryan, who owned the property on Leopardstown Drive in Dublin 18 with his wife and co-landlord Margaret Ryan, issued a notice of termination to the family as he intended to sell the property.Following an inspection, he claimed the home was an “absolute disgrace” after his former tenants, Gergely Papolczy and Aniko Dudas, left.Among a list of alleged issues detailed before a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) tribunal were “foot marks” on a wall and the tenants’ use of “swivel chairs”.Ryan said the chairs, used by the tenants while working from home, had damaged the varnish on his wood floor, saying it cost him €1,000 to have the area sanded and revarnished.Also at issue were his 20-year-old carpets, which he claimed had been in “very good” condition before the tenants moved in. He told the tribunal he and his wife had made the “executive decision” to replace them as they were “so dirty and stained and were full of dog hairs and odours”.Before the tenancy, Ryan claimed, the property was in “superb” and “top class” condition, and Ryan said estate agents had classified it as an “executive let”.Although the tenants were paying €3,100 a month in rent, they paid a €3,600 security deposit after Ryan charged a €500 “dog deposit”.Noting that the property had been left “very unclean”, he said the tenants agreed to him deducting €1,090 in cleaning costs.He ultimately decided to retain the deposit in full, however, as “even after two days cleaning, it was an absolute disgrace”.He claimed he had incurred €4,740 in costs in returning the property to its prior state, including repainting.Describing “foot marks” on one particular wall, he claimed one of the tenants “obviously was in the habit of sitting in their chair with their feet against the wall”, which he argued showed a “total disregard for the property”.He believed other marks on walls had been caused by the tenants’ dog, while “smears” may have been caused by the tenants’ children “if their hands were dirty”.Papolczy told the tribunal he had broken his ankle towards the end of the tenancy and was unable to do a “proper clean”. He said they agreed to a €1,090 deduction to cover cleaning costs.Aside from this, however, he claimed “all of the works” carried out were done for the purpose of marketing the property for sale, arguing that the 20-year-old carpets in particular were “past the end of their expected lifespan”.He believed the costs incurred by their former landlords were costs that “increased the resale value” and made it “easier to sell”.Describing the “before” photographs of the 20-year-old carpets showing significant marking and wear, the tribunal noted the receipt for their replacement was dated prior to the tenancy ending.It said it was “clear” that an “executive decision” had been made to replace the carpets before the tenants “even left” and before the Ryans had had an opportunity to assess their condition.The tribunal said it was satisfied the carpets were replaced to make the property “more saleable” and to increase “the resale value by way of cosmetic improvement”, adding that the Ryans had been “fortunate to get so many years use out of them”.The tribunal found that the Ryans had unlawfully retained €1,910 from the deposit, after allowing a €600 deduction for the damage caused to the wooden flooring.It accepted that the tenants did not do “any meaningful cleaning” after removing their belongings, though this was “amply covered” by the €1,090 agreed.