I have a property which had brand new and expensive carpet when a tenant moved in a few years ago.

She used the floor as an ironing board, leaving a severe iron shaped burn in the middle of the room. Not just a scorch mark, it had melted the fibres rendering the pile to a hard sort of plastic feel. This is not the first time - this situation has happened to me several times over the years, but this was by far the worst, which is why I took action.

When the tenancy ended I took her to the tribunal claiming the cost for the carpet in that whole room (and that room only) to be replaced. My justification for this was on three grounds: that the carpet was brand new when the tenant moved in; that the burn was in the middle of the room and therefore impossible to hide; and that using the carpet as an ironing board was not something a landlord should have to reasonably expect.

I basically lost the case. I was awarded enough money to allow a carpet layer to come, cut a 20cm x 20cm square out of the carpet, and lay a patch. This was years ago, and to this day, every time I look at that patch it really f*cks me off.

All my tenancy agreements now clearly state that causing any visible damage to the carpet by using it as an ironing board will result in the tenant being charged full replacement cost of carpet for that room. A pit pedantic I know, but if tenants don't like it, or can;t afford a $20 ironing board, then I don't want them anyway.

What I am saying is, even if the landlord in the OP's case can prove the damage definitely occured during your tenancy, they are most likely only to be awarded the true cost to fix the actual patch(es) where the damage occured, not the entire room/house.

Good luck!