Section 8 Ground 15 (deterioration of furniture): the tenant defence walkthrough (2026)

A Section 8 notice citing Ground 15 lands in a place tenants rarely expect. Most tenants who receive one are not surprised that the landlord is unhappy with the condition of furniture, but they are surprised that this can be a route to eviction at all. In practice, Ground 15 is one of the weakest grounds in Schedule 2. It applies only to furnished tenancies. It needs a competent inventory the landlord almost never has. It has a real lodger and sub-tenant carve-out. It runs straight into the fair wear and tear distinction. And it is discretionary, which means even where it is technically made out, the reasonableness test routinely defeats it for a tenancy that has otherwise been performed.

This walkthrough is for a tenant who has received a Section 8 notice citing Ground 15. It covers what the ground says, the furnished-only limit, the lodger / sub-tenant carve-out, the fair wear and tear vs damage distinction, the inventory-disclosure procedural attack, the reasonableness test, and a templated request-for-particulars letter alongside a worked wear-and-tear schedule. Ground 15 is distinct from Ground 13 (deterioration of the dwelling itself, covered 2026-05-17), Ground 12 (general breach of tenancy, covered 2026-05-16) and Ground 14 (anti-social behaviour, covered 2026-05-13).

What Ground 15 actually says

Ground 15 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 reads, in essence: the condition of any furniture provided for use under the tenancy has, in the opinion of the court, deteriorated owing to ill-treatment by the tenant, or by a person residing in the dwelling-house, and where the deterioration is owing to ill-treatment by a person other than the tenant, the tenant has not taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of that person.

Three things must be true: furniture was provided with the tenancy; that furniture has deteriorated; and the deterioration was owing to ill-treatment by the tenant or by someone residing in the dwelling. If the third element points at a lodger, sub-tenant or visitor, a fourth condition kicks in — the tenant must have failed to take reasonable steps to remove that person.

The wording is deliberate and narrow. "Furniture" is read in its ordinary sense — chairs, sofas, beds, tables, soft furnishings, white goods if let with the tenancy. Fixtures attached to the property are not furniture and fall under Ground 13, not Ground 15. "Provided for use under the tenancy" means provided by the landlord at the start; a tenant's own furniture is outside the ground entirely. "Ill-treatment" is misuse or neglect that goes beyond ordinary use — a deliberate or careless pattern of conduct that causes deterioration beyond what reasonable use would produce.

Ground 15 is discretionary. A mandatory ground (Ground 8 arrears at threshold, Ground 1A owner-move-in, Ground 7A serious anti-social behaviour after conviction) gives the judge no choice once proved. A discretionary ground requires the judge to be separately satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make a possession order. That reasonableness test is the second hurdle Ground 15 claims often fail at.

The Renters' Rights Act 2025, in force since 1 May 2026, did not change the substance of Ground 15. With Section 21 abolished, landlords who would previously have fallen back on no-fault eviction must now plead a real ground. Ground 15 sometimes appears as a stacked ground alongside Ground 12 (breach) or Ground 13 (deterioration of dwelling) when the landlord is trying to widen the case. The procedural attacks on each ground are different, and a defence should treat each one separately.

The furnished-only limit

Ground 15 only operates where furniture was provided with the tenancy. The implications are immediate.

Unfurnished tenancies are entirely outside Ground 15. If you brought your own bed, sofa, table and chairs, a Ground 15 notice has nothing to bite on. The notice is bad on its face. The defence is to write to the landlord identifying that no furniture was provided and asking them to withdraw the notice or be prepared to prove what they say was provided.

Part-furnished tenancies are within Ground 15 only in respect of the items the landlord provided. A washing machine, fridge or oven provided by the landlord is within the ground; a sofa the tenant brought is outside. The landlord must identify, with evidence, which items they provided. If the inventory is missing, generic, or unsigned, the landlord cannot do so and the ground is hollow.

Furnished tenancies are within Ground 15 in respect of the inventory items. A competent inventory at the start of the tenancy, signed by both parties, with photographs and condition notes, is the landlord's evidential foundation. Without it, the landlord is reduced to oral testimony about what was there four years ago, which courts treat with appropriate scepticism.

In a defence, plead the furnished-status point squarely. Ask the landlord to identify, item by item, which furniture they say was provided, and to produce the inventory and check-in photographs. If they cannot, the ground fails at the threshold.

The lodger and sub-tenant carve-out

This is the most powerful procedural attack on a Ground 15 notice where the alleged damage was caused by someone other than the tenant themselves. The ground covers deterioration owing to ill-treatment by a person residing in the dwelling — which includes lodgers, sub-tenants, partners who moved in, and adult children. But it adds a condition: the tenant must have failed to take reasonable steps to remove that person.

The carve-out applies if the tenant did any of the following on becoming aware of the damage: raised the issue with the lodger or sub-tenant; gave them notice to quit; asked them to leave; took legal advice on excluding them; or took similar reasonable steps. The standard is reasonable steps, not perfect steps. A tenant who tried and failed to remove a difficult lodger is within the carve-out. A tenant who continued to host a destructive partner without addressing the situation is probably not.

The carve-out is fact-specific and the landlord carries the burden of disproving reasonable steps. In a defence, set out the steps you did take, with dates, and ask the landlord to identify what further reasonable step they say you should have taken and did not. Most landlords cannot answer that question with precision, and the carve-out then survives the hearing.

The fair wear and tear distinction

This is where most Ground 15 cases collapse. Fair wear and tear is the natural deterioration of furniture from ordinary careful use, taking into account the age and quality of the items at the start of the tenancy. Damage within Ground 15 is deterioration beyond that natural decline, caused by ill-treatment, neglect or careless use.

The line is fact-specific and there is no statutory formula, but the case law and tribunal practice give a clear framework:

• Age matters. A four-year-old sofa is expected to be more worn than a new one. The court will not require the tenant to leave the sofa in the condition it was in at the start; it will require the tenant to leave it in the condition reasonable use over four years would produce.
• Quality matters. A cheap mass-market sofa is expected to deteriorate faster than a high-quality piece. The landlord cannot demand museum-condition return of items that were entry-level when provided.
• Composition of household matters. A family with young children is expected to produce more wear than a single professional. The court does not penalise ordinary family life.
• Pattern matters. A single mark or stain is wear and tear; cigarette burns, deliberate cuts, pet damage and persistent neglect are potentially Ground 15.

The defence is to map the alleged damage item by item against the fair wear and tear framework. A worked wear-and-tear schedule, prepared by the tenant or with the help of an independent inventory clerk, is one of the most effective documents to file alongside the defence.

Wear-and-tear schedule (worked template)

Item	Provided / Tenant's own	Age at start of tenancy	Condition at start (per inventory)	Alleged condition now	Fair wear and tear assessment	Comments
Sofa	Landlord	2 years	Good, minor edge wear	Cushions flattened, fabric thinning on armrests	Fair wear and tear over 4 further years of family use	Cushions can be re-stuffed for under £100
Dining table	Landlord	New	Excellent	Two ring marks on surface	Fair wear and tear — coasters not used on every occasion is not ill-treatment	Refinishing cost £80, deductible from any final claim
Bed frame	Landlord	3 years	Good	Loose slat	Fair wear and tear — slats wear and need re-fitting	Tenant flagged loose slat to landlord in 2023, no repair done
Carpet (bedroom)	Landlord	5 years	Good	Worn patches near bed	Fair wear and tear — carpet beyond expected useful life at start of tenancy	Replacement is landlord's responsibility, not tenant deterioration

Filed alongside the defence, this schedule reframes the case for the court. It is no longer "the tenant damaged the furniture" — it is "the landlord has not distinguished damage from wear, and on a proper view the items have aged normally over the tenancy".

The procedural attack on the Form 6A

Ground 15 cases — like all Section 8 cases — are won on documents before they reach the merits. The two key documents are the Form 6A (the prescribed Section 8 notice) and the particulars of claim if a claim has been issued on the N5.

On the Form 6A, check:

• Tenant names — exactly as on the agreement.
• Property address — exactly as on the agreement.
• Grounds cited — is Ground 15 ticked? Are the facts described actually about furniture provided by the landlord, or about the dwelling itself (which would be Ground 13) or about general breach (which would be Ground 12)?
• The 4-week notice period — count the days. A notice served on the 1st cannot found a claim issued before the 29th. Short notices are fatal.
• The 12-month window — the claim must be brought within 12 months of the notice. A stale notice is fatal.
• Particulars of the alleged deterioration — the notice must give enough detail to allow the tenant to respond. "Furniture has been damaged" by itself is insufficient. The notice should identify which items, what damage, when discovered. A vague notice is bad on its face and the defence should challenge it as such.

On the particulars of claim, check whether the alleged deterioration is identified item by item, with the start-of-tenancy condition, the current condition, and the basis on which the landlord says the deterioration is owing to ill-treatment rather than fair wear and tear. A statement of case that simply says "the tenant has damaged furniture" without specifics is asking to be struck out, or at least to be put to the landlord at the hearing.

Template letter: request for particulars and disclosure of the inventory

Send this within the first 7 days of receiving the Form 6A, by email and recorded delivery.

Dear [Landlord / Agent name],

Re: [Property address] — Section 8 notice dated [date] citing Ground 15

I am writing in connection with the Section 8 notice you served on me on [date] citing Ground 15 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. The notice states in general terms that furniture provided with the tenancy has deteriorated. The notice does not particularise the items, the alleged condition at the start of the tenancy, the alleged condition now, or the conduct said to constitute ill-treatment.

So that I can respond properly, and so that any court proceedings can proceed on a clear footing, please provide within 14 days the following particulars and disclosure:

1. A complete list of the items of furniture you say were provided with the tenancy at its grant.
2. The signed check-in inventory dated at or near the start of the tenancy, with photographs if any, showing the condition of each item.
3. For each item in respect of which you say there has been deterioration owing to ill-treatment: the condition at the start of the tenancy, the condition now, the date on which the deterioration was first discovered, the conduct you say constitutes ill-treatment, and the person you say is responsible.
4. If you say any of the deterioration is owing to a person other than me residing in the dwelling, please identify that person and the steps you say I failed to take that I reasonably should have taken to remove them.
5. Any photographs or video evidence taken at check-in, during the tenancy, or at the time of the alleged discovery of the deterioration.
6. Any written communications between us in which the alleged deterioration was raised before the notice was served.

I should be grateful for your response within 14 days. Without these particulars I am unable to assess the substance of the notice and the case it puts forward.

Yours sincerely,

[Tenant name]

This letter does three things at once. It puts the landlord on notice that the procedural detail is missing. It creates a documentary trail showing the tenant engaged in good faith. And if the landlord does not respond, or responds with vague or incomplete information, the court will read that against them when the reasonableness test is run.

The reasonableness test

Even where Ground 15 is technically made out — furniture provided, ill-treatment causing deterioration, lodger carve-out not engaged — the court must still be satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make a possession order. This is the second hurdle, and it is where most Ground 15 cases that survive the threshold attacks then fail.

The reasonableness test weighs the interests of the landlord, the tenant, and the public. The court considers:

• The seriousness of the deterioration. A few marks on furniture against a four-year, otherwise-performed tenancy is not a serious case for possession.
• The proportionate response. Could the landlord recover the cost from the deposit, or by an end-of-tenancy claim against the deposit scheme, rather than by eviction? Section 21 used to be the no-fault fallback; with the RRA, the landlord has to justify eviction itself, not just a financial claim.
• The conduct of the tenancy overall. A tenancy where rent has been paid, the property kept, and the landlord notified of issues is treated very differently from one where the tenant has been actively obstructive.
• The conduct of the landlord. A landlord who responded promptly to repair requests is treated more favourably than one who ignored them; the latter cannot complain that the tenant's continued use of poorly-maintained items amounts to ill-treatment.
• The personal circumstances of the tenant. Health, age, dependants, length of tenancy, availability of alternative accommodation, financial position — all relevant.
• The Article 8 ECHR overlay. Loss of home requires proportionality, particularly where the alleged harm is at the lower end of the scale.

In a defence, the reasonableness section should be the main part of the witness statement. Set out the conduct of the tenancy, the length of occupation, dependants, health, the landlord's own conduct, and the alternative remedies available to them. A reasonableness case made well is the most common defeat of a Ground 15 claim.

What if the landlord raises Ground 15 stacked with other grounds?

It is common for a Ground 15 notice to also cite Grounds 12 (general breach) and 13 (deterioration of dwelling). The procedural attacks differ for each:

• Ground 12 turns on breach of a specific term of the tenancy agreement. If the agreement does not contain a clear term covering the alleged conduct, the ground fails.
• Ground 13 turns on deterioration of the dwelling itself — walls, floors, fittings — not the furniture. Mis-pleading furniture damage as Ground 13 (or vice versa) is a procedural error the defence should highlight.
• Ground 15 turns on furniture deterioration with the carve-outs and the wear-and-tear line above.

In a defence, deal with each ground separately. Show why each fails, and why the cumulative case is not stronger than the sum of its (weak) parts. A stacked notice often signals that the landlord is unsure of their case — and the court reads that uncertainty appropriately.

What if the inventory is missing or informal?

This is the most common scenario. Many landlords, particularly smaller landlords, never produced a written check-in inventory, or relied on a generic agency template without photographs or signatures. The implications:

• No inventory at all. The landlord cannot prove the starting condition. The ground collapses at the evidential threshold.
• Generic or template inventory. "Furniture in good condition" without item-by-item detail is rarely enough. The court needs to be able to compare a specific item then with a specific item now.
• Unsigned inventory. If the tenant did not sign, the document is the landlord's assertion only, not an agreed record. It carries little weight.
• Photographs not taken. Without check-in photographs, the landlord is reduced to oral testimony about condition four years ago, which is rarely persuasive.

The defence is to insist on disclosure of the inventory and any contemporaneous photographs in the request-for-particulars letter. If the landlord cannot produce them, the ground is hollow and the defence rests heavily on that point.

What if the tenant did cause some damage?

It is honest practice to acknowledge any damage actually caused by the tenant, while contesting the characterisation as ill-treatment and the proportionality of eviction. The right line is:

• Acknowledge what the tenant honestly accepts (e.g. "the coffee table did have a ring mark, which I'm happy to address through the deposit").
• Distinguish that from the broader claim (e.g. "but the sofa cushions and the carpet wear are fair wear and tear over a four-year family tenancy, not ill-treatment").
• Frame the proportionality (e.g. "the appropriate remedy is a deduction from the deposit, not the loss of my home and my children's school placements").

A defence that accepts what is honest while contesting what is exaggerated reads far better than a defence that denies everything. Judges are practised at distinguishing genuine engagement from blanket denial.

Where RentSOS fits

RentSOS focuses on rent increase notices under Section 13. Possession proceedings under Section 8 are different mechanics, but the underlying principle is the same: the landlord must follow a procedure, the tenant has rights, and procedural attacks often defeat substantively weak cases. If you have received a Ground 15 notice and you also have a Section 13 rent increase notice in the same period, RentSOS will check the Section 13 notice for free — that route is preserved and unchanged.

For the Ground 15 notice itself, the immediate practical steps are: keep a copy of the notice and the envelope showing the date served; send the request-for-particulars letter within the first 7 days; gather your own evidence (photographs of furniture in current condition, the original tenancy agreement, any inventory you do have, communications with the landlord about repairs); and take legal advice or contact Shelter or Citizens Advice if a possession claim is issued. Free legal aid may be available for the substantive hearing depending on your means and the circumstances.

Bottom line

Ground 15 is one of the weakest grounds in Schedule 2. It is furnished-only. It needs an inventory the landlord usually does not have. It has a real lodger carve-out. It runs into the fair wear and tear distinction at every turn. And it is discretionary, which means even where the threshold is crossed the reasonableness test routinely defeats it for a tenancy that has otherwise been performed.

A tenant who receives a Ground 15 notice should not assume the worst. The right response is procedural: a request-for-particulars letter in week one, a wear-and-tear schedule prepared with care, and a defence built around the inventory gap, the carve-outs, the wear and tear line, and the reasonableness test. Done that way, the great majority of Ground 15 notices either get withdrawn or fail at hearing.