ᐅ Adhesive Strength of Hardwood Flooring – How Does It Deteriorate?

Hello dear parquet enthusiasts,

After I moved out, I was accused of having the parquet floor replaced because some of the parquet boards did not have sufficient adhesive strength in certain areas. The parquet is 30 years old. The average lifespan is 30-40 years. Sanding and sealing is required every 10-15 years. I am not sure if the landlord has done this. Could poor maintenance be the cause, and if so, how?

Thank you in advance!

Vane2023 schrieb:

Hello dear parquet enthusiasts,
After I moved out, I was accused that the parquet had to be replaced because in some areas the floorboards did not adhere properly.
The parquet is 30 years old. The average lifespan is 30–40 years.
Sanding and sealing is required every 10–15 years. I am not sure if the landlord arranged this.
Could poor maintenance be the reason, and if so, how?

If the parquet no longer sticks (however that might happen), that is not your problem. If you used the floor under normal conditions, this is the landlord’s responsibility. I would be prepared to take any legal dispute seriously—although the landlord likely won’t, after consulting a lawyer. So please reject any cost-sharing request from the landlord. They just want new parquet at your expense, nothing more.

P.S. The lifespan of parquet is not strictly 30–40 years. It lasts until it is worn out, sometimes even 100 years. Sanding and sealing are not done every 10–15 years but rather as needed—often after 30–40 years.

@ "Vane2023":
As "CarstenausNRW" described, that’s exactly how it is!
It is well known in the professional field that an adhesive (in this case for parquet flooring) loses its bonding strength over the years, but there are no scientific studies detailing over what time period, under which conditions, and how much percentage of the original bonding strength (which itself first needs to be defined as a baseline and documented through tensile or shear strength tests) is lost.
Adhesives become brittle over time, that is known. This particularly applies (in my own experience) to bituminous adhesives, which were used about 30 years ago and earlier. As an expert, I would ask by which method the claimed loss of bonding strength was determined, what values were obtained with the stated testing procedure, and what baseline values (after the parquet was installed) were recorded at that time.
I believe that just this short set of questions would likely end the case for the opposing party as a legal dispute that cannot be won.
Regarding a secondary matter, which also concerns the parquet flooring in the rental property, wear and tear is compensated through the rent paid. "CarstenausNRW" has also mentioned this.
Only on the topic of the "durability" of parquet flooring do I somewhat differ in opinion.
The "lifespan" depends on the type of parquet—and that was not described by you.
For solid hardwood parquet, I would agree that you can assume a service life of 100 years or more.
For engineered parquet, however, not!
Referring back to the situation described, I would actually do nothing. No response letter to the former landlord, nothing!
Because the burden of proof lies with the landlord, not with you.
And remember: the more you write yourself, the more you could unintentionally get yourself into trouble!!
-------------------------------
This is not legal advice, as I am not a lawyer and am not authorized to provide it!
Nevertheless, I wish you a thoughtful decision: KlaRa

Doing nothing is probably not an option.
I assume the landlord will not return the security deposit as long as she believes the former tenant owes her for renovations.
In this case, it might even be helpful to secure evidence?
Once the work is done, both parties can make many claims...

Regarding the parquet flooring, I assume this is a rather high-end rental apartment (?), where the security deposit can quickly amount to several thousand.

Or has the security deposit already been paid out in full? Then indeed, do nothing.

xMisterDx schrieb:

Doing nothing is probably not an option.

We should neither confuse the questioner nor lump together two different issues.
One is currently an unproven claim—that the flooring was damaged through the tenant’s use of the apartment.
The other is a contractual matter that has a clear framework.
If the landlord cannot provide evidence for the claim, or if there are no other damages caused by the tenant justifying withholding the security deposit, then the situation is clear!
There is no need to respond to an objection that has not been proven.
In this case, the security deposit must be refunded.
By not responding, pressure is put on the other party.
Namely, the pressure to provide some justification for their goal (withholding the deposit).
However, if I do not respond at all to a suspicion or claim, then the status quo remains completely clear.
The burden of proof lies with the landlord, not the tenant!
------------------
Regards, KlaRa

In an apartment I rented out, there was damage caused by a tenant—not through normal use but due to a failed DIY attempt. When the tenant moved out, I documented the damage, and he openly admitted that he had done it intentionally, although he denied that it was actually damage. So, I only needed to prove that it was damage and determine its extent. I took photos and contacted several professional contractors to get assessments and rough, non-binding estimates of the repair costs. I shared all this information with the tenant and withheld the lower amount from the security deposit, offering him the opportunity to suggest another professional company to carry out an inspection and cost estimate. The tenant did not respond at all.

So yes, as a landlord, it is my responsibility to justify withholding part of the security deposit and to do so with solid evidence.