Damage to a warehouse at the end of the lease: normal wear versus claimable damage

At the end of a logistics or industrial warehouse lease, landlord and tenant usually disagree about the condition on return. The underlying question is always the same: what corresponds to normal wear from the agreed use and what constitutes damage attributable to the tenant.

The line between normal wear and damage

Ordinary use of a warehouse produces expected wear. Attributable damage, by contrast, stems from improper use, unforeseen overloads or unauthorised modifications. The report contrasts the return condition with the initial condition, the lease and the foreseen use loads.

The usual points of conflict

Logistics flooring concentrates much of the dispute: cracking from overload, joint deterioration, punching from racking or forklifts. So do modifications to the structure or installations —drilling, anchoring, changes to fire protection— and damage to loading docks and cladding.

Why an objective report matters

Without a technical document, the negotiation becomes a clash of perceptions. The expert report sets out, with verifiable criteria, what damage exists, its cause and the cost to remedy it, separating the claimable from simple wear. That document serves both for negotiation and for enforcing the deposit or the court claim.

Frequently asked questions

Can the landlord withhold the deposit for normal wear?
No. The deposit covers damage attributable to the tenant, not the deterioration inherent to the agreed use. Distinguishing one from the other is precisely the purpose of the report.

Is the initial inventory useful?
Very much so. The condition documented on entry is the reference against which the exit condition is assessed.

Who commissions the assessment?
Either party can commission it as a party report. A rigorous report usually makes agreement possible without going to court.