As you can see from the numerous posts above, everyone seems to have their own understanding/interpretation of what they believe what I should be entitled to as reimbursement (just like I have an opinion about the same) and the examples given about the carpet in an earlier post is a classic example of where 2 people who had almost identical circumstances (i.e. the burnt carpet in rental property caused by tenant) but the results/decisions were very different (i.e 1 landlord got nil/minimal reimbursement and the other full replacement with brand new carpets).
I make that point because I said earlier I guess only when it gets to the Tribunal that we'll know what the official stance is, to which you replied
"I just told you what the official stance is"
. Bit different to a traffic offence....traffic offences are more black and white....you either ran a red light or you didn't. I'm not saying you're right or wrong but I am suggesting that your interpretation may not be right (which you appear to slightly disagree with!)