A terraced house was purchased as a buy-to-let at a discounted price due to its dilapidated stated. A pretty much full refurb was undertaken, including new electrics, plumbing, damp proof course, plastering, kitchen & bathroom etc. In addition, all internal doors were replaced, as were 3 windows and an external door.
I accept that the majority of this is going to be capital (and suspect in fact all of it will be), however is there any argument to justify that some elements of the work was to increase the rentability of the property by replacing some components with modern equivalents - e.g. all of the internal doors, the one external door and the three windows - on the basis that they didn't have to be replaced, but were done so to be in keeping with everything else that did have to be refurbished, and therefore increase the rentability of the property? We are talking £1,250 out of a total refurbishment cost of £22,500.
I am of the opinion that all the redecoration and carpets/laminate flooring is not allowable as it is all a necessary expense following the extensive refurb, and therefore has to be considered as part and parcel of it (along with the fact that new carpets fitted in new rental properties don't appear to be allowable anyway), but don't want to disallow the doors & windows that didn't need to be replaced, but were.