Landlord Carpet Charges (Baton Rouge: 2015, apartment complex, rental)

[tammylr95]

I recently had to move out of my apartment due to some serious, unexpected financial problems. I discussed my situation with the apartment manager and told him that I could not stay for the duration of my lease. When I vacated, I made sure that the apartment was very clean.

I knew that I would owe a balance until someone rented the apartment and I fully expected to get a bill for such. However, when I received the letter from Latter and Blum, it stated that I owed an additional $1100 for the replacement of the carpet. The letter cited "excessive stains" as the reason for replacement, which is untrue. The complex was built in 2008. I moved there in 2011. I moved out in July 2015. The carpet is 7 years old. How the world can I be held liable for 7 year old carpet?!?! The carpet was not new when I moved in.

It is my understanding that charges for carpet have to be prorated, meaning they can charge you for the remainder of the life in the carpet? Is this not LA law? Am I mistaken? Please advise.

[rawrockills]

I would write a letter asking for proof of the stains and an estimate for new carpet. Usually when you start asking questions they will back off on things like this (in my experience at least).

[meo92953]

One of my landlords tried that on me. I almost hadn't taken the apartment because of the stain but needed an apartment closer to my work & that was the only one I found.

Luckily I had put it on the move-in checklist. I offered to take it to court & they backed off.

[pamhenery]

It is always such a big issue with landlords. Sometimes they irritated us by doing all these things. Seriously, I hate it. I already live in rental apartments. But yet there is no issue like this. When I face anything, definitely I will take it in court.

[bpollen]

Originally Posted by tammylr95

I recently had to move out of my apartment due to some serious, unexpected financial problems. I discussed my situation with the apartment manager and told him that I could not stay for the duration of my lease. When I vacated, I made sure that the apartment was very clean.

I knew that I would owe a balance until someone rented the apartment and I fully expected to get a bill for such. However, when I received the letter from Latter and Blum, it stated that I owed an additional $1100 for the replacement of the carpet. The letter cited "excessive stains" as the reason for replacement, which is untrue. The complex was built in 2008. I moved there in 2011. I moved out in July 2015. The carpet is 7 years old. How the world can I be held liable for 7 year old carpet?!?! The carpet was not new when I moved in.

It is my understanding that charges for carpet have to be prorated, meaning they can charge you for the remainder of the life in the carpet? Is this not LA law? Am I mistaken? Please advise.

If you are still in the same area, send them a certified letter, explaining what your post just said.

Then when you receive their letter denying your request for reconsideration (and you will), you can then file a lawsuit in small claims court. It is not complicated like in the bigger courts. The fee to file isn't that much, either (usually around $50? it depends). Since you are not going to pay the bill, your lawsuit will be for damage to your credit rating, and for a judgment that you don't owe the bill.

OR you can wait for the landlord to file suit. That would be easier for you, and the landlord would have all the burden of proof. How that might affect your credit rating, I don't know.

Be careful what you say in the written 'claim" or statemet you provide to the Court. That is evidence, and is YOUR sworn statement. You will have to stick to it throughout the case, no matter what. So don't beef up your claims or anything. Don't be overly explanatory. Keep it factual, short, to the point, and include all the elements that conclude that you are not responsible for the stains.

I hope you took pictures of the carpet. Probably not. But for the landlord to prove his case, HE will have to produce pictures. Not just pictures of the so-called excessive stains, but also of those areas of the carpet shortly before or after you moved in, in 2011....that's the only way to prove that YOU caused the stains.

Some courts will deny the landlord, anyway, even if you made the stains, because he would've had to replace the carpet, anyway, after seven years in a rental. I would be surprised if a court makes you pay for that.

What a hassle, huh? For your next apartment, go through your apartment and take pictures of everything, especially anything that could be construed as damage that you might be blamed for later.

[SteveKills03]

Originally Posted by tammylr95

I recently had to move out of my apartment due to some serious, unexpected financial problems. I discussed my situation with the apartment manager and told him that I could not stay for the duration of my lease. When I vacated, I made sure that the apartment was very clean.

I knew that I would owe a balance until someone rented the apartment and I fully expected to get a bill for such. However, when I received the letter from Latter and Blum, it stated that I owed an additional $1100 for the replacement of the carpet. The letter cited "excessive stains" as the reason for replacement, which is untrue. The complex was built in 2008. I moved there in 2011. I moved out in July 2015. The carpet is 7 years old. How the world can I be held liable for 7 year old carpet?!?! The carpet was not new when I moved in.

It is my understanding that charges for carpet have to be prorated, meaning they can charge you for the remainder of the life in the carpet? Is this not LA law? Am I mistaken? Please advise.

What apartment complex is this in BR? By LSU campus?

Out them by name. I think Latter and Blum owns those EL Cid apts by campus.

[pscottg]

I'm beginning to believe that in this area that some landlords view security deposits as revenue and will invent reasons to keep it. I've rented from many apartments because I've moved around a lot, but also have owned property and had tenants so I can see both sides.

However, only here in Baton Rouge have I had an apartment manager keep my full security deposit. The claim was carpet damage. Nearly a month after move-out, I was provided with an estimate of more than $300 for damage which included "pet treatment" for "pet stains." We didn't have pets and we did not excessively stain the carpet and made a video on move-out day showing in what condition we left the apartment.

I thought it odd that I was being provided an estimate rather than actual charges a month later, and emailed the manager for an explanation. I was told that "pet stain" was a general term used by professional carpet cleaners. (There were "sugar" stains as well - I'm diabetic and keep no sugar of any kind in the house). And since the apartment was going to be renovated, that they hadn't actually cleaned the carpet yet. I replied that if it's still not clean, then he could provide me with pictures of the "pet" stains, and also wondered what further damage his employees might be doing while renovating.

One of the pictures sent was of a stain that was there when we moved in and listed on the move-in checklist (and which we had taken a picture of on move-in day as well). Three more grainy pictures were sent which didn't reveal much of anything, certainly not $338 worth of damage. (There's only about 400 sq.ft. of carpet in the apartment, so his claim is that it is nearly $1 per sq.ft to clean carpet.)

I popped in on him a couple of weeks later and was told that the carpet had now been cleaned. I asked him to call the carpet company in my presence and have them tell me what the actual cleaning charge was. He wouldn't do it. He also recanted his story that the apartment was being renovated, that it was just being repurposed into a corporate apartment and that "renovate" like "pet stain" is a catch-all term.

My suspicion is that they have some kind of a deal with their carpet cleaner that involves generating estimates that are, to put it nicely, exaggerations. If carpet damage were such a problem, one would think they would put in cheap laminate fake-wood flooring that's a lot more durable. But then they wouldn't have the security deposit as revenue stream option.

Needless to say my lawyer has been having a chat with them.