Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP (who sent me a PM after his initial post), does not have the substantial evidence to counteract what the landlord will most definitely bring to court. Your advice will cost those who follow it more money, and I say this from years of experience, not foolhardy suppositions.
IF the OP sent you a PM, the OP didn't mention the specific things that I think are important.
In other words, you wouldn't be so sure that she'd lose if you knew what I know about this.
Just the fact you're so sure the landlord will bring evidence to court proves to me you really haven't figured out why I believe he will be unable to prove anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
Normal wear and tear cannot be deducted from a security deposit. The axiom, "broom clean" means that the apartment should be returned to the landlord in the condition rented, less normal wear and tear. Holes in walls, dirty crud covered appliances, cigarette burns in carpets are not considered normal wear and tear. This might help:
I never implied that holes in walls, dirty crud covered appliances and cirgarette burns in carpet are considered normal wear and tear.
If I deduct a certain amount of money from a tenant's security deposit, I do not have to "prove anything", unless he/she opts to challenge the charges in court.
You are wrong. The law requires that within 30 days of lease termination, you either return the secuity deposit or provide a list of damages, the cost of repairs, and what money is left over. If you fail to do this, the tenant may go to a district justice and demand that you pay double the security deposit. Unspent funds from the security deposit must be repaid to the tenant. After 30 days, you have no right to claim damages.
You are correct that the tenant must sue (and I would love to sue someone like you), but that does not imply that the law is on your side, otherwise (a little legal education might help you).
Bottom line, you must show damages, in writing, within 30 days, or you have no right to keep anything except your disdain for your tenants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
Then, and only then, I will quantify my deductions, respond to all questioning, and I will win.... I do not "fleece" my tenants ever, and the magistrate has consistently ruled in my favor.
Re-read the above. "In writing" means "proof", ok. So you do have to prove damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
Not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend,
This is from section 250.512, the Pennsylvania Security Deposit Law:
The burden of proof of actual damages caused by the tenant to the leasehold premises shall be on the landlord.
Now tell me, what part of that don't you understand and I'll try to dumb it down for you. In particular, the word actual. In law, actual damages means that you have to show that you lost money, not simply that you potentially lost money. You don't lose the money until you pay for the repairs.
but if a tenant chooses to take me, as a landlord, to court without any evidence (just saying that he left the place cleaner than when he/she arrived) carries no weight .... he/she must have proof to counteract the experienced & scrupulous landlord's usually overwhelming documentation. To find this out, the tenant is going spend at least a hundred dollars and time lost. Most renters will lose; all have lost to me.
The question is: How strong do you feel that your proof is, as a former tenant, to counteract what the last person to see the apartment will bring to court? Are you willing to "wager" at least $100 for the filing fees, certified letters, and possible constable charges that you will win?
The OP (who sent me a PM after his initial post), does not have the substantial evidence to counteract what the landlord will most definitely bring to court. Your advice will cost those who follow it more money, and I say this from years of experience, not foolhardy suppositions.
You are wrong. The law requires that within 30 days of lease termination, you either return the secuity deposit or provide a list of damages, the cost of repairs, and what money is left over. If you fail to do this, the tenant may go to a district justice and demand that you pay double the security deposit. Unspent funds from the security deposit must be repaid to the tenant. After 30 days, you have no right to claim damages.
You are correct that the tenant must sue (and I would love to sue someone like you), but that does not imply that the law is on your side, otherwise (a little legal education might help you).
Bottom line, you must show damages, in writing, within 30 days, or you have no right to keep anything except your disdain for your tenants.
Re-read the above. "In writing" means "proof", ok. So you do have to prove damages.
Like talking to a stone....
The landlord sends an itemized list of damages to the tenant.... no pictures nor receipts necessary, no proof that repairs have been done (as per the OP's original question).... within 30 calendar days. Duh!! When has this ever been a part of the validity of the damages questioned? You are grasping at straws, speaking in crass generalities, and know nothing from which you write.
No worry about ever seeing me in court, you could never meet my standards, and I only rent to adults.
The landlord sends an itemized list of damages to the tenant.... no pictures nor receipts necessary, no proof that repairs have been done (as per the OP's original question).... within 30 calendar days. Duh!! When has this ever been a part of the validity of the damages questioned? You are grasping at straws, speaking in crass generalities, and know nothing from which you write.
And the tenant has the right to challenge that and to demand proof of actual damages. If they don't, that is their problem, but the itemized list is not de facto evidence of actual damages.
The term "burden of proof" (which is in the law) means that a decision maker (district justice) must agree that the preponderance of evidence supports the landlord's case.
I'm not saying that you don't win in court. Many predators do and district justices do not need to be lawyers and many who are are not good lawyers at that.
What I am saying is the law reads that you (or any other landlord, which I happen to be), cannot withhold the security deposit without proof of actual damages in excess of normal wear and tear. You can assert that you have that right via a letter, but the tenant can request a hearing in front of a district justice at which point the landlord must be able to prove damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
No worry about ever seeing me in court, you could never meet my standards, and I only rent to adults.
Really? How many adults trash their rental units? From your experience and attitude your tenants don't sound very adult to me.
Oh and by the way, you state that you've never lost a case? How many have actually gone to a hearing?
My guess is a lot of people posting have never been a landlord. Trust me, you have no idea what supposedly good tenants can do to a place. I just got fined from my condo association because a tenant violated one of the rules. I asked the tenant a month ago to fix the situation, he refused, so you can bet his security deposit will be minus 50 bucks when I throw him out next month.
My guess is a lot of people posting have never been a landlord. Trust me, you have no idea what supposedly good tenants can do to a place. I just got fined from my condo association because a tenant violated one of the rules. I asked the tenant a month ago to fix the situation, he refused, so you can bet his security deposit will be minus 50 bucks when I throw him out next month.
That's different because you can prove the tenant violated rules and you can prove that and you have proof you paid $50.
Retiredcoach seems to view the security deposit like car or house insurance. He thinks he can deduct based on estimates and then chose to to save money by doing work himself, hiring a less expensive contractor, or simply not do the work at all.
I think JoeLeaphorn has made it very clear that a judge will expect proof that what is deducted from a security deposit actually matches up to real expenses.
The key to this is the itemized list sent to the tenant. The itemized list can't be fictional. When taken to court, a landlord has to prove that the expenses on the list are real and justified.
I hesitate to get involved in this since I'm neither a tenant nor a landlord, and frankly, I've been a bit disturbed by the sentiments expressed by landlords on this thread, but this last post by Hopes has left me ambivalent. Perhaps this is how the law stands but surely it is up to the Landlord, should proof be provided that actual damage has been caused, and that it will cost $X to fix (shown by estimates (more than 1 would be my preference)), whether or not he chooses to repair the damage or not? I'm thinking of situations where a repair is possible but a replacement, for example, might be preferable. Another point - I do think a fair number of landlords do do their own repairs: are they not entitled to be compensated for their labor, and if so, how do they "prove" that?
You bring up very good points, Jennifer. I've been tossing that around in my head for a few days. JoeLeaphorn's post inspired me to spit it out that last response. It's very well possible that a landlord has the right to be paid for damages whether or not the landlord fixes the damages. I would think that large damages would be covered by insurance though.
I guess everyone is overly focusing on this because the landlord CLAIMED the work had been done when it had not. He didn't simply present estimates as estimates of damages. He worded it as this work was completed and this is what it cost.
The confusion over this is one of the reasons I've been sticking with the most important thing being that the landlord can't prove that the damage was done during the tenancy of this specific tenant. He very well might have damages, but if he had never seen the apartment prior to the tenant taking possession, there is no real way the landlord can prove THIS tenant caused the damages.
Retiredcoach seems to view the security deposit like car or house insurance.
In Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272, 405 A.2d 897 (1979) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that [A] lease is in the nature of a contract and is to be controlled by principles of contract law. Further, the Pennsylvania
Landlord and Tenant Act clearly recognizes that the security deposit is the property of the lessee not the lessor. In fact, after two years, the law requires the funds to be deposited in an interest bearing account where the interest is paid to the lessee (minus 1 percent administrative costs paid to the lessor).
The landlord is require to inform the lessee, in writing, of the location of the deposits and the amount deposited. Failure to do so is a breach of the contract.
Contracts are also subject to implied good faith and fair dealings clause which requires parties to the contract to accept what the another party obviously understood. For example, should I choose to buy a car from you, it is implied that the car will include everything that I saw when I signed the agreement of purchase. You can't remove the tires, radio, etc., after the fact by claiming that you were selling me the car, but not the accessories.
Good faith and fair dealings is implicit behind normal wear and tear. It is understood that a rental property may not look as good as it did on the day that you rented it. The issue is whether the consequences of your inhabitance of the property exceeded what what a reasonable person would have concluded was normal.
I have personally experienced landlords who have interpreted the laws as respecting their rights over those of the renter. Not true. Contract law recognizes that both parties have both expectations and responsibilities under the contract and that preference is given to neither party.
Perhaps this is how the law stands but surely it is up to the Landlord, should proof be provided that actual damage has been caused, and that it will cost $X to fix (shown by estimates (more than 1 would be my preference)), whether or not he chooses to repair the damage or not?
In contract law, damages are equated with actual losses. For example, if someone drives over your lawn and leaves tire impressions on the grass, but within a few days, these are gone, you have no real damages and have no grounds to sue (except tresspass).
Actual losses is a precise term; it means that you have an actual cost, not a theoretical cost. If I break your window, it is assumed that the replacement is an actual cost because, at some point, you will have to fix it. Still, your damages are limited to the cost of replacing the window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenniferprestia
I'm thinking of situations where a repair is possible but a replacement, for example, might be preferable.
It depends. If replacing the damaged part is preferable to you than repair, but repair is cheaper and will return the device to proper function, then you are only entitled to the repair cost not the replacement cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenniferprestia
Another point - I do think a fair number of landlords do do their own repairs: are they not entitled to be compensated for their labor, and if so, how do they "prove" that?
No. You aren't entitled to any breaks for repairing or maintaining your own home, either. Damages are limited to your actual costs, not the alternative cost of hiring a professional to do it. That isn't to say that lessors might not do what you say to save some money and pocket the difference. But under contract law, the lessee is only required to compensate you for actual costs.
That isn't to say that lessors don't have some clout with estimates, only. If the repair replacement is essential to the habitability of the facility, the DJ can infer that these are necessary and that the expenditure will occur. But a lessee would still have the opportunity to challenge what were the actual costs (e.g., the lessor replaced a broken window with a window of lesser quality and pocketed the difference).
From a practical standpoint, this probably rarely happens because it would cost money to pursue this action in court and most security deposits wouldn't pay for two hours of attorney time.
But that doesn't change the fact that, legally, you are entitled to an award of damages equal to your actual costs (plus any punitive fees), and someone who had the money to fight it could successfully argue that the amount of the security deposit retained cannot exceed the out of pocket expenses of the lessor.
Finally, it should be noted that many types of repairs must be done by certified contractors, and not simply owner/landlords. For example, Allegheny County, with few exceptions, requires that plumbing must be done by licensed plumbers, even if you are doing work on your own home.
Personally, I think that this is ridiculous as I'm every bit as good a plumber as anyone that I have ever hired and, in some cases, a darned sight better.
But my point is that there are some repairs that a landlord/lessor cannot make, legally, and doing so could violate the habitability clause of the lease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
