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.
I don't understand why you would even think that the owner of the property should lose money by repairing the damage that your relatives made. I understand they're elderly and one of them is in a wheel chair that caused damage.. but why would you even think that the landlord, a total stranger, should absorb the cost to repair the damage?
This is where family comes in. Your relatives are elderly, I'm sure they could use some help occasionally. The LL's not related to them. You are. Instead of bitching on this board, why don't you go over there and repair the damage, get the carpet cleaned and do your best to see that they have a chance at getting their deposit back, and while you're at it, take them out to dinner.. go shopping for them.
This is where family comes in. Your relatives are elderly, I'm sure they could use some help occasionally. The LL's not related to them. You are. Instead of bitching on this board, why don't you go over there and repair the damage, get the carpet cleaned and do your best to see that they have a chance at getting their deposit back, and while you're at it, take them out to dinner.. go shopping for them.
One of the best pieces of advice thus far. Get to it OP, help those folks out if you are mightily concerned about their situation.
Great post Lauriedeee! Sometimes people think that complaining about a problem shows you care, but a much better way to share your love would be to jump in and volunteer to help solve the problem!
My point is that the definition of "normal" (wrt to wear and tear) expands when the tenant is known in advance to have circumstances that any idiot can see will lead to. Tread wear and turn radius damage is from "normal" occupancy.
If the consequent damage was not done maliciously... it's wear and tear.
The onus was on the LL to either direct the prospect to an ADA type unit or to somehow protect themselves IN THE LEASE. Based on what the OP indicates the LL did neither.
I'm not giving the LL a pass. Sorry.
If there are different "wear and tear" rules because of a handicap, the net effect is handicapped people will find it more difficult to find housing. I don't think handicapped people really want that. Their cost of living may be higher than others but is it fair that the landlord is the one to make up the difference?
...but is it fair that the landlord is the one to make up the difference?
What does "fair" have to do with anything?
The OP gives little detail to work off of...
except the implication that the inevitable damage from having wheelchair(s?) in the unit seems to be coming as a surprise to everyone.
I say that is an absurd position to take.
I also say that the onus is PRINCIPALLY on the LL as the owner of the property and the party drafting the lease to act proactively by laying out their expectations about maintaining condition and the repercussions for the family with dogs or young kids (or wheelchairs) etc who might lease it... so that when that inevitable extraordinary damage occurs from the occupancy of these types of tenants they have the nature of repair responsibility clearly established.
Some conclude that the onus is SOLELY on the tenant.
I disagree.
Last edited by MrRational; 09-05-2011 at 09:25 AM..
I'm sure my relatives are going to lose their security deposit. They may even be charged extra fees for the damage, we're not sure. Can the security deposit be fought due to the relative being handicapped? There is no way the damage to the carpet and the wall could have been prevented.
The reason things were damaged is irrelevant. The fact it that they were damaged. They should lose their deposit.
I also say that the onus is PRINCIPALLY on the LL as the owner of the property and the party drafting the lease to act proactively by laying out their expectations about maintaining condition and the repercussions for the family with dogs or young kids (or wheelchairs) etc who might lease it... so that when that inevitable extraordinary damage occurs from the occupancy of these types of tenants they have the nature of repair responsibility clearly established.
Since your not a landlord, what you are saying it makes sense from the common man position, but its not supported by law.
First, you can not add anything into a lease that references a persons; disability or medical equipment. The only exception is if the unit is specifically designed as a handicap unit and your are outlining features specific to that apartment, but nothing can be in the lease about any expectations regarding the disability. That is the law and good or bad, Landlords must follow it.
Second, the laws generally view wear and tear as incidental damages related to the "NORMAL" use of the apartment. That is defined as wear and tear that would occur by a tenants presence and normal use, not any damages. Damages is anything above the normal use. Most courts view damages as anything the tenant caused such as simple nail holes. Stains on carpets are considerd damages not wear and tear. Minor dulling of the paint along walls is wear and tear, scratches and marks on the paint is damages.
May I suggest you spend the money to speak with a lawyer who specializes in LL-Tenat practice and get the scoop dirct from them. I do understand your laymans opinion but please understand that it doen;t follow the laws LL must follow.
No damge that is beyond normal wear is damage that the deposit was taken to cover.Malicious is not the same even has accidental which is also recoverable by the property owner as damage caused beyond noraml wear an dtear, Spill something on carpet that is evident and its recoverable. Malicious can be criminal in fact.Renting a property does not give you exception for criminal mischief that is intentional. to someone elses property.
Since your not a landlord...
I've been a LL in the past. Successfully too.
First, you can not add anything into a lease that references a persons; disability or medical equipment.
You don't have to "add anything" more than you would/should use with any tenant.
Things like a few photographs and specific statements of your expectation; that it goes beyond nail holes level.
Which is what I've been saying here (if you bother to read what I wrote):
That the OP's implication that this damage came as some sort of surprise to everyone is absurd.
Second, the laws generally view wear and tear as incidental damages related to the "NORMAL" use of the apartment.
Thanks for the lecture. You're missing the point
I'm sticking with my position (which several seem bent on trying to restate to suit their own views).
Last edited by MrRational; 09-05-2011 at 09:59 PM..
If I was a betting man and this went to court I would put my money on the LL.
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.
