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.
If I honestly thought for one second I was giving freebies I would have moved onto sending carefully worded letters to the property management company.
There definitely is some hope. I found this on the Austin Tenant's Advisor website so perhaps you can dig a bit further or make a few calls to see if it applies for the city/county you live in:
The Austin Tenants' Council (512-474-1961)
Legal Aid of Central Texas (512-476-7244)
The Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division (512-463-2070)
The Texas Tenants Council (214-828-4244)
Austin Tenants’ Council/Security Deposits
Sometimes landlords will take deductions which are questionable. For example, if a tenant lived in a house for two years and left a cigarette burn in the 15-year-old living room carpet, the landlord should not charge the tenant the full cost for replacing the carpet throughout the house. The tenant could challenge this deduction for several reasons: the carpet was not new when the tenant moved in and the tenant damaged only the carpet in one room, not the whole house.
So I am pointing this out because they do actually mention that the full charge could be challenged for 2 reasons and one of them is "it could be challenged because the carpet was not new".
I know your situation is different however the principal is the same about the age of the carpet.
... the landlord should not charge the tenant the full cost for replacing the carpet throughout the house. [b]The tenant could challenge this deduction for several reasons: the carpet was not new when the tenant moved in and the tenant damaged only the carpet in one room, not the whole house.
That's the relevant point and the OP is only being charged for carpet replacement in that one room. Sounds from his last post that the OP has done his own careful research and, if still in doubt, should seek legal advice if the response to his written dispute doesn't explain the deduction to his satisfaction.
On another note, I wonder why so many rental properties prefer carpet. I'd much rather have laminate floors. They are easier to clean and will not stain. They can get scratched, but it takes a lot more force to scratch wood floors than to stain carpet.
That's the relevant point and the OP is only being charged for carpet replacement in that one room. Sounds from his last post that the OP has done his own careful research and, if still in doubt, should seek legal advice if the response to his written dispute doesn't explain the deduction to his satisfaction.
Oh come on. He wanted to know if he should/could get depreciation on the full cost of carpet in that one room and that is exactly what I was pointing out to him in that statement! It says the full cost could be challenged due to the age of the carpet. No one is disputing that the carpet should be replaced. Only the FULL charge of it.
So, if he chooses, he could make a few calls or pursue it further.
And no one said he shouldn't put it in writing, did they? Not sure why you need to keep repeating that. I said, if he is still questioning whether he can get depreciation or would like to try and purse it further, he can make a few calls and inquire about it based on the statement I posted!
No one knows exactly the steps he needs to take because that is all location based and it can differ. If he makes the calls to inquire about the depreciation then they can give him guidance on exactly what he needs to do.
It's like getting in a accident with a guy in a 87 whatever.
No, it isn't. You can replace your '87 whatever with an '87 whatever, or a '93 whatever, or anything on the spectrum of value. You have the option of an "in-kind" replacement and that's what your insurance covers.
I can't go buy a depreciated carpet and install it. I mean, I haven't been a landlord for all that long, but if you guys have a carpet graveyard where you hang out and buy cheap carpet replacement pieces, I give.
The gray area here that the OP rightly pointed out is that some amount of replacement is to be expected from the landlord over the life of the property anyway, and so shouldn't that be somehow taken into account. This is not unreasonable. I am a landlord in the same place as the OP (Austin) and he has done his homework, but there is a relevant portion of the code that is going unmentioned:
Quote:
the landlord should not charge the tenant the full cost for replacing the carpet throughout the house.
Imagine I'm the landlord here. You bust up the carpet in one room and I have to replace it. The rest of my carpet in the house is 8 years old (or whatever). I now have awesome looking carpet in one room and meh looking carpet in another room. I think this looks bad and maybe I want to replace the rest of the carpet.
Three possible positions to take here:
1) The landlord has to replace carpet at some point anyway and so should charge you the depreciated value (the '87 whatever argument)
2) You done messed up that one room's carpet and so you should pay the replacement value, just as if you broke a window or a plumbing fixture
3) Because your actions resulted in carpet heterogeneity, I think you should pay for replacing ALL the carpet in the house
The code is there to block #3, because that ain't fair. That's the compromise solution. The code is NOT there to block #2. You break (thing), you replace (thing), unless you can establish that the breakage is partially my fault, like I didn't install it right to begin with. None of that is in question here.
Even after the $400 replacement, the landlord is still worse off than he was, because he could argue that the presence of shiny new carpet in one room makes worn out carpet in other rooms look worse. Tough on him, that's life, and that's code. There may well be a legal argument contrary to my view, but it seems to me that the ethical argument is that you replace what you broke (and only what you broke).
after watching tons of these cases on Judge Judy she clearly states that if the carpet is over five yrs old they have no right to ask you to replace it . Also the carpet has to be changed after every tenant in most states anyway and also the place has to be freshly painted . That is the law in most states however check with tenant /landlord laws in your state . Good luck and I hope you don't have to pay for the carpet .
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.
