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 have been a landlord in the Pittsburgh area for over 20 years. Before a tenant moves into one of my rental units, I take pictures and/or videotape the entire unit. I do the same thing when a tenant moves out. I have never had a tenant win a case against me when disputing a security deposit deduction. The odds are very much against you, unless you have taken pictures, as well, of recovering any portion of your claim.
My experience disagrees with this. There are good landlords and there are bad landlords and the magistrates typically know who is who. I rented in 3 places inside the city, and two outside, and had only two deposit disputes and won both of them. In one case the landlord added a clause to new leases which prevented subletting but never sent me the new lease. He tried to withhold the deposit but couldn't produce a signed lease. When I went to the magistrate the words out of his mouth were "Yah, we know him pretty well in here."
In the other case tried to withold the security deposit even though we were on a month to month lease. Problem is that he had electrical sockets without covers, a three story "fire escape" built with 2x4s, unfinished plumbing on the third floor and about 15 other building and fire code violations. I took pictures and sent him a letter saying that he had 10 days to return my deposit or I would file a complaint with the Health Department. I had no problems, there, either.
The landlord is either correct or this is a scam. If it is the latter, then it is likely that this isn't the first time nor is it likely that this has worked in every case. Sending a certified letter costs you a couple of bucks and going to the magistrate is not that expensive. If he balks, then you might have a tough time, but I wouldn't pass up the opportunity to try.
My experience disagrees with this. There are good landlords and there are bad landlords and the magistrates typically know who is who. I rented in 3 places inside the city, and two outside, and had only two deposit disputes and won both of them. In one case the landlord added a clause to new leases which prevented subletting but never sent me the new lease. He tried to withhold the deposit but couldn't produce a signed lease. When I went to the magistrate the words out of his mouth were "Yah, we know him pretty well in here."
In the other case tried to withold the security deposit even though we were on a month to month lease. Problem is that he had electrical sockets without covers, a three story "fire escape" built with 2x4s, unfinished plumbing on the third floor and about 15 other building and fire code violations. I took pictures and sent him a letter saying that he had 10 days to return my deposit or I would file a complaint with the Health Department. I had no problems, there, either.
The landlord is either correct or this is a scam. If it is the latter, then it is likely that this isn't the first time nor is it likely that this has worked in every case. Sending a certified letter costs you a couple of bucks and going to the magistrate is not that expensive. If he balks, then you might have a tough time, but I wouldn't pass up the opportunity to try.
My leases are created by my attorneys for me, and for my protection. I take pictures before/after, take excellent care of my properties, and expect the same from my tenants. You will not move into any of my rentals without the units being able to pass any inspection. If you damage my property, and you claim that the problem was "pre-existing", I will embarrass you in court. If you challenge my assessment of damages, I will embarrass you in court. I am organized, planned, and strive to protect my assets.
Any renter who chooses to rent a property with pre-existing problems, is a renter waiting for something that will probably not happen.... a responsible landlord. Landlords who tend to be reactive, instead of proactive to the problems, will create an early adverse relationship with the renter. One needs to remember that the landlord creates a lease most advantageous to his priorities... he makes the rules & you agree to follow when the lease is signed.
My leases are created by my attorneys for me, and for my protection. I take pictures before/after, take excellent care of my properties, and expect the same from my tenants. You will not move into any of my rentals without the units being able to pass any inspection. If you damage my property, and you claim that the problem was "pre-existing", I will embarrass you in court. If you challenge my assessment of damages, I will embarrass you in court. I am organized, planned, and strive to protect my assets.
And I'm not giving you advice, it is intended for the OP. And there are bad landlords in the region. I have experience some, first hand.
The County Housing Department, the City Building Inspectors, Pitt, CMU and Duquense Universities maintain databases of these for the purposes of warning potential renters. Some choose not to take advice and some still rent because the prices are right.
And it is possible to sue bad landlords and I have done it, or threatened to do it, with success. I, like you, take pictures of a place before I move in and before I move out and I always hire a cleaning service to do a last day run through so I have a witness.
You are automatically assuming that the OP damaged the unit and now wants to get out of his/her obligations to the landlord. That's a pretty big leap of faith given what was posted and your defensiveness implies an anti-tenant bias.
And I'm not giving you advice, it is intended for the OP. And there are bad landlords in the region. I have experience some, first hand.
The County Housing Department, the City Building Inspectors, Pitt, CMU and Duquense Universities maintain databases of these for the purposes of warning potential renters. Some choose not to take advice and some still rent because the prices are right.
And it is possible to sue bad landlords and I have done it, or threatened to do it, with success. I, like you, take pictures of a place before I move in and before I move out and I always hire a cleaning service to do a last day run through so I have a witness.
You are automatically assuming that the OP damaged the unit and now wants to get out of his/her obligations to the landlord. That's a pretty big leap of faith given what was posted and your defensiveness implies an anti-tenant bias.
From the OP, it appears that he does not have any evidence to prove his claim of leaving the apartment "clean". When one goes before a district justice (as a tenant) without the necessary evidence to support his claim, he will almost certainly lose. The worst of landlords will bring a stash of pictures and the balance of proof will lean his way... how could it not?
It is almost a foregone conclusion that the unscrupulous landlord will rely upon tenant apathy in maintaining the documentation (pictures, videos, etc.) to further his justification of withholding part/all of the security deposit.
Can the tenant win in a case against an unreasonable landlord? Absolutely, but only if his/her evidence is substantial enough to overcome the landlord's. Otherwise, it can turn into another costly lesson in futility.
From the OP, it appears that he does not have any evidence to prove his claim of leaving the apartment "clean".
It is the other way around. The burden of proof is on the landlord to show damages. That is the justification for keeping all or part of the security deposit. So far, the landlord has showed the OP only "quotes" and, to be frank, I would question those as well.
The OP is being reasonable in asking for documentation that the work was completed and necessary. If the landlord cannot prove that the he suffered damages he is not entitled to keep the deposit.
It is the other way around. The burden of proof is on the landlord to show damages. That is the justification for keeping all or part of the security deposit. So far, the landlord has showed the OP only "quotes" and, to be frank, I would question those as well.
The OP is being reasonable in asking for documentation that the work was completed and necessary. If the landlord cannot prove that the he suffered damages he is not entitled to keep the deposit.
I am landlord who has gone to court more than a few times, and has won my cases every time. When I go to court, I have my before and after pictures. I have my list of documented charges, and usually my final cumulative charges will be more than the security deposit. When I show all of the overwhelming proof , and I show that the damages (and my published report of standard charges for repairs) exceed the amount of the security deposit withheld.... SLAM DUNK!! Sometimes, when I counter sue, the magistrate has awarded me an additional sum because the damages have prevented me from renting the unit for part/all of the following month.
Your advice is so poor. A landlord does not have to prove to you, or anyone else, that repairs have been completed, any more than you need to prove to an insurance company that you have made the repairs upon your car following a claim. If you, as a renter, damage my property, I am entitled to be made "whole" by the judicial system, and the courts will make every attempt to derive a decision that reflects this. It could conceivably cost the renter challenging the prepared landlord in court a lot more than his/her time; it could be a whole lot more expensive.
Everything rests on the landlord's ability to prove that the tenant damaged property. Based on what I know privately, I don't think that's possible.
If that be the case, how can you explain that I personally have never been on the losing end of a security deposit challenge as a landlord, and I have been in more than a few? It would be like saying that I could not prove that you hit my car when I have the witnesses, the paint from your car on mine, the pictures, your license plate number, etc.....
I believe that you premise is absurd, based upon the limited information from which you base your opinion. I maintain that the person renting the property, the signee(s) of the lease, are ultimately responsible for any of the damages done to the property during their tenancy, sans an act of God. I have been successful in proving this in a court of law consistently.
If that be the case, how can you explain that I personally have never been on the losing end of a security deposit challenge as a landlord, and I have been in more than a few? It would be like saying that I could not prove that you hit my car when I have the witnesses, the paint from your car on mine, the pictures, your license plate number, etc.....
I believe that you premise is absurd, based upon the limited information from which you base your opinion. I maintain that the person renting the property, the signee(s) of the lease, are ultimately responsible for any of the damages done to the property during their tenancy, sans an act of God. I have been successful in proving this in a court of law consistently.
You damned well better be able to prove those pictures are recent!!!
Everything rests on the landlord's ability to prove that the tenant damaged property. Based on what I know privately, I don't think that's possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
If that be the case, how can you explain that I personally have never been on the losing end of a security deposit challenge as a landlord, and I have been in more than a few?
Because you had proof! I commend you for being so detail oriented. I've always won as a tenant for the very same reason.
It's my experience through my years of renting decades ago that you are the exception rather than the rule.
Few landlords are good at documentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
It would be like saying that I could not prove that you hit my car when I have the witnesses, the paint from your car on mine, the pictures, your license plate number, etc.....
Why do you assume this landlord has proof of the condition of the property prior to renting it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
I maintain that the person renting the property, the signee(s) of the lease, are ultimately responsible for any of the damages done to the property during their tenancy, sans an act of God.
And it's your responsibility to prove that it happened during the tenancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
I have been successful in proving this in a court of law consistently.
Not all landlords are actively involved in their business like you. There are landlords who live in different cities and have never once seen the properties they own.
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.
