Badly need help!!!! Landlord wants to keep my security deposit. (Penn: lease, house insurance)

[JoeLeaphorn]

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? 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.....

First of all, I'd have to say that you aren't very smart at picking your renters. If I was always spending my time in court suing my clients, I'd be thinking about getting a better class of client.

Second, your legal reasoning is poor and, in fact, you make my point. You go to court with evidence and not simply your charming personality. You are making the allegation therefore the burden of proof is yours. The OP said that the condition of the place was better than it was at move in. You don't have any evidence that it wasn't yet you immediately assume that the OP is lying and trying to look for a legal way to wriggle out of losing his security deposit.

Somebody gave you a button and you decided to sew a vest on it.

Originally Posted by Retiredcoach

I believe that you premise is absurd, based upon the limited information from which you base your opinion.

See above.

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. I have been successful in proving this in a court of law consistently.

See that word in there, "proof"? Glad you brought it up because that is my point, exactly. You need to be able to prove damages. The OP did not mention what estimates he was provided but estimates for painting and carpeting could fall under normal wear and tear unless the landlord can prove (there's that ugly little word, again), that these were necessary as a result of the deliberate or negligant treatment of the property by the renter.

Again, the OP stated that the condition of the place was better than at move in. What possible reason do you have to doubt him?

[Tallysmom]

Beyond all this tiffing -- why is normal cleaning taken out of the security deposit?

At least out here, a landlord is required to have the carpets cleaned in between renters, and if the time between renters is more than 2 years the landlord is required to paint. On HIS dime.

That doesn't come out of the security deposit. The tenant is allowed normal wear and tear -- which includes nail holes in the walls to hang pictures.

The security deposit comes into play with ruining carpets, ruining drapes... leaving the place a wreck.

That being said -- it does sound as if the OP is getting a raw deal.... good luck on it...

[Hopes]

Normal wear and tear shouldn't be deducted from security deposits in Pennsylvania either.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Tallysmom

and if the time between renters is more than 2 years the landlord is required to paint. On HIS dime.

Sounds like typical tree hugging California. How many of you paint your house every two years? That's a crock to me.

[Hopes]

Tree hugging? Just think of all those unnecessary chemicals......

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by COPANUT

Sounds like typical tree hugging California. How many of you paint your house every two years? That's a crock to me.

Not really -- most landlords out here use cheap flat paint that isn't scrubbable. With nail holes to cover and the obvious "this is where the pictures hung" markings, repainting is usually the cheapest and fastest way to make the place presentable to the next renter.

Tape some plastic over the windows, lay down some drop cloths, a good painter can spray a room in less than an hour. A 2 bedroom apartment will be done in less than a day -- the next day the landlord is showing a place that can be rented for top dollar.

[Hopes]

That's one thing I hated about renting---boring white walls.

I've never understood why landlords rarely let tenants paint in a color other than white.

They should just require an additional security deposit for repainting if it's not white upon vacancy.

Then again, maybe they don't want the paint buildup.

[Retiredcoach]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

First of all, I'd have to say that you aren't very smart at picking your renters. If I was always spending my time in court suing my clients, I'd be thinking about getting a better class of client.

Second, your legal reasoning is poor and, in fact, you make my point. You go to court with evidence and not simply your charming personality. You are making the allegation therefore the burden of proof is yours. The OP said that the condition of the place was better than it was at move in. You don't have any evidence that it wasn't yet you immediately assume that the OP is lying and trying to look for a legal way to wriggle out of losing his security deposit.

Somebody gave you a button and you decided to sew a vest on it.



See above.



See that word in there, "proof"? Glad you brought it up because that is my point, exactly. You need to be able to prove damages. The OP did not mention what estimates he was provided but estimates for painting and carpeting could fall under normal wear and tear unless the landlord can prove (there's that ugly little word, again), that these were necessary as a result of the deliberate or negligant treatment of the property by the renter.

Again, the OP stated that the condition of the place was better than at move in. What possible reason do you have to doubt him?

Sometimes I believe that I am talking to a stone, but I will give one last, probably futile attempt to educate the misinformed or the blindly naive....

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. 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.

I do not need to show a tenant my pictures, but I am always available to do a final walk-through on his / her final date of tenancy. I do not have to show him/her evidence that repairs have been done, ever. Not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend, 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.

[Retiredcoach]

Originally Posted by Hopes

That's one thing I hated about renting---boring white walls.

I've never understood why landlords rarely let tenants paint in a color other than white.

They should just require an additional security deposit for repainting if it's not white upon vacancy.

Then again, maybe they don't want the paint buildup.

With white paint, the landlord does not need to worry about masking the white trim, nor "cutting in" where the walls meet the ceiling. It is a cost-saver, especially if the unit is generally vacated after one year.

[Retiredcoach]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Normal wear and tear shouldn't be deducted from security deposits in Pennsylvania either.

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:

http://movingtoanapartment.com/moving-tips/apartment-answers-how-do-you-know-if-its-normal-wear-and-tear (broken link).