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.
For some reason people have latched onto the cleaning fee alone instead of the entire deduction.
Because this is the amount for carpet cleaning which the OP particularly disagrees with. His cat clawed the carpet, a portion of which had to be replaced and the "odor-removing" procedure is something he's not likely to have returned. Even though he maintains there were no pet odors at all in the place, most of us know that this is very rarely the case and precisely why many landlords impose a non-refundable pet fee.
Because this is the amount for carpet cleaning which the OP particularly disagrees with. His cat clawed the carpet, a portion of which had to be replaced and the "odor-removing" procedure is something he's not likely to have returned. Even though he maintains there were no pet odors at all in the place, most of us know that this is very rarely the case and precisely why many landlords impose a non-refundable pet fee.
However, the tenant had the carpets professionally cleaned. If there were pet odors (rare with a single cat that uses a litter box), that would also have been addressed by a professional carpet cleaner. We have two cats, and at one time had four (actually, five for a few weeks). They all used the litter box and not the carpet or the furniture. People were surprised to know that we had cats. No odor. Maybe they thought we climbed the cat tree?
This landlord sounds like one who might say they've done these things, but actually did not. The OP does not say if there were receipts for these supposedly performed services, but should ask to see them. The "ozone generator" charge sounds particularly specious - how do they prove that they put an ozone generator in the place? If the OP's lease stated (as several of ours have) that tenant will have carpets professionally cleaned, and s/he can prove that was done with receipt, the landlord should not be charging for that. Also the OP can prove with photos that the residence was left clean, so the landlord should not be charging for general cleaning.
Since this landlord has a bad reputation, it looks like court is the next step. A pain in the butt, but there it is.
However, the tenant had the carpets professionally cleaned.
Yes, I know. The issue which only the OP can determine is (and only if a formal written dispute of the deductions doesn't resolve anything) is whether it's ultimately worth filing suit. He's no longer in the state so has to travel there to file the claim, then he has to go back to appear (hoping that his case will actually be heard on that date) - and the court system in such a case only makes you whole. This is all about a cleaning charge.
I'm generally a firm advocate for pursuing security deposit claims in court when it's clear that a LL has acted in bad faith and when all attempts at remediation have been exhausted. Many are worth pursuing and many are not. In this case only the OP can make that decision.
a) Of course they do but are you seriously suggesting a subpoena (not to mention the cost of serving same) to drag into court someone who can testify to a $120 cleaning charge in connection with a dispute over a total security deposit deduction of $335?
Sounds like the typical "pet did damages" excuse trying to get money out of you. Not unheard of that someone will rent to a pet owner, then claim damages like "odor", or label every little scratch "pet damage" in an effort to retain some or all of the security deposit.
Yes, I know. The issue which only the OP can determine is (and only if a formal written dispute of the deductions doesn't resolve anything) is whether it's ultimately worth filing suit. He's no longer in the state so has to travel there to file the claim, then he has to go back to appear (hoping that his case will actually be heard on that date) - and the court system in such a case only makes you whole. This is all about a cleaning charge.
I'm generally a firm advocate for pursuing security deposit claims in court when it's clear that a LL has acted in bad faith and when all attempts at remediation have been exhausted. Many are worth pursuing and many are not. In this case only the OP can make that decision.
We have only your word that the cleaning wasn't needed. Obviously the landlord disagreed. If the place was not cleaned to their satisfaction and it did have a cat smell, then the bill looks justified to me.
Keeping a portion or all of the security deposit is the biggest shakedown landlords pull on renters. Most tenants don't want the hassle of bringing the LL to court, and so the LL continues to get away with it. IMO the ozone treatment sounds suspicious.
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.
