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.
We often get an invoice and contractors write on it "estimate" as they have written it up at the time when we inquired and later they fax it over and once we pay we don't get anything else other then we never pay cash so we have a track record.
I doubt just as another poster mentioned that a contractor will give out information over the phone to a stranger but having said that the LL needs to proof that the work is performed and that is done by showing proof of payment as well as the receipt.
That doesn't mean the LL has to show you the proof but in court it will need to be proven.
I once had a tenant who left the place very dirty and I asked the cleaning crew for an invoice with "extremely dirty" on it which they did and it helped me later in court. I even brought a piece of the carpet to court.
Location: St Thomas, USVI - Seattle, WA - Gulf Coast, TX
811 posts, read 1,146,098 times
Reputation: 2322
As another poster suggested, I highly recommend walking through the rental with your LL when you hand over keys. That gives your LL an opportunity to point issues out to you and still gives you the opportunity to complete any missed/incomplete cleaning before it's too late. Hopefully this walkthrough happened when you moved in, as well, which would have helped your claim that your left the place in better condition that when you moved in.
Even though it sounds questionable whether the cleaning services were provided by those specific companies, it would still be perfectly okay for your LL to deduct based on an estimate (in most states). That way, for example, if your LL completed the cleaning by his/herself, a reasonable price point has been placed on that labor.
Dirty carpet and tile does not constitute wear and tear. I'm not sure why that is constantly up for debate on this forum. Wear and tear is wear and tear. Dirt can be cleaned. Simple enough.
I'm sorry this has happened to you, OP. Sounds like you did your best to take good care of the place and leave it is great, clean condition. In the future, request a walkthrough when you move in (listing any imperfections upon move-in) and again when you move out. Hopefully that will avoid any suspect deductions from your deposit.
Dirty carpet and tile does not constitute wear and tear. I'm not sure why that is constantly up for debate on this forum. Wear and tear is wear and tear. Dirt can be cleaned. Simple enough.
I am not sure why you are so adamant that 'dirty carpet and tile does not constitute wear and tear'. It can.
Lightly soiled tile, and carpet with light dirt and minor stains that do not require special treatment CAN constitute as normal wear and tear and it IS in many states. It is completely subjective and good photos from both parties will help each case. And IF the OP had the place thoroughly cleaned twice shortly before moving as they stated and have bills to prove it then that is enough to at least pursue the excessive sec dep deduction further. The extreme cleaning of grout is a very detailed job and I highly doubt many judges would be requiring tenants to clean or pay to have grout cleaned to the extent the LL did. It would be and can be considered reasonable and normal wear and tear by judges in many states.
I am not sure why you are so adamant that 'dirty carpet and tile does not constitute wear and tear'. It can.
Lightly soiled tile, and carpet with light dirt and minor stains that do not require special treatment CAN constitute as normal wear and tear and it IS in many states. It is completely subjective and good photos from both parties will help each case. And IF the OP had the place thoroughly cleaned twice shortly before moving as they stated and have bills to prove it then that is enough to at least pursue the excessive sec dep deduction further. The extreme cleaning of grout is a very detailed job and I highly doubt many judges would be requiring tenants to clean or pay to have grout cleaned to the extent the LL did. It would be and can be considered reasonable and normal wear and tear by judges in many states.
cleaning grout is the tenants responsibility and if it was done on a regular basis (by the tenant) it wouldn't need an 'extreme' cleaning. It's not that hard to keep your grout clean.
cleaning grout is the tenants responsibility and if it was done on a regular basis (by the tenant) it wouldn't need an 'extreme' cleaning. It's not that hard to keep your grout clean.
Dirt and stains are not wear and tear.
Please read my post again. I did NOT say whether ALL 'dirt and stains' were, 'for certain' considered normal wear and tear. I said 'light dirt and light stains that do not require special spot cleaning'CAN be 'subjective' and each individual state and judge may determine and rule on it differently.
"Moderate dirt or spotting on carpet" is considered normal wear and tear and are the LLs responsibility"
So again, it is subjective. I have handled enough of these types of cases while in property management as well as my own personal cases to know that it can lean either way depending on the severity. And when it comes right down to it, a judge is the only one who can make that final determination if it is challenged, not you.
And as far as grout, it depends on the grout. I have a situation right now that we, as the property management company, are not going to charge the tenant for it in any way, shape or form. Tenant has lived in unit for over 5 years and we know that this grout collects dirt very easily and is difficult to get the dirt out with regular mopping and scrubbing by the tenant. It is not sealed and has also worn down some so we are well aware that this is normal wear and tear and no judge in my state is going to allow charging for it.
Why, again, some of you are so adamant that these situations are 100% one way or the other, is beyond me. It is one of the most grey areas out there. And just because LLs may get away with charging for it in many states does NOT mean that if it were challenged in court, that it would be either legal, enforceable or reasonable. But as we all know, many tenants do not know their state laws, nor can they take the time and money, to always fight it.
Location: St Thomas, USVI - Seattle, WA - Gulf Coast, TX
811 posts, read 1,146,098 times
Reputation: 2322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn-fused
I am not sure why you are so adamant that 'dirty carpet and tile does not constitute wear and tear'. It can.
Lightly soiled tile, and carpet with light dirt and minor stains that do not require special treatment CAN constitute as normal wear and tear and it IS in many states. It is completely subjective and good photos from both parties will help each case. And IF the OP had the place thoroughly cleaned twice shortly before moving as they stated and have bills to prove it then that is enough to at least pursue the excessive sec dep deduction further. The extreme cleaning of grout is a very detailed job and I highly doubt many judges would be requiring tenants to clean or pay to have grout cleaned to the extent the LL did. It would be and can be considered reasonable and normal wear and tear by judges in many states.
I 100% agree: If the OP has a record of cleaning and, as it sounds, left the place in better condition than it was to begin with, a case could definitely be made here and the OP should not have to pay extra.
The dirt-as-wear-and-tear thing does not make sense to me, but that doesn't mean that laws in states I'm unfamiliar with don't disagree. Logic and the law don't always coincide. It makes sense to me that a place should be left as clean as it was found (even if that means scrubbing grout, which could/should be maintained throughout the time the place was inhabited so that it doesn't become an intense job). If it's a simple matter of cleaning, I just don't see how that's wear and tear (which would be reasonable, permanent damage caused by general use). It sounds like I'm just lucky that my state laws agree. Wear and tear certainly could involve carpet stains, as long as the carpet cleaner is unable to get those stains out with thorough cleaning.
In the OP's case, this is an unfair security deposit deduction, without a doubt.
I 100% agree: If the OP has a record of cleaning and, as it sounds, left the place in better condition than it was to begin with, a case could definitely be made here and the OP should not have to pay extra.
The dirt-as-wear-and-tear thing does not make sense to me, but that doesn't mean that laws in states I'm unfamiliar with don't disagree. Logic and the law don't always coincide. It makes sense to me that a place should be left as clean as it was found (even if that means scrubbing grout, which could/should be maintained throughout the time the place was inhabited so that it doesn't become an intense job). If it's a simple matter of cleaning, I just don't see how that's wear and tear (which would be reasonable, permanent damage caused by general use). It sounds like I'm just lucky that my state laws agree. Wear and tear certainly could involve carpet stains, as long as the carpet cleaner is unable to get those stains out with thorough cleaning.
In the OP's case, this is an unfair security deposit deduction, without a doubt.
Cool
And it is all purely subjective when either side is a bit more 'nit-picky' and it ends up going in front of a judge. And if it was so cut and dry either way then so many people wouldn't be contesting it.
As an example for grout: we have many units that still have this particular flooring in their units (see photo in this thread //www.city-data.com/forum/renti...grout-tub.html). We have had a horrible time trying to keep these clean whether a tenant has been there 6 months or 10 years. The owner had purchase these buildings with this flooring already in them. Not only does this tile show every speck of dirt even after it is thoroughly cleaned but the grout is a bear to maintain and keep clean. It is like unfinished cement in the grout areas so it is porous and collects a lot of dirt even over short periods of time whether the tenant scrubs it frequently or not.
We are currently either replacing these floor if the tiles are damaged enough or we are trying to find the best solutions to clean this grout and then seal it so we don't have this same issue every time someone moves. (In the link above I am asking others about the best products/solutions/procedures to attempt cleaning this grout)
There is absolutely no way we would ever charge a tenant for cleaning this grout and we know we would never win in court anyway even if we did try to charge for it. And I totally understand that 'some' grout is MUCH easier to clean and can be kept clean much easier with regular cleaning. And then again, we have also had problems with nonporous type grouts yellowing and aging over time as well so we wouldn't charge for that either.
Location: St Thomas, USVI - Seattle, WA - Gulf Coast, TX
811 posts, read 1,146,098 times
Reputation: 2322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn-fused
Cool
As an example for grout: we have many units that still have this particular flooring in their units (see photo in this thread //www.city-data.com/forum/renti...grout-tub.html). We have had a horrible time trying to keep these clean whether a tenant has been there 6 months or 10 years. The owner had purchase these buildings with this flooring already in them. Not only does this tile show every speck of dirt even after it is thoroughly cleaned but the grout is a bear to maintain and keep clean. It is like unfinished cement in the grout areas so it is porous and collects a lot of dirt even over short periods of time whether the tenant scrubs it frequently or not.
Ugh - that sucks. I definitely see what you mean in that case. It's a case of the builder (or whoever) using a material that is not realistic for a rental (or for anyone - I wouldn't want to deal with that in my own home! ). Replacing the tile or finding a way to seal it really well will be the only way to avoid trouble with cleaning responsibilities and costs on that one. Definitely falls into that weird area of dirt=wear and tear. Point well made.
That seems a bit steep and could be considered normal wear and tear.
Cleaning has nothing to do with normal wear and tear.
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.
It makes sense to me that a place should be left as clean as it was found (even if that means scrubbing grout, which could/should be maintained throughout the time the place was inhabited so that it doesn't become an intense job). If it's a simple matter of cleaning, I just don't see how that's wear and tear (which would be reasonable, permanent damage caused by general use). It sounds like I'm just lucky that my state laws agree. Wear and tear certainly could involve carpet stains, as long as the carpet cleaner is unable to get those stains out with thorough cleaning.
