Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-28-2017, 01:08 PM
 
1 posts, read 578 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Hello, my roommates and I recently left an apartment that we lived for a year in San Francisco on June 1st. During the move-out inspection, the landlord noticed a chip (size of a fingernail or dime) on the countertop and said he will get back to us about potentially replacing it or repairing it. The next day, he was quoted around $3500 for the replacement of the entire countertop, but told us he found someone who could repair it for much less. On this same day, I contacted a well-reviewed countertop repair business on Yelp and got a quote for repair at $620, but since he said he found someone who could do it, I did not send him this info.

Fast-forward to June 16th, he had no repair scheduled despite the 21-day deadline for security deposit approaching fast on June 22nd. As a result, I put him in touch with the owner of the aforementioned repair business to get this thing over with. As of this week, the repair has finally been scheduled and the repair has been quoted at $640 and we will be deducted $640 for the repair, which we are ok with.

However, he is deducting $500 more as form of a partial payment to the $3500 repair. In his words: "partial payment is how many times damage like that can occur before I am forced to replace the entire counter top. I estimated a generous 7, and divided the ~$3,500 into that many parts." He is sending out the security deposit in check via mail with these deductions today.

Is this a legal deduction of our security deposit even though a deduction for repair exists? Our lease and California Civil Code §1950.5 states the following: "owner may retain such amounts of the Security Deposit as allowed by law including, but not limited to, amounts required to remedy future defaults by Tenant in any obligation under this Agreement to restore, replace, repair or return personal property or appurtenances, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear."

I've read on past threads that if the landlord misses the 21-day deadline, tenants could demand the full deposit in return. I'm willing to let this slide, but this extra deduction really feels like he's just trying to screw us. I am willing to take this to the small claims court for this deduction and how he's just been an unprofessional pain the a** during our stay.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated and thank you in advance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top