Arizona: Landlord NOT Applying nonrefundable pet cleaning fee towards damaged carpet

[Fju2]

Arizona.

My former Landlord (LL) sent my wife and I a bill indicating a balance of $116.89 for replacing the carpet. No, it's not that much, but at this point it's about the principle and not just bending over for large corporations.

When we signed the lease, we paid a $20 refundable security deposit (special promotion), a $200 refundable pet deposit, and a $200 non-refundable pet CLEANING fee due to our two chihuahuas, totaling $420 in fees/deposits.

We concede that the dogs DID put two small holes in the carpet, but do not believe the carpets should have been replaced entirely. When we signed the lease, it included an itemized charge form that stated the minimum charge for a rip/tear in the carpet is $45 each. This, of course, leads one to believe that the holes can in fact be repaired. At this rate, the amount we owe should be $90 ($45x2, duh), and this of course would be deducted from the fees/deposits we paid upon move in.

We took pictures of the holes and had the carpet professionally cleaned after we moved out. The carpet cleaner even wrote on the receipt, "Carpet Above Average Condition."

I've got two issues with the LL's request for money:
1. Per Arizona Residential Landlord & Tenant Act:
"B. The purpose of all nonrefundable fees or deposits
shall be stated in writing by the landlord."

Back to the $200 non-refundable pet cleaning fee we paid-- It does in fact state that it's a non-refundable pet cleaning fee, but does this mean the LL can collect a fee, name it, and not use it for its intended purposes? Are they allowed to NOT apply the nonrefundable pet cleaning fee towards the damages the pets caused? There would be no other "cleaning" necessary, as we left the unit immaculate.

2. What determines whether or not they replace the carpet instead of repairing the holes? If they repaired the carpet with patchwork-- which IS possible-- we would actually be owed the remainder of our refundable pet deposit and security deposit, totaling a refund of $130 ($220-90, duh again).

Pictures of the holes (SFW):
<script src='http://imageshack.us/shareable/?i=carpet1v.jpg&s=69' type='text/javascript'></script><noscript>[URL]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/474/carpet1v.jpg[/URL]</noscript>

<script src='http://imageshack.us/shareable/?i=carpet2.jpg&s=217' type='text/javascript'></script><noscript>[URL]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7646/carpet2.jpg[/URL]</noscript>

And proof it's not an abnormally large pen:
<script src='http://imageshack.us/shareable/?i=pensize.jpg&s=836' type='text/javascript'></script><noscript>[URL]http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4742/pensize.jpg[/URL]</noscript>

 

[Gail in Georgia]

Please explain how you believe these holes can be "repaired". Do you believe a "patchwork rug" would be suitable to the next tenant (and to paraphrase you, "duh")?

What the itemized form charges stated is that the MINIMUM charge for a rip/tear in the carpet is $45. This does not mean this IS the charge for such damage, only that it is no less than $45 a hole.

$116 for replacing a carpet is pretty inexpensive. Your landlord may have 1. used the $200 refundable pet deposit toward the carpet replacement (since it's your pets that did this damage), 2. prorated the cost of the carpet replacement based on the remaining life in the carpet and then 3. charged you for the remainder.

Nevertheless, if you disagree with what was kept, you write what is known as a "demand" letter demanding what you believe you are fairly owed and giving the landlord/management a certain amount of time (say, two weeks after they receive this) to refund this amount to you.

If they do not respond satisfactorily, you're next step is to consider filing a lawsuit against them for these funds.


Gail

 

[Fju2]

Please explain how you believe these holes can be "repaired". Do you believe a "patchwork rug" would be suitable to the next tenant (and to paraphrase you, "duh")?

CARPET REPAIR

See above link for examples. This is neither a new practice nor rocket science, and it's listed as an option in the lease, so yes, I do believe it would be suitable to the next tenant. So, yes, duh would be a valid expression.

What the itemized form charges stated is that the MINIMUM charge for a rip/tear in the carpet is $45. This does not mean this IS the charge for such damage, only that it is no less than $45 a hole.

Very true. Let's hypothetically say they charge twice the minimum per hole --since they are just so big -- so $180 total, which would still leave us with a refund of $40, assuming they would not apply the $200 non-refundable pet cleaning fee towards damages.

$116 for replacing a carpet is pretty inexpensive.

Indeed it is, but that is the balance AFTER they mitigated costs with the $20 refundable security deposit and $200 refundable pet deposit; the prorated cost of the carpet replacement based on the remaining life in the carpet was $336.89.

Your landlord may have 1. used the $200 refundable pet deposit toward the carpet replacement (since it's your pets that did this damage), 2. prorated the cost of the carpet replacement based on the remaining life in the carpet and then 3. charged you for the remainder.

They did both. This has never been in dispute. Even if they did justly replace the carpet, they still should have used the non-refundable pet cleaning fee to mitigate costs. Nowhere in the lease does it say they are charging the pet CLEANING fee just for the sake of having pets. What exactly did they "clean"? Nothing. If they consider replacing the carpet a pet cleaning fee, then fine, use the pet CLEANING fee to help cover costs, rather than just take someone's money. To me, this seems logical. I'm looking for advice and others' experience on the issue.

Nevertheless, if you disagree with what was kept, you write what is known as a "demand" letter demanding what you believe you are fairly owed and giving the landlord/management a certain amount of time (say, two weeks after they receive this) to refund this amount to you.

If they do not respond satisfactorily, you're next step is to consider filing a lawsuit against them for these funds.
Gail

I've already done this. I'm looking for input before I file a claim. I do not want to waste the filing and processing fee if I've got no ground to stand on. Ethically, I believe I do. Legally, I'm not so sure, hence the reason I'm here.

I'd be satisfied with no refund of any money. I believe based on our lease, I am entitled to a refund, but at this point, I will be happy if this is settled with them not asking for MORE money.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

It would appear that this landlord/management is quite familiar with following the landlord/tenant laws in Arizona, i.e.,:

1. attaching the term "cleaning" to the nonrefundable pet fee as required by this state.

2. accurately (from a legal standpoint) prorating the cost of the carpet based on the remaining life of the current one.

It remains up to you as to whether you wish to file a lawsuit regarding this issue using the argument that the pet CLEANING fee should also be put toward a carpet REPLACEMENT cost.

Gail

 

[Fju2]

I'm glad someone's responding, but you're not actually answering my questions and you're telling me what I already know. I'll state them again for someone else, preferably someone that has experienced the same problem(s):

1. Back to the $200 non-refundable pet cleaning fee we paid-- It does in fact state that it's a non-refundable pet cleaning fee, but does this mean the LL can collect a fee, name it, and not use it for its intended purposes? Are they allowed to NOT apply the nonrefundable pet cleaning fee towards the damages the pets caused? There would be no other "cleaning" necessary, as we left the unit immaculate.


2. What determines whether or not they replace the carpet instead of repairing the holes? If they repaired the carpet with patchwork-- which IS possible-- we would actually be owed the remainder of our refundable pet deposit and security deposit, totaling a refund of $130 ($220-90, duh again).

 

[Free_Advice]

1. Back to the $200 non-refundable pet cleaning fee we paid-- It does in fact state that it's a non-refundable pet cleaning fee, but does this mean the LL can collect a fee, name it, and not use it for its intended purposes? Are they allowed to NOT apply the nonrefundable pet cleaning fee towards the damages the pets caused? There would be no other "cleaning" necessary, as we left the unit immaculate.

Short answer is yes. Sorry.

 

[treese]

1. Back to the $200 non-refundable pet cleaning fee we paid-- It does in fact state that it's a non-refundable pet cleaning fee, but does this mean the LL can collect a fee, name it, and not use it for its intended purposes? Are they allowed to NOT apply the nonrefundable pet cleaning fee towards the damages the pets caused? There would be no other "cleaning" necessary, as we left the unit immaculate.

The non-refundable pet cleaning fee is for cleaning ... not repairing damage. The owners may have the place cleaned professionally after you vacated because pet owners fail to realize their pets leave behind the odors, dander and fur/hair. If there is no cleaning required, the landlord is not required to refund the fee or apply it toward damages.

2. What determines whether or not they replace the carpet instead of repairing the holes? If they repaired the carpet with patchwork-- which IS possible-- we would actually be owed the remainder of our refundable pet deposit and security deposit, totaling a refund of $130 ($220-90, duh again).

The owners determine whether the carpet is repaired or replaced. They do not have to accept a patched carpet.
They may have called a carpet repair person in and patches may not have been recommended ... or the cost could have been much higher than $45.00 each ... or they may not have had sections of matching carpet to use for patches
As stated in your original post:

When we signed the lease, it included an itemized charge form that stated the minimum charge for a rip/tear in the carpet is $45 each

That is the minimum charge, not necessarily what it would cost to repair the two areas of damage caused by your pets.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

"I'm glad someone's responding, but you're not actually answering my questions and you're telling me what I already know. "

What you are attempting to hear from this forum is whether it is worth your time and finances to file against this landlord/management.

What I have attempted to tell you (and what you seem to have missed) is that it appears this landlord/management is quite familiar with the landlord/tenant laws in Arizona and has followed them to the "t". By doing so, they are quite likely to win their case in court.

As others have pointed out, the nonrefundable pet cleaning fee does not have to be used for damage that your pets did. Tenants often believe they left the rental unit "immaculate"; however, it's not unusual that after it has been vacant for a few days pet issues such as odor, dander and/or flea issues from their pets are discovered. This is why states give a landlord a certain amount of time to address damages above normal wear and tear.

Gail

 

[Searchertwin]

Damages and cleaning are two different things.

I looked at the pictures and yes, I would have done the same thing.
Also, if you had a car and had no tears in the seat or floor and your friend used it as a ash tray and left holes everywhere, would you accept a "patchwork" because in his eyes it a cheap fix and it will suffice? I don't think so. That's how the LL looks at it, this is his house you damaged.

I agree with Gail. The LL dotted all his "t" and you will lose in court. Just show the judge the pictures and don't say a word. Then enters the LL and he shows the pictures and doesn't say a word.
Guess who is going to win?

And as Gail stated, that's why LL has 30 days to return the deposit. Things like odor, fleas, and dander can show up during the 30 days. LL are protected this way.

Also, what is clean to you is not for me. You thought you left it immaculate, I thought you left if nasty.