TX Landlord withholding security deposit

[goetzman]

What is the name of your state? TX

Rented a home for a year. Our agent wrote into our lease that owners have home & carpets professionally cleaned prior to move in. Upon move in, we questioned whether this was taken care of due to spots still there. They insisted they did & spots did not come up.

Fast forward. Lease is up. Security deposit IN FULL was withheld from us. Itemized deductions including carpet cleaning of over 650.00 for an 1800 sq ft home. Many other charges, including professional maid service (200), sheetrock (300). We left the home in fine condition.

Requested receipts. They sent us a QUOTE for carpet cleaning (279 for carpet cleaning, another almost 400 for deodorizing and protecting). the kicker? the carpet is no longer there. the house was put on the market and THEY HAVE NEW CARPET. they have since admitted they did NOT clean the carpet but rather used the money toward new carpet.

sheetrock repair receipt now says PAINTING. i called the name on the receipt. the guy said he painted their baseboards & fixed their bathroom ceiling and painted it for them and filled in some small nail holes.

i called them on all of this via certified letter. then got a crazy email from the landlord saying the sheetrock/painting receipt wasn't really about that so much as it was about the TOILET that we had replaced without telling them (not true and that doesn't even make any sense).

They have basically taken our security deposit and used it to make their home MARKET READY.

We have FOUR SEPARATE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS FROM THEM. Each one is different and contradictory.

Do we have a case? Thanks in advance.

 

[Alaska landlord]

I think you do.

 

[goetzman]

I'd like for them to realize that the carpet fees alone would end up being more than our full security deposit of 1400 when you figure that Texas law is that bad faith = 3x the amount wrongly withheld.

Also Texas law says that they would be held responsible for reasonable court fees.

Is it to our benefit to get an attorney or will this speak for itself?

And lastly, if they rule in our favor, can we as previous tenants put a lien on the home that is now for sale?

Thanks again for any input.

 

[ecmst12]

You can go to small claims court. No lawyers needed.

Did you have the carpets cleaned before moving out? If you did, then obviously they can't ask you to pay for it again. But if you did not, and it needed to be done, then that is a legit charge, even if they decided to remove the carpet rather then cleaning it. Same with the painting - a paint job is expected to last more then a year. If there were scuff marks on the baseboards that were not there before you moved in, that is damage. Nail holes are not wear and tear, they are damage. And the ceiling repair - was that due to damage you caused? Or was it something pre existing or beyond your control? If the former, you are responsible.

You might be able to argue the cleaning service if you have pictures showing the place was left clean.

 

[Alaska landlord]

Fast forward. Lease is up. Security deposit IN FULL was withheld from us. Itemized deductions including carpet cleaning of over 650.00 for an 1800 sq ft home. Many other charges, including professional maid service (200), sheetrock (300). We left the home in fine condition.

Requested receipts. They sent us a QUOTE for carpet cleaning (279 for carpet cleaning, another almost 400 for deodorizing and protecting). the kicker? the carpet is no longer there. the house was put on the market and THEY HAVE NEW CARPET. they have since admitted they did NOT clean the carpet but rather used the money toward new carpet.

Carpet cleaning cost of over 650.00 will be difficult for the LL to defend in court; especially if he didn't have it done. If carpet needed to be replaced, then the bill should have reflected it.
I think a Judge will see this as an attempt by the LL to unlawfully keep OP's deposit.

 

[goetzman]

You can go to small claims court. No lawyers needed.

Did you have the carpets cleaned before moving out? If you did, then obviously they can't ask you to pay for it again. But if you did not, and it needed to be done, then that is a legit charge, even if they decided to remove the carpet rather then cleaning it.

we did not have it professionally cleaned. we didn't see any where in our lease where it was required that it be professionally done. they argue that since WE insisted THEY clean it, that we should have to. our request was based on large stains. we did not leave any large stains other than what was already there in the first place so we just did thorough vacuuming.

Same with the painting - a paint job is expected to last more then a year. If there were scuff marks on the baseboards that were not there before you moved in, that is damage. Nail holes are not wear and tear, they are damage.

maybe that is different in Texas? We researched and found something saying that nail holes were considered wear and tear. We did fill most of them and missed a few that were higher up. But certainly not $300 worth, not to mention that now he is saying that that receipt isn't really for sheetrock or painting, that it's more about the toilet????

And the ceiling repair - was that due to damage you caused? Or was it something pre existing or beyond your control? If the former, you are responsible.

this was in issue that we asked about when we moved into the house. the owner said there were cracks in the ceiling due to settling and that they had repaired it but not done a good job with the paint matching. we have this in writing. he acknowledges that he paid this repair man to fix the ceiling prior to putting it on the market but insists that is not part of the $300.

You might be able to argue the cleaning service if you have pictures showing the place was left clean.

no pictures. but we do have witnesses. not sure that will stand? we were homeowners for 20 years prior to renting this house as an interim place to live til we purchased. we were not aware of all of the 'tips' of renting such as photographing & we had a good relationship with this couple prior to giving them notice. i realize we may not be able to win this one.

appreciate your input!

 

[goetzman]

Carpet cleaning cost of over 650.00 will be difficult for the LL to defend in court; especially if he didn't have it done. If carpet needed to be replaced, then the bill should have reflected it.
I think a Judge will see this as an attempt by the LL to unlawfully keep OP's deposit.

Again, thank you for your response.

This is how we feel but of course, we're biased and wanted to see if others who aren't involved would see it the same way.

I am hopeful that the lack of receipts & amount charged, combined with the discrepancies between all of his other documentation (numbers changing, explanations changing) will show that he is acting in bad faith.

Again, appreciate the input.

 

[johnd]

Additionally, on its face, $0.35 per sq. ft for carpet cleaning is next to impossible to defend...unless they did it with a toothbrush and tweezers. The going rate is less than half of that...unless one just wants to give their money away.

 

[goetzman]

Additionally, on its face, $0.35 per sq. ft for carpet cleaning is next to impossible to defend...unless they did it with a toothbrush and tweezers. The going rate is less than half of that...unless one just wants to give their money away.

Thanks John. That's a new way to look at it.

Their quote is actually for 279.00 for carpet CLEANING.

The additional (almost) 400.00 is for DEODORIZING AND PROTECTING the carpet that no longer exists.

So even if a judge ruled that we were responsible for the 279.00, the additional 400 x 3 would put them right back at about our full security deposit.

We are beyond frustrated.

 

[johnd]

Thanks John.

You're welcome.

The additional (almost) 400.00 is for DEODORIZING AND PROTECTING the carpet that no longer exists.

About the only way they can defend this charge is if the cleaning removed carpet protection and deodorant, and needs to be replaced to put them back were they were (less normal wear and tear). The charges have to be reasonable.

 

[goetzman]

You're welcome.



About the only way they can defend this charge is if the cleaning removed carpet protection and deodorant, and needs to be replaced to put them back were they were (less normal wear and tear). The charges have to be reasonable.

Let me see if I understand?

They could claim that the carpet cleaning stripped the carpet of it's deodorized and protected state?

Even though they never HAD the carpet cleaned?

They re-carpeted the entire house to put it on the market.

 

[johnd]

Well, yes. If that is cheaper than the dimished value of the carpet. They don't have to do anything. They are entitled to diminished value (less normal wear and tear). It's sounds like a ripoff, but it isn't. Much like a ding in your car. You are entitled to the cost of repair of that ding from the perp...but you don't have to have it repaired. Diminished value or cost of repair.

 

[goetzman]

Thanks for the explanation.

By the time we moved out of our one year lease, the carpet was 8 years old and we have proof that it was significantly stained when we took possession of the home.

I would hope that would mean something in the whole grand scheme of things.

I really appreciate you taking the time to give some input. A friend told us about the forum and it's a great resource!

 

[johnd]

Well, although I've seen carpet last 20 or 30 years, I've found judges expect it to last 10 years in a rental. So, on our reconciliations we depreciate on a 10 year life expectancy, and never have a problem.

Point is, were it my case, I would have no problem arguing that if the carpet was worth $1,000, after 8 years 80% of it's useful life had been used, so the most one could depreciate it further is $200. I know some carpets last 20 or 30 years in rentals, but substantiating that to a judge (that that's normal) is a whole other matter. Keep him honest if you can prove his ripping you off.

 

[ecmst12]

I have never had carpets cleaned professionally so I had no idea whether the charge was excessive. You appear to have a good case in this situation. However, you are expected (generally) to leave an apartment in the same condition you got it in. So (if the carpet was not already damaged and at the end of its normal life) if the carpets were cleaned before you moved in, it would be reasonable to expect you to clean it before you moved out. However it does really seem that they are trying to make you pay for damages that pre date your tenancy. Even the value of the carpet would have been nil since it was stained and old when you moved in.