This is where things can become complicated. The tenant had lived in the house for 4 years. He had taken good care of the home. His teenage daughter has spilled something on the floor in a bathroom and admits that even though he had it professional cleaned, he would be responsible for replacing/repairing the tile.
After inspecting the house, we found that the tile indeed would need to be replaced. There was additional minor damage that would be considered "Normal wear and tear. Now the owner is expecting to take most of the tenant's security deposit to handle all the repairs. We are now in the middle of a situation that both parties are not happy.
That is a sticky situation...but I would think that the tenant and the owner would have to go with ever is on the lease...but what does the owner consider "normal wear and tear"?
ReplyDeleteThe owner needs to be reminded that he should expect to have wear and tear and that the deposit is supposed to cover only those things that truly need to be repaired because they were damaged. Painting-never makes the list after four years, a hole in the wall or a stained/broken tile always makes the list. The tile shouldn't be that expensive to replace so the rest of the money should go back to the [soon to be former] tenant.
ReplyDeleteThere is a normal life expectancy for things anyway. All carpeting would fall into the category of normal wear and tear (to me). You normally replace it (or need to replace it) after 5 years. So even if there are stains, I would say that carpet would not fall into the tenant responsibility. Everyone spills thing, breaks things and dings them up. The owner should consider the months that the house was not vacant because he had a longer term renter. That was money in his pocket and not out of it.