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 is ILLEGAL for a LL to change any additioanl deposit based on disability. The wheelchair is a medical device that is protected by law. However, medical devices used by a disable person are not granted superior rights over any damages. As said, if a blind person has a seeing eye dog, the LL can not impose a pet deposit because it's medical equipment, but if the dog causes damage beyond normal wear and tear, the tenant is responsible. Medcical equipment does not extend additioanl wear and tear protections under the law. A person with a wheelchair does not get added leeway and they are responsible for mitigating any additional damages their medical equipment makes.
To the OP, basically you have to forget about the person being disabled and what medical equipment they are using. The law only applies to protect a person from being denied the ability to rent due to that disability, a tenant disabled or not, is still responsible for any damages they cause.
Mrrational --You are sorely mistaken on the legal definition of "wear and tear". So what you are saying is that if I accidentally set fire to the kitchen, it is wear and tear if not done maliciously?
My point is that the definition of "normal" (wrt to wear and tear) expands when the tenant is known in advance to have circumstances that any idiot can see will happen.
I'm not giving the LL a pass. Sorry.
If the damage was not done maliciously... it's wear and tear.
So I should assume that since tenants have kids, I will have to clean crayon off the walls when they move out, and repair holes from baseball bats or bb guns all at no charge, because "hey, its what kids do, and it wasn't malicious"?
It is exactly the same thing.
If the landlord had the right to say "no, I won't rent to you because I don't want the extra expense of having the wheelchair in the property" and they ignored that and rented to them anyway, I would agree with you somewhat. I would concur that the carpet replacement might not be a tenant expense in that case, or at least should be shared. The baseboards still would be a tenant expense. But a landlord does not have the right to do that, so these items are a tenant expense. The fact that the landlord knew means nothing because the landlord has no choice.
The definition of damage absolutely does not require malicious intent. If you broke a window by playing catch in the backyard and missing, that isn't malicious, but it definitely is still damage.
So I should assume that since tenants have kids, I will have to clean crayon off the walls when they move out...
I was ready to use that analogy and YES in the absence of protective language you should reasonably expect more damage when kids are there.
To not expect that it is absurd and to not protect yourself is irresponsible.
This isn't excusing maliciousness or vandalism...
but normal wear and tear WILL BE greater with certain types of tenancies than others... and the onus is on the LL to do more in advance.
I'm sticking.
(until we hear more detail fro the OP)
Why? They can sue the tenant for the damage -- what is it that you expect the LL to do in the lease specifically? As stated, it is ILLEGAL to ask for additional security deposit based on a protected class (which would include a family with kids, I believe).
There is no way the damage to the carpet and the wall could have been prevented.
My question is why the tenants didn't do anything to mitigate the damages? Since they are now concerned about the damages, it didn't escape their notice that the carpet was getting dirty or that the wheelchair was hitting the edges of the walls.
Perhaps they should have tried placing a large towel on the carpet just inside the front door so the dirt from the wheelchair wheels would stain the towel and not the carpet. In addition, there is v-shaped plastic edge protector for walls available very inexpensively at home improvement stores that could been applied to save the walls.
Perhaps the landlord would have helped them with solutions if they had bothered to tell him/her that they were concerned about the damage they were doing. Instead they let the damage continue and now want to make the landlord responsible for it.
I was ready to use that analogy and YES in the absence of protective language you should reasonably expect more damage when kids are there.)
Damages is not wear and tear.
Look at CA with very liberal laws on wear and tear in tenants favor. Faded paint is wear and tear, dull paint from people walking past is wear and tear. Crayon marks on the wall is damages. Execss dirt and grime on walls is damages.
For carpets, the wearing of carpet over the life span is wear and tear. Fading carpet from UV rays are wear and tear. Stains are Damages. Tenant introduced marks are damages.
If you put in new carpet with a 10 year life span and the first tenant has 12 kids on a one year lease. Wear in excess of one year when they move out is damages. It does not matter if you rented to a single person or a family of 12, one year wear is acceptable as wear and tear, 2 years wear is now damages.
I have elderly, handicapped relatives who have been renting an apartment for nearly a year. They're getting ready to move in a few weeks and it's obvious that they've damaged the walls and carpet due to one of them being in a wheelchair. ,,,There is no way the damage to the carpet and the wall could have been prevented.
Your handicapped relatives do still have the right and ability to fix or lessen the damage before they leave. A good carpet cleaner may be able to give the carpet new life. Walls can be patched and painted. Even if they have to pay someone it may be less than the landlord will charge.
I have elderly, handicapped relatives who have been renting an apartment for nearly a year. They're getting ready to move in a few weeks and it's obvious that they've damaged the walls and carpet due to one of them being in a wheelchair. What happened is that the wheelchair leaves tracks on the carpet so some areas close to the doors have dark gray marks on a tan carpet. Because the apartment was not designed to be wheelchair accessible, some corners are hard to get around in a wheelchair. Therefore, some of the paint has been severely chipped off the corner of the walls.
I'm sure my relatives are going to lose their security deposit. They may even be charged extra fees for the damage, we're not sure. Can the security deposit be fought due to the relative being handicapped? There is no way the damage to the carpet and the wall could have been prevented.
Why should the landlord pay for repairs that was caused by your relative regardless of his or her situation? I do not understand why you think that is right.
I will definitely being asking for more than just a security deposit when I rent my home out. People clearly cannot distinguish between right and wrong. I understand why being a landlord is so challenging.
"I will definitely being asking for more than just a security deposit when I rent my home out"
Be sure you are intimately familiar with your state's statutes covering LL/Tenant law -- in many places the amount you can legally charge for security deposit (i.e. the equivalent of one month's rent) is in the statutes.
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.
