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.
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.
Can the security deposit be fought due to the relative being handicapped?
I would sure as hell hope not.
Damage to an apartment is damage regardless of how it happened. Whether its due to an epic college party, a person in a wheel-chair bumping into the walls, or due to honest accidents.
Not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that you think because the person damaging the residence is handicapped that they should not be held accountable for the damages?
My personal opinion as a landlord, is that damage is damage. If damage was done that was in excess of normal wear and tear, then it is a tenant responsiblity to pay for that damage, regardless of the reason.
If the carpet and walls were damaged as a result of the wheelchair, that should come out of the security deposit. If the security deposit doesn't cover the damage, they should expect a bill.
The landlord cannot discriminate against your relatives and not rent to them because they are handicapped, but shouldn't be punished for renting to them, which is what making him eat the cost of the repairs would do.
That said, your relatives need to know their rights. Most carpet has a prorated life (how long depends on the quality of the carpet and state precedents). Usually it is 5, 7 or 10 years. Assuming it was cheap carpet to begin with, let's say 5 years, and assuming it now needs to be replaced (which it probably does, from what you said). If they lived there for a year and it was new when they moved in, they would have to pay for 4/5ths of the cost to replace (the expected remaining life). But if the carpet wasn't new, they can only charge you for the expected remaining life on it at move out. If it was already 2 years old at move in, then they can only charge you for 2/5ths of the cost.
The door frames are another matter. That is flat out damage. Hopefully, they just have to repaint. If they have to replace baseboards or door trim AND repaint, that will be much more expensive.
It is unfortunate for your relatives that they are going to have this expense, but look at it from the landlord's point of view. They can't turn the tenant down because of the wheelchair, but it shouldn't cost them thousands out of their pocket to repair the damage the wheelchair cost. Someone has to pay for those repairs, and the correct person would be the one who caused the damage.
The one thing I'm not sure of is whether there are any entities that help the elderly with expenses like this. Medicare/medicaid maybe?
I agree with the others. The reason why the damage occurred is irrelevant for the reasons stated above. And how far would you (hypothetical "you") take it? What about a person with bipolar disorder or another mental illness who punches holes in all of the walls? What if someone had a seizure and knocked a glass of juice onto the white carpet during the seizure, and the stains won't come out?
I am certainly not trying to sound cold-hearted -- but a LL should not have to deal with the expense of damage regardless of the cause.
Did the landlord know that their new tenants were using wheelchairs before they leased to them?
Did they make any special notice of this in the lease? (eg: if a tenant has a dog most LL's will charge extra or require extra cleaning deposits?)
Assuming the wheelchair issues were known then I don't believe the LL has much (if any) legal space to later whine about damages from their use.
Well, if a tenant has a dog known to the LL, regardless of whether the LL gets a pet deposit, he/she is allowed to go after the tenant for the actual amount of the damages, right?
Assuming the wheelchair issues were known then I don't believe the LL has much (if any) legal space to later whine about damages from their use.
One has nothing to do with the other. The landlord can get reimbursed for damages regardless of handicap or not.
As was pointed out, under the Fair Housing Act, discrimination because of a disability (plus many others) is prohibited. So if someone wants to rent an apartment, all things being equal, a wheelchair bound individual has the same right to rent it. That does NOT mean the landlord had to make financial allowances to damages beyond "normal" wear and tear, which can occur from any other tenant--that's another kind of discrimination.
In fact, if a handicapped tenant rents an apartment and makes alterations to enable better use for him/her, then upon leaving, the landlord has the right to request that the apartment be brought back to the original condition.
Did the landlord know that their new tenants were using wheelchairs before they leased to them?
Did they make any special notice of this in the lease? (eg: if a tenant has a dog most LL's will charge extra or require extra cleaning deposits?)
Assuming the wheelchair issues were known then I don't believe the LL has much (if any) legal space to later whine about damages from their use.
It is illegal to charge extra security deposit because of a disability. You can charge for any damage that is done after the fact, but you cannot collect any extra money up front for it.
It is also illegal to refuse to rent to someone who is in a wheelchair just for that reason. So the fact that the landlord knew about it ahead of time is irrelevant.
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 lead to. Tread wear and turn radius damage is from "normal" occupancy.
If the consequent damage was not done maliciously... it's wear and tear.
The onus was on the LL to either direct the prospect to an ADA type unit or to somehow protect themselves IN THE LEASE. Based on what the OP indicates the LL did neither.
I'm not giving the LL a pass. Sorry.
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.
