End of lease - carpet cleaning almost 3x the &#39;minimum&#39; amount in my lease We recently moved out of a home that we were leasing for 12 months. When moving out, we called to ask how much carpet cleaning would be so we could determine if we wanted to hire our own company or not. The woman from the leasing company said it would be 'around $160'. This was slightly cheaper than the other quotes we'd gotten, so we told them they could go ahead and handle the carpet cleaning, and just take it out of our security deposit. We got our move-out documentation today, and it has a carpet cleaning fee of over $450. Our lease doesn't mention a specific amount, just 'a minimum of $163'. A couple of points that are concerning to me.. We were told they used a 'special service' because we had pets. We do have pets, but they're house trained, and don't shed. On top of our security deposit, we paid an additional non-refundable $500 pet deposit. My understanding is that this is to cover additional cleaning needed due to pets. If this were for repairs, it says clearly that we would be held responsible for the full price of the repair or replacement. So if it's not being used for cleaning, are we just giving the leasing company $500 for nothing? I've talked to 3 other carpet companies, all of which are at least $150 cheaper, even when considering pets in the home. I'm concerned that the cost of carpet cleaning is almost 3x the 'minimum' amount listed in our lease; not to mention the amount we were specifically told over the phone when calling before moving out. Do we have any options here?
As a professional carpet cleaner in Auckland I can add to this conversation from a different angle... The thing you need to know is that not all carpet cleaners are created equal. Every city has 3 types of carpet cleaner available. Mr Cheap: Your $160 quote is from Mr Cheap. Mr cheap is a churn and burn operation. He quotes low prices to win work, then has to rush through 4, 5, or even 6, jobs in a day to make any profit. He mostly just goes "through the motions" of cleaning. He doesn't go slowly to ensure proper steam injection. he doesn't go back over the wet carpet 3 times to extract left over water to make the carpet dry faster. He doesn't treat different carpets in different ways depending on type and other factors. He might not do stain removal, he might not use the best or any chemicals. He certainly doesn't get lots of repeat business or good online reviews. Lastly, there's a high chance he'll be using a portable machine that comes into the house. These machines are WEAK compared to high powered truck mounted cleaning machines. Mr Middle: Mr middle can be a good option for many home owners and even more so for tenants. He is charging a around 50% more than mr Cheap. Because of this, he can make the same money in 3-4 jobs as the other guy makes in 6 jobs. Because of this, he takes a bit more time and care to do the job properly. He balances service with price and gets most little marks and stains as he goes. He should do the job properly without going to extremes in regards to customer service or fancy extras. Mr Premium: Your landlord being the owner of the property and the one who cares most is going to call Mr Premium. Mr Premium is amazing if you can afford him. His vans are well branded and in good condition. He lays on the extra special treatment to justify the price. He'll do all sorts of stuff like, pre-vacuum before cleaning, do extra treatments on high traffic areas, he will use commercial grade deodorizers to eliminate smells and other mess from pets, kids, and spills. He has a wide range of (sometimes) expensive chemicals to treat and get rid of every kind of stain. He is fully insured, properly trained, and WON'T damage the property by dragging hoses against walls. So, as far as the price difference goes, I hope the above is enlightening... Now, for your specific situation. The Dog: as sweet as he is and well trained and not shedding etc... it simply doesn't matter. if the dog has been hanging out on the carpet he has put into it all sorts of doggy oils, doggy sweat and doggy slobber. The second the steam from the cleaner hits the carpet all you're going to smell is WET DOG. The use of special chemicals to break down these organic compounds from the dog is a must if the property is changing hands. You could really ruin the day of someone with dog allergies if this is not done properly. What If... What if you hire Mr Cheap and he damages the carpet? What if you hire Mr Cheap, and he does such and average job the landlord is forced to bring in his on guy... now you've paid to clean the carpet twice! (i see this often) I hope you sort out your situation, armed with this new information perhaps it may be easier to understand the difference in price and why your landlord goes for premium while you go for Mr Cheap... I think the key for anyone else in this situation is Mr Middle. Check the online reviews and ensure they're reputable and get a good job done without the massive price tag.
Agreement You say: my landlord added a clause stating: &quot;All moving must be done in rear of driveway or pay $250 (near basement door)&quot; Was this addition made at the time you signed the lease or subsequently? This matters because the terms of a contract cannot be changed unilaterally, they must be agreed. If the change happened after the lease was signed then , unless you agreed to it, it has no effect whatsoever. Since that resolution is boring; I will assume that it was always there. Enforcability Is this actually enforceable, since I did park in a public space and not necessarily on his property? Yes, it is enforceable. People can agree in a contract to do (or not do) anything so long as that thing is not illegal - that is what a contract is; a legally enforceable agreement for two people to do certain things. You agreed &quot;All moving must be done in rear of driveway ... (near basement door)&quot; and you didn't do what you agreed to do. Therefore you broke a term of the contract. It doesn't matter that you don't know why he wanted you to do this or if it was reasonable or if it meant that you couldn't use your parent's truck - if these were issues for you they should have been raised before you agreed to do it. If the clause said &quot;When moving out you will wear a blue double breasted suit with a yellow and purple bow tie&quot; then that is what you must do. Consequences There are a number of options open to the wronged party when the other party breaches a term of a contract. The most relevant in these circumstances is to sue for damages. So how much are damages? Well, they are an amount to restore the wronged party to the position they would have been in if you hadn't broken the agreement. In situations where damages can be hard to calculate, contracts can make a provision for liquidated damages; a pre-agreed amount of what the damage will be: in this case &quot;$250&quot;. However: In the United States, Section 2-718(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code provides that, in contracts for the sale of goods: Damages for breach by either party may be liquidated in the agreement but only at an amount which is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the breach, the difficulties of proof of loss, and the inconvenience or nonfeasibility of otherwise obtaining an adequate remedy. A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is void as a penalty. This largely mirrors the common law rule, which applies to other types of contracts under the law of most US states. On the face of it, it would appear that $250 may be &quot;unreasonably large&quot; given the nature of the breach where it appears that the landlord has actually suffered no damage.
Generally, you would have to bring an eviction action just as you would for an ordinary landlord-tenant relationship. This means given written notice served as required by MA law of a deadline to leave, and then if the child did not leave, filing an eviction lawsuit and serving the papers on the child, and then attending an eviction hearing, and then, if you prevailed in that hearing as you probably would (probably with horrible TV and newspaper publicity that might go viral in social media), and then, arrangements would be made to remove him and his stuff from the house on an appointed day with law enforcement and movers and you would change the locks. It would probably take a few weeks start to finish. It is not something that a non-lawyer should try to do themselves. A lawyer would probably charge you a few thousand dollars for this proceeding. The main exception would be that generally a parent has a duty to support an adult disabled child who cannot provide for himself. You probably do not have the legal right to simply kick out your child without an eviction action, although few adult children would choose to push their legal rights not to be removed in that manner if they were. The fact that a child would likely end up homeless in some circumstances if you did this is something that most parents would not be at peace with and would regret later even if they felt good about the decision at the time, but that is a parenting decision and not a legal one.
Sounds a lot like a bad-luck, move-on situation. I can't imagine any reason why the complex would have any duty to watch your bike for you or otherwise ensure that no one steals it. The fact that you bought it knowing that the bike shed had not yet been built and that the security gates were broken would probably count against you. If you know who stole your bike, you'd have a much better case against them, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. If you're looking for a typical contingency-fee arrangement, in which the attorney takes a fee from your winnings, I'd imagine you're going to be especially out of luck, based on two hard facts: The total damages you can collect is probably going to be equal to the price of your bicycle: £400. The average hourly rate at national firms for the most junior lawyer is already more than £200. If you sat down with such a lawyer, explained your situation, discussed your options, and then tasked the lawyer to write a threatening letter to the apartment complex, you'd already have incurred more fees than the value of the bicycle. Probably no attorney is interested in that arrangement -- especially since it's highly unlikely the complex would pay. So unless you're actually willing to pay hourly rates, I can't imagine any lawyer taking this case. Even if you were, no one may take it just because lawyers don't like taking cases that they're going to lose.
Under RCW 59.18.030(29), &quot;Rent&quot; or &quot;rental amount&quot; means recurring and periodic charges identified in the rental agreement for the use and occupancy of the premises, which may include charges for utilities. Except as provided in RCW 59.18.283(3), these terms do not include nonrecurring charges for costs incurred due to late payment, damages, deposits, legal costs, or other fees, including attorneys' fees. Per RCW 59.18.283(2) Except as provided in RCW 59.18.410, the tenant's right to possession of the premises may not be conditioned on a tenant's payment or satisfaction of any monetary amount other than rent. In other words, additional regular fees are disallowed. All recurring fees must be &quot;rent&quot; (but things like late fees, damages, attorney's fees which arise only occasionally are allowed). If a lease were to specify $2,000 as the rent and $1,000 as the &quot;___fee&quot;, as a recurring charge it would still be considered to be $3,000 rent. One cannot get around the 60 day notice requirement of RCW 59.18.140(3a) (which says &quot;a landlord shall provide a minimum of sixty days' prior written notice of an increase in the amount of rent to each affected tenant, and any increase in the amount of rent may not become effective prior to the completion of the term of the rental agreement&quot;) by calling it a &quot;continuation fee&quot;. One does not need to get around rent control because per RCW 35.21.830, The imposition of controls on rent is of statewide significance and is preempted by the state. No city or town of any class may enact, maintain, or enforce ordinances or other provisions which regulate the amount of rent to be charged for single-family or multiple-unit residential rental structures or sites other than properties in public ownership, under public management, or properties providing low-income rental housing under joint public-private agreements for the financing or provision of such low-income rental housing.
"an agreement by email for the cost of rent and damage deposit etc." may well constitute a lease. If it doesn't specify a term or ending method, it is probably a month to month lease. If nothing is specified about notice to leave, you probably should gt 30 days notice. The law in BC is the Residential Tenancy Act. However, many localities have laws that modify or supplement the provincial law. You probably need legal assitance beyond the scope of this forum. a Tenant Resource Advisory Center (Trac) might be able to help. Their web sitre also provides links to various other resources, including legal referrals. The Tennant Survival Guide offers pointers to legal aid. This site offers additional resources. So does the BC Law institute Note, even if you have certain legal rights in theory, the person from whom you are renting may not respect these. Consult legal or community sources to determine your best approach. This question is really beyond the scope of this forum.
Just think of the subtenant cum owner as two separate people with two separate roles. Tenant = T Subtenant = ST Old owner = OO New Owner = NO The rights of the tenant vis-avis the new owner will be informed by the lease and the local laws. Generally, if the sale happens in the middle of the existing lease, the NO is obligated by the terms, as is the T. NO cannot just kick T out, and T cannot just break the lease. The lease may say what could happen and local laws will apply. Likewise, ST has whatever contract with T that previously existed. Pretend NO and ST are different people. If T owes NO $1000 per month, and ST owes T $400 a month, that continues even though ST and NO are the same person. Depends on what kind of dispute. See above. All contracts continue, subject to whatever the lease with the original owner and the subtenancy agreement say abut modifying or breaking the lease and sublease. Local laws apply. Note, if the subtenancy was "off the books" or was done when not allowed by the original owner, and if it was not in a place that the local law says owners cannot deny subleasing, then tenant might not have any protection. ST, now that he is owner could just move out and stop paying. On the other hand, even if he is the owner, he cannot just say "I am the owner now, so I am moving back in for free" because the original lease gave the tenant use of the whole property. But ST could just drop out because T always owed OO, and now NO, the full rent. Do you mean if rather than sublease, they were both on the original lease? Interesting, but just imagine it as the obligations before the sale = the obligations after the sale. I don't know though. There are some tax implications for an owner occupied rental.
Is there a law requiring a landlord to respond to rental agencies request for information in regards to previous tenants? No. There is no such law.