Forum
« Tubular Skylights Cracking Concrete »
October 27, 2007
Security deposit - kept
we sublet an apartment in clinton hill for $2000/month (more than they pay in rent) for a few months. We had our regular cleaner turn up weekly (and the last day), and left it as we found it minus a few issues which we owned up to .. a marked coffee table, the kitchen gained roaches (small night type) problem as we didn't make arrangements for the chemical guy to stop by and the co-op obviously had them everywhere anyway.
The owners created a laundry list of charges on their return: including two visits a week apart from a $55 an hour cleaner, and their OWN time charged at their professional rate to "supervise" the cleaner. plus numbers plucked from the air at 300% over retail to replace the (mediocre) items we admit were damaged.
Total: over $2000.
They are actually claiming more than our security deposit!
Our offer: $1000, which we thought was generous.
If you were handling small claims on the day we, and these guys turn up, who would you laugh out of court?
yeah there are two sides to every story but can you imagine a place with ikea furniture needing $2000 of penalties when it was visited by a typical cleaning lady for 4 hours a week for two months?
we've sublet three apartments prior to this and in each case received our deposit back & in full.
Comments
Within a few months you damaged some of their furniture AND brought in roaches, I have to say it sounds like you deserve to lose your deposit. Your definition of clean and their definition of clean may differ but if they needed to bring in cleaners, the place must have been dirty.
Your assessment that the roaches are small or that their furniture is medocre doesn't really matter. What matters is that they have to shell out time and money to replace, clean , fumigate an apartment to get it back to the condition it was in a few months ago. $2K doesn't go very far.
Posted by: guest at October 27, 2007 6:59 PM
heh, ok, fine. There wasn't any fumigation by the way, just a cleaner -- this wasn't a hazmat situation.
But I guess whatever someone here identifies which side they are on, landlord or tenant, someone is going to play devils advocate if they are bored on a weekend.
Posted by: guest at October 27, 2007 9:57 PM
It's not Kosher to "charge at their professional rate to supervise". Why not take them to court just for the fun of it?
Posted by: guest at October 28, 2007 12:40 AM
The law always supports tenants over landlords. I wish I knew this when I was young and had landlords who tried to make extra income off renters, but usually all you have to do is file to take them to court and they'll back down. Landlords know it won't come out in their favor in court.
Besides, who sublets their home and expects to find it prisine?? I would NEVER let people live in my house and expect there to be no damage whatsoever. It happens. Period. I'd be thrilled if all I found was a nick on a table and a few roaches. (Show me one single coop building in NYC without roaches). These people sound unrealistic and unreasonable all around. Like they're bitter they can't afford not to sublet their place whenever they leave town, and they're taking it out on their renter.
Posted by: guest at October 28, 2007 10:41 AM
Just there a few months, huh? The owner should fall on his/her knees and thank heaven they weren't gone for one year...
who knows what kind of a hell-hole they would have come home to...
Place sounds nasty.
Posted by: bren at October 28, 2007 12:45 PM
Often I agree with "Bren" here, but in this case I have to say that it sounds like your owners are trying to scam you. And I'm a landlord.
First, if you paid for a cleaner to come the day you moved, that generally sounds like you made an attempt to leave the place clean.
Also, what exactly was the damage to the table, and how was it done? Is that the entire extent of the damage?
What is the story with the roaches? Did the owners make very clear at the beginning that you had to be there for fumigation each month and you ignored it? Or did you see a roach and just never bother to arrange for an exterminator? There's a big difference between the two.
On the face of it, it seems that you could make a good case to obtain alot of your security deposit back, but if you give us a few more specific details, it would be helpful.
For what it's worth, I'm a landlord, and our apartments have been left in various states of repair and we've never held back any security deposit. But if you were exceptionally hard on the apartment and you aren't including that fact, it's possible your owners were correct in holding back the entire deposit.
Posted by: guest at October 28, 2007 3:44 PM
It is not legal for them to sublet the apt. to you at a higher rate than what they pay. The supervision fee is bogus, therefore I would suggest that they back down and act decent or you will take them to court for overcharging you beyond the actual rent. Chances are they don't even want the landloed to know that they did a sublet.
Posted by: guest at October 28, 2007 6:33 PM
I should have added... I do believe that holding your entire $2000 security deposit is extreme.... is there anything else you're not telling mommy? :)
Posted by: bren at October 28, 2007 6:35 PM
Here is a good resource (site) that helped me out for Bronx, NY against a landlord that kept my deposit. Check out www.civiltree.com and ask the attorney for more information. They file and serve the landlords. Great site and free aid.
Molly P.
NY, NY
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 1:41 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.