Forum
« Downspout Diverter Interest Rates Are Awesome »
September 8, 2008
Security Deposit
Thank you all in advance for your help, I greatly appreciate any advice.
My wife and I recently left a 2 bedroom apartment in Park Slope after living there for 1 year. Our rent was $3200 per month, the security deposit was $6400.
The landlord just returned our security deposit - minus $2500 for damages.
The apartment was in good condition when we left. I even went to the trouble of spackling over the holes where we hung pictures. I filmed the walkthrough with a video camera - the apartment looks immaculate.
However, in my landlord's opinion, the apartment was dirty. Because of the work I did (filling the holes from hanging pictures), he said he had to have the entire place painted.
Also, he accused me of damaging the floors - ancient wide plank pine which were in mediocre shape when we moved in.
Here are the charges, no receipts were included.
Labor - $900
Supplies $160
Floor - $525
I was also charged for damage in the hallway. Our movers scratched the walls and the bannister in a few places- this cost us $800 in labor and $135 in supplies.
He also charged us $300 for carpet outside our door - I never noticed a problem there and it wasn't pointed out in the walkthrough.
I believe we were overcharged for normal wear and tear.
Also, we endured construction for several months on renovations to the apartment beneath us (all of which was done without permits, by the way). This is why I doubt there will be receipts.
What do I do? Needless to say our landlord has issues, it's really sad actually and it's almost worth eating $2500 to never have to deal with him again, but I have a strong sense of right and wrong and this is simply wrong.
Thanks,
HCB
Comments
I'm sure you're entitled to receipts. As for painting- for that kind of money no tenant would rent an apartment that wasn/t freshly painted. He's trying to charge you for his normal wear and tear.
The commmon areas of any building get the most wear and tear and I've never heard of a tenant being responsible for that- it would be like saying you were responsible for the hallway lighting. In fact that cost to the landlord is already configured in your rent anyway.
The scratches in the hallway I can't say. Most landlords eat that because it's a common area and no matter how much care movers take, the logistics of moving someone in and out of an apartment will always result in some. But 300$ for the carpet outside your door? For what? the prices all seem really high except for the painting. But I don;t think you should have been charged for that anyway.
Just my opinion, but in my last apartment I was the super or the building and I got a good grounding in who is responsible for what. One disclaimer: my former landlady was wonderful and cared very much about her buildings, taking great care of them.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2008 11:01 AM
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/nyc/housing/index.shtml
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/nyc/housing/represent.shtml
Posted by: lechacal at September 8, 2008 11:59 AM
Just goes to show why you should never, ever expect the landlord to refund your security. Don't pay the last month's rent, or two months, in this case.
I bet your lease has a clause in it stating that you can't put holes in the walls for pictures--most do.
Posted by: denton at September 8, 2008 12:34 PM
I think that is a bit over the top, Denton, to suggest that tenants, as a matter of course, should wipe out the security deposit by failing to pay rent. $2500 is an awfully big and unusual withhold. This landlord does seem way out of line. I am not aware that large numbers of landlords in the Slope are behaving this way.
As a landlord of the rental in my 2-fam house, I think HCB's landlord is out of line. Although lease boilerplate probably prohibits wall hangings, I can't imagine literal enforcement at the rents we are changing in the Slope. Landlords have to expect people are going to put up pictures and the like, and it is wrong to withhold over that. I want tenants to make themselves at home, so they will stay and I am spared the costs and lost rent associated with turnover.
Lechacal's Hemmingway-esque post suggests that HCB litigate this pro se. This is the only meaningful route for recovery, if he has the stomach for it. The amount is too small to hire a lawyer for, and negotiation seems unlikely to bear fruit, although HCB might want to try a letter first seeking documentation and proposing a negotiation, just to see what happens and generate a bit of a paper trail. HCB, unsatisfying as it may be, I think it ultimately comes down to deciding whether you want to put the time and effort into litigating this thing yourself in Housing Court, or let it slide.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 8, 2008 1:09 PM
What about small claims court? I'm not sure the Housing court would be the place for this dispute anyway, since they are already moved and it's a monetary dispute.
I did what denton suggested, but I only did so after speaking to my landlord who was amenable. It's pretty common from what I understand anyway. Unless a tenant has really trashed an apartment, most landlords seem ok with it, and most also, like you say slopefarm, understand the boiler plate is just that.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2008 1:29 PM
I have a different view. We would never allow a tenant to 'live out' his security deposit by withholding rent. And if one ever did, we would begin eviction immediately.
On the flip side, though, we return 100% of security (execept in extreme circumstances), and do so on move out day. This way, we are protected until the tenant moves out, but the tenant is made whole as soon as he leaves.
Posted by: curiositykilledthecat at September 8, 2008 1:55 PM
Thanks for all of the responses.
Watching the landlord operate over the year we lived there - the petty complaints about one thing and then another, then the illegal renovations that we had to deal with - we halfway expected this and considered withholding the last two months as denton recommended. But it just didn't seem right to me and I, wrongly, trusted the landlord to do the right thing.
Especially for the amount of rent he was charging.
In the video, you can see the landlord saying, "Look, see this scratch on the floor, see it, see it? You have to lean this way and you'll see it. Here, stand over here and you'll see it." Same with the walls. It's sad.
Posted by: hotelcharliebravo at September 8, 2008 2:25 PM
There was no insurance certificate required from the movers by your landlord for a move out. You might be able to get that portion back thru the court. Landlords don't budge when it comes to giving full security back. I have tenants and I give back every penny of their security dposit no matter what.
Posted by: madamlee at September 8, 2008 2:40 PM
>I have a different view. We would never allow a tenant to 'live out' his security deposit by withholding rent. And if one ever did, we would begin eviction immediately.>
By the time you got him into court the lease would be up and the judge would order you to accept the security deposit as back rent.
I appreciate that you are an honest landlord as are many, especially small Brownstoner kind of landlords, but I wonder what percentage are.
When I rented in BH many years ago, upstairs from a deli on Montague Street owned by very well known and respected members of the community (I'm sure you can figure it out) the two young women above me who were moving out (they were from out of town) came to me about getting their deposit back. The landlords refused to give back any of it. Just because they could take advantage of a pair of gullible young women. I told them the same thing. Sorry you had to learn the hard way, but always live out your security deposit.
Posted by: denton at September 8, 2008 3:10 PM
I think you'd have a strong case in small claims court. I would call the landlord and try to discuss with him (yeah right), then send a letter informing him that you plan to pursue the legal route. Repainting the apartment is generally part of normal wear and tear, and may even be required by law when a new tenant moves in (though probably never enforced), and the other things you mentioned also sound like normal wear and tear that should not be taken from the security. I am a landlord in a two family, and I think you've been wronged and should pursue this.
Posted by: mh at September 8, 2008 3:42 PM
Truly obnoxious - sounds like a real asshole. But what the person said above it true - unless you know your landlord well, don't pay last month's rent. Ask for the deposit back and then pay it.
Posted by: gkw at September 8, 2008 4:17 PM
The advice to withhold rent is bad advice and would definitely bring an action on the part of any landlord who's paying attention. The court outcome isn't that important, if you get a judgment against you it will harm your ability to rent the next apartment you apply for.
That doesn't mean the landlord is right, and from your description it sounds like a game of chicken.
There is no question you should file a claim in small claims court; document everything, bring your video, bring as much to support your case as you can. Sue for the amount withheld, plus any costs you incur, legal fees and otherwise. Go before a clerk, you'll get heard quicker and you can always go before a judge if you can't settle. Let the landlord state his case first, take notes, present your case, and refute what you heard as it fits. Get some advice from a landlord/tenant lawyer on the laws governing security deposits.
Also, if there are truly illegal renovations that were made, report them to the dept of buildings.
Posted by: raphael9 at September 8, 2008 4:30 PM
I though I would mention that small claims court is not a big deal and I think a great option in this case. If you can spare 1.5 hours, the city will send your landlord a scary looking letter from the city. The only time I was forced to use it, the day of the trail, I had a check messengered to me. No landlord wants to appear in court. It will give you a leg up in negotiating.
Posted by: Argyle Road at September 8, 2008 4:34 PM
I, too, am a landlord & would discourage the withholding of rent - it's illegal & unfair: you have entered into a contract & should live up to your own standards of behavior. I also go along w/ the idea of taking it to Small Claims Court (who tend to be on the tenant's side.)
I almost always return all of the deposit even though it's tempting to deduct for picture holes & other minor damage. Most painters aren't going to charge for those fill-ins & they don't take much time so, again, I have to live w/ myself & couldn't justify nickle & diming someone who has been a good tenant.
I bet most small landlords are fair - in many cases we've established long-lasting relationships w/ tenants.
Posted by: Arkady at September 8, 2008 4:41 PM
I too do not agree with advice to withhold rent--rent and security are distinctly different, and withholding rent as a method of exiting apartment is a clear violation of your contract (lease), and will put you at deficit if you wind up in court. Start by using certified mail to matter-of-factly request receipts to support the charges by landlord. For information on security deposits, see: http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/dhcr/dhcr9.html
In terms of returning security, the key words for assessing your situation are: "At the end of the lease, if the tenant honored the terms and conditions of the lease and left the apartment in the same condition as it was when rented, except for normal wear, the owner must return the full security deposit." When reading DHCR fact sheet, keep in mind that there are differing requirements concerning interest bearing accounts, etc. depending on building size, rent regulation, and other variables, so don't be too quick to include new issues. DHCR fact sheet describes one remedy through Small Claims.
Posted by: vinca at September 8, 2008 6:34 PM
BTW, see also: http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/attygenguide.html, especially the section titled "Rent Security Deposits".
Posted by: vinca at September 8, 2008 6:57 PM
Denton:
"By the time you get him to housing court the lease would be up and the judge would order you to accept the security deposit as back rent."
Maybe.
Or, you let the tenant live out his deposit. Then he decides not to move out. And still doesn't pay rent. THEN you begin eviction, but you're now two months behind where you would have been if you began eviction when he decided to live out his deposit. And you don't have any of his money left.
Posted by: curiositykilledthecat at September 8, 2008 7:16 PM
To add to my original posting - some of the damage in the hallway (and I use that word lightly - with the exception of two spots on the wall, the scratches and scrapes have to be pointed out otherwise you'd easily miss it) was caused by the previous tenant.
The landlord said that he had already charged the previous tenant for the damage so I would only be liable for 2/3 of the damage - what he considered my doing.
So, my question is this, what if none of these outrageously priced repairs are even taking place? Does the previous tenant know that their deducted security deposit was sat on, and never actually applied to fixing anything?
Posted by: hotelcharliebravo at September 8, 2008 8:00 PM
HCB, you can tell I'm right. All the landlords are pissed!
All I can say, is that someone who's lived quite a while in NYC, like 54 years, renting for many of those years, that it's fair and square to live out that security.
Curiosity, I hear ya. I'm not advocating slimy tenants. This thread started cuz of slimy landlords, right?
If you live out your security, it's all fair and square. You leave with your rent paid in full, the landlord has none of your money. Everything's even and hunky-dory. If you let the landlord decide to give it back, you as a tenant have less leverage. As a tenant, you most likely have less financial assets, and less knowledge of the housing laws. As evinced by the OP. Therefore, you are fighting an uphill battle against a wiser wealthier adversary.
Vinca posted the following, which quotes:
>
What is not mentioned in this lovely link, which you can share with your landlord, is that there is no mechanism to FORCE the landlord to comply with what is stated. You will have to, as mentioned by others, file suit in small claims or housing court.
The OTHER link posted by Vinca, states:
"If the tenant disagrees with the owner over the return of the security deposit or payment of interest, and if the problem is building-wide, the tenant may contact the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau of the New York State Attorney General's Office. Where the problem is not building-wide, the tenant may begin a proceeding in small claims court. The tenant can file a "Tenant's Complaint of Rent Overcharges and/or Excess Security Deposit" (DHCR Form RA-89) if the owner demands the tenant pays more than one month's security."
Again, the onus is on you to file suit. And if you win all you get back is your stinking security deposit. There is NO penalty to the landlord beyond having to return your own money!
That is why all these sleazy NYC landlords won't give you back your deposit! If they simply refuse, you have to go to court. Chances are you won't due to the time and trouble, so they get to keep your money. If you do, all they lose is the money they owe you in the first place!
Slopefarm has it exactly right when he states:
That's what the landlord is counting on. You probably will (let it slide), and that means you paid an extra $200 per month in rent. And he'll give it to the next tenant too. And so on.
Where are all the tenant advocates on this one??? lol.
I said it before and will say it again: I'm sure the vast majority of 'Stoner landlords who are responding to this thread are decent people who wouldn't do such a thing. In fact I'm sure Arkady is correct when s/he states
But I think many of the problems are with landlords who own a few buildings, not 'Stoners who have an apt or two in their brownstone.
PS: I own a summer home that I rent out most of the summer and always return the security deposits!
Posted by: denton at September 8, 2008 8:05 PM
Same thing happened to us when we moved out of our last place. I paid a lawyer $250. to write a stern letter stating we had videotaped evidence that it was left in good condition.
He's not going to want to go to court. He'll return the money.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2008 8:51 PM
Give or take a few missing citations, pretty amusing where your imagination has taken you, Denton. You own your own home and a summer home, too. Please advise: how far does that leave you below the dread threshold you've declared for automatic ascension to slimy?
If you prefer to rant against slimy landlords, go right ahead. I don't favor them either. But when it comes to both descriptions and good advice, you're far off the mark. I'm a tenant, skiing the learning curve for the elderly owner of the building where I live...how unimaginably slimy is that?! If you could get past your own bias, you'd find it easy to recognize that the links were provided for OP's benefit. Whether addressing the issue with his ex-landlord, or seeking legal remedy, he won't accomplish much by chanting slimy landlord. Then again, in the glorious tradition of the no cure for stupid camp, he could follow your lead to screw early and often...but, of course, only as an advocate for pre-emptive safe tenancy.
Posted by: vinca at September 8, 2008 9:37 PM
Wow. The fact that you filmed the walk through suggests to me that you feared this scenario in advance. I say get the lawyer's letter and threaten action. Most leases clearly say that security deposits cannot be used to cover "normal wear and tear," and the vast majority of the "damage" you mention seems to be exactly that. Also, I'm not sure of the NY regulations on this, but in many municipalities, tenants are entitled to a freshly painted place, regardless. (Which would absolve you and your wife of any costs related to repainting, assuming you left the walls as you got them.)
But, speaking as a former renter with one odd landlady, why did you just spackle the paint holes and not paint over them???
Posted by: Minmin at September 9, 2008 8:10 AM
Denton,
You wrote:
"Slopefarm has it exactly right when he states:
That's what the landlord is counting on. You probably will (let it slide), and that means you paid an extra $200 per month in rent. And he'll give it to the next tenant too. And so on."
***
I did not write that in my post. More importantly, I do not appreciate being invoked and misquoted in support of your notion that all tenants should live off the security deposit, a position that I did not even agree with when I was a tenant for many years. As you note, the landlords on this site are pissed at what HCB's landlord did. That shows that this is the exception, not the rule, and there is no reason to advocate that tenants, as a matter of course, breach their leases by living off the deposit in every case.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 9, 2008 10:20 AM
Regarding this in NYC law:
"if the tenant honored the terms and conditions of the lease and left the apartment in the same condition as it was when rented, except for normal wear"
What's considered "normal wear" covers a LOT, in the eyes of the court. Simply tell the guy you'll take this to court and he'll probably just give you your money. Because he knows the law is on the tenant's side in these cases.
My friend's mother, a landlord, had a tenant successfully declare water damage from some buckets sitting on a hardwood floor as "normal wear" in court. My friend's mother had to return the deposit to the tenant. Most tenants have no clue they can fight this stuff.
Posted by: traditionalmod at September 9, 2008 8:23 PM
Slopefarm, if you're still reading this, I apologize for what I wrote. I quoted you but it seems the actual quote didn't show up. I think that's an html stoner issue. You said
>>
I think it ultimately comes down to deciding whether you want to put the time and effort into litigating this thing yourself in Housing Court, or let it slide.
>>
The same thing happened with an Arkady quote, it disappeared... anyway...
Then I answered your above quote by saying:
>>
That's what the landlord is counting on. You probably will (let it slide), and that means you paid an extra $200 per month in rent. And he'll give it to the next tenant too. And so on."
OK?
Something else that went unmentioned:
You (the tenant) can win in small claims court, but guess what, you still haven't got your money! Small Claims court will not enforce a judgment against the loser. You will have to enforce the judgment yourself, which in fact means you will have to hire a Marshall to collect it, at whatever commission they charge.
Posted by: denton at September 10, 2008 7:10 PM
Thanks, Denton. Your clarification makes sense. We're probably the only two still reading this thread. One response to your collection point. I think the tenant, upon winning a judgment, can docket the judgment and it swerves as a lien on the property (which the landlord will want to clear by paying, and will have to clear in order to borrow, refinance or transfer the property). That's pretty good protection. A landlord who obtains a judgment against a tenant who damages the apartment beyond wear and tear while living out the deposit, may find the tenant has no property upon which to place a judgment lien.
I think in the end it is easy for a tenant to spot a problem landlord long before move out (and for a landlord to spot a problem tenant). The case you cite and HCB's case are both exdamples of this. I think it is excessive to counsel living out the deposit in every case. I simply think it is wrong to counsel that tenants in every case should deplete the security and put landlords at the real risk of not being able to be made whole for real damage to their property. With a problem landlord, perhaps all bets are off. But in the absence of any reason to think there will be a problem, I just disagree with your counsel.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 10, 2008 10:31 PM
For those who insist that landlords won't want to deal with court, I'd like to share my story.
I'm currently involved in a small claims suit with my former landlord over a $3,500 security deposit. I vacated the apartment over 4 months ago, filed the suit about 2.5 months ago, and I'm still not any closer to getting my money than when I began. The landlord used her legal option to defer the first court date (each side can do this once with no explanation), and I'm going to head back next week. I have a feeling she'll also use her option to request a judge (instead of an arbitrator), which means the date could be rescheduled several times as the judge only sees a small number of cases per night. Once I make it through that and win (there's no question that she's in the wrong - she never even attempted to get me a list of damages or an explanation for keeping the money), then I still have to fight to actually collect the money.
The legal system in NY is very easy on landlords for withholding security deposits - there's really not any incentive for them to give you the money back. If they sit around and wait, they probably get to hang on to the money for 6 months and if you have the time and energy to fight it, will probably face almost no punitive damages for doing so. Some states charge double or triple damages, but NY is not one of those states.
Just keep it in mind. I'm not advocating skipping your last month's rent, but beware that landlords have no reason to fear a letter from the court.
Posted by: tp314 at October 23, 2008 10:29 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.