We rented a house from Carla Morgan of Remax in Roseville. When we were ready to move out, we requested an 'initial inspection'.
Per California Civil Code, Section 1950, the landlord must provide written notice of items requiring cleaning during this INITIAL INSPECTION. The purpose of this law is to allow the tenant to clean, PRIOR TO VACATING, in order to get their deposit back.
Remax did NOT provide us a list during the INITIAL INSPECTION, as required by law.instead, during the initial inspection, Remax they told us there were NO items requiring cleaning.
Then, one month later, after we moved out, they told us we were NOT getting our deposit back.
Imagine that:
- you rent a place;
- you tell the landlord you'd like a list of items that may require any additional; attention so you can get your deposit back, (as they are required to do by law);
- the landlord tells you there aren't any items requiring attention;
- then a month later the landlord tells you that you can't have your deposit back because they claim they found items which require additional attention.
It's hard to imagine a more unethical or illegal approach to landlording than how Remax handled this situation.
It does NOT matter that they claim they (or the owner) found items that they claim now needed to be cleaned AFTER We MOVED OUT. The point is that we did not have an opportunity correct any deficiencies prior to moving out as required by law, since they told us there was nothing to clean or fix.
Had we been informed of any items, we would have corrected them. But since they told us everything was fine, we did not have the opportunity.
What exactly was their point of having an initial inspection?
We actually had a crew of three people who spent 12 hours a day, for three days, cleaning every square inch of the house. It was far cleaner than when we moved in.
Here is the law verbatim - it is California Civil Code section 1950 section f: "the landlord shall make an initial inspection of the premises prior to any final inspection the landlord makes after the tenant has vacated the premises. The purpose of the initial inspection shall be to ALLOW THE TENANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES. Based on the inspection, the landlord shall give the tenant an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleaning that are proposed to be the basis of any deductions from the security. The statement shall be given to the tenant. The tenant shall have the opportunity during the period following the initial inspection until termination of the tenancy to remedy identified deficiencies in order to avoid deductions from the security."
The law is clear. Remax violated the law by not returning our deposit, after NOT providing us a list of deficiencies.in other words, a landlord can't simply tell you everything is fine, and then a month later tell you that you can't have your deposit back.
But not only did they violate the law, they knew they violated the law. You see, their owns forms that they provide their tenants states that the purpose of the initial inspection is to tell the tenant the items which need to be fixed in order to get their deposit back. They signed this form and provided us a copy. They knew that they were breaking the law by telling us everything was o.K. And NOT returning our deposit, but they did it anyway.
Consider this very carefully before you do any business with Remax and Carla Morgan.
0 comments