Security Deposit Issue in California

CALIFORNIA.
My former LL has deducted $200 from my security deposit for a "sanitary cleaning" and "blinds cleaning." I lived there for 17 years and left the apartment in good condition (vacuumed, removed contact paper, patched every hole in the wall, etc.) The manager did not do an official walk-through, but she did enter the apartment once it was empty and said, "You didn't have to clean." I assumed she meant because the apartment was being remodeled. After I moved, it was upgraded with new fixtures, countertops, etc. and the rent was raised $500. I was shocked when I received the deduction list to see that I was charged for cleaning. Is this legal?

If that was all the deposit statement said, it was not enough. Per CA state law, the statement must be itemized. Receipts must be included if the total deductions are over $125. Did you receive copies of receipts for cleaning? If the work was done by the LL or his workers, did the LL list exactly what needed to be sanitary cleaned, how many hours it took, who did the work, and how much an hour the workers were paid? If not, the statement is not sufficient. Send the LL a letter for the demand of your deposit's return, mail it certified, return receipt requested, and keep a copy of the letter and the postcard that comes back. If he fails to return it, file a case against him in small claims court. Also, did he offer you a pre-move out inspection per CA Civil Code 1950? He should have offered this a few weeks prior to your move out date.

Thanks so much for your response. I did receive an attached statement copy for the company that cleaned the apartment. The statement has a pre-printed list of rooms and areas for cleaning. However, "COMPLETE CLEAN" has been circled. It states that Vendor is to check items upon completion. No items have been checked. The charges show $175 for "Complete Clean". Below that is written "Blins" (sic) with the amt. of $25. Is this sufficient?

The LL terminated my lease and gave me 30 days to move. The notice advised that I could request a preliminary move-out inspection for a "reasonable fee." However, due to the unexpected termination, I was scrambling up until the last minute to move. Therefore, I did not have time to schedule. As I said, I was there for an informal walk-thru with the manager after I emptied the apartment. At that time, the manager was telling a maintenance employee all the items that were going to be replaced - flooring, countertops, etc.

The apartment was in good condition when I left. Should I have to pay for it to be cleaned after it was remodeled?

First, you were a month to month tenant, and no longer under a lease. Your monthly agreement was terminated. not a lease. You were not evicted, just asked to move at the end of the monthly agreement. You should have received 60 days if notice in CA if you had lived there that long, not 30 days of notice.

I doubt a "complete clean" notation and one that only says "blins" and doesn't even mention what was done to these is sufficient. These are supposed to be itemized and state what exactly was cleaned. From the statement you received, you can't tell what they cleaned at all, nor what was done to the blinds (cleaned, replaced, ???).

Write a letter to the LL. State and quote CA Civil Code 1946 or 827a, whichever one states that you were to have received 60 days notice to terminate. I also do not believe they can charge you for the PMI. Look up CA Civil Code 1950 and quote the sections on the PMI offer being mandatory. No where does it say you may be charged for this. That is not permitted. Also CA Civil Codes 1950.5 a or 1940.5g, whichever one details how the deposit itemization is to be written. State in the letter that since he failed to follow all of these Codes, and since the entire unit was to be remodeled, no further cleaning was necessary. After 17 years of living there, blinds would have been worthless (fully depreciated) and he cannot charge you for those. Insist that your entire deposit be returned to you. Send this letter by certified mail, return receipt requested. Keep a copy of the letter and the postcard that comes back. If he refuses, the only thing you can do is file suit against him in small claims court.

According to Ca. Civil Code 1950.5(B) If the landlord or landlord's employee did not do the work, the landlord shall provide the tenant a copy of the bill, invoice, or receipt supplied by the person or entity performing the work. The itemized statement shall provide the tenant with the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity, if the bill, invoice, or receipt does not include that information.

LL did supply a copy of the bill supplied by the person performing the work. However, there is doubt as to whether it was correctly "itemized." The code isn't specific enough. Also, it is apparently unclear as to whether the LL can charge a fee for the PMI. The code doesn't say it is allowed, but it doesn't prohibit it either.

The blinds had only been installed for 8 years, but I had cleaned them a few months prior to receiving the termination notice. Thankfully, I do have photos taken after move-out which prove the condition I left it in.

I am also planning to sue LL for breach of warranty of habitability for failure to make repairs. Should I include this with demand payment letter for security deposit or send as a separate letter?

Thank you so much for your advice and obvious knowledge of the legal codes in California!

Your habitability suit will go no where, I'm afraid. The time to sue for that is when you are in the rental or immediately after you had to move due to the uninhabitability. You didn't move out because it was uninhabitable. You moved out because you were asked to leave. You stayed in the unit for 17 years. Uninhabitable means unlivable. How can you call the unit uninhabitable if you stayed there 17 years? You will have a hard time convincing a judge of this.

The standard for itemization is usually to see if the average person could tell from looking at an invoice exactly what work was done and why it needed to be done. "Complete clean" does not meet that standard. Does it mean floors mopped, cabinets washed, walls wiped down, bathrooms scrubbed, or what? Why did the entire place need cleaned? It doesn't state that anything in particular was dirty. So why was the cleaning required? What needed to be cleaned? And for that matter, what does "Blins" mean? Is it referring to blinds, buildings, or what? What in particular was wrong with these items? Did they need cleaned or replaced? This statement is too vague for anyone to know what was done or why. I seriously doubt it will be acceptable. And I have never heard of anyone charging for a required offer of an inspection. Since it is required to offer it, I also seriously doubt that any judge would allow them to charge for such an inspection.

According to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County website:

"The law requires every residential LL to maintain the rental unit and common area in a "habitable" condition unless the tenant causes the problem. Habitable means that the rental unit does not have problems that can affect the health and safety of the tenants or reduce the normal use of the premises.

A rental unit is NOT livable if it substantially lacks any of the following:
- Roof, walls and windows that do not leak
- Working plumbing or gas facilities
- Water supply of hot and cold running water connected to a sewage disposal system
- Heating system that works
- Electrical lighting and wiring in working order
- Building and grounds kept clean, sanitary, and free from garbage, rodents, and vermin
- Adequate number of garbage cans or dumpsters in good repair
- Floors, stairways and railing in good repair "

"A tenant is under no duty to move out of a rental unit in order to claim it is uninhabitable. Just because a tenant remained in a rental unit does not mean that the unit was therefore habitable. Many tenants do not have the resources to move quickly, and there is a severe shortage of decent affordable housing."

As you can see, the meaning of "breach of warranty of habitability" does not literally mean "unable to live there." People can still live in an apartment that leaks (it doesn't rain that often) or without a heating system (doesn't get that cold here - actually, it's more of a health issue in California to live in an apt without A/C. Mine got up to 95 degrees inside in the summer).

The site also states that "A breach of habitability by the LL begins when s/he first gets notice of the problem, even if the LL has not had time to repair." LL opted to terminate my tenancy rather than make the necessary repairs. Therefore, I feel it within my right to sue him for breach of habitability since I will probably be taking him to court for return of my security deposit anyway. I accept the opinion of those who believe that I don't have a case for breach of habitability. However, if people could put aside that opinion and advise me on how to write a demand letter in this situation, I would really appreciate it! Thank you for your time.

I forgot to add this quote from the FHC:

"Tenants can sue their landlords for damages including a retroactive reduction in rent and the annoyance and inconvenience of living in bad conditions. Each tenant can sue for up to $7500 in small claims court."

It sounds like the amount is arbitrary as long as it is under $7500. In the demand letter, can I demand a set amount without itemizing it. For example, "I demand payment in the amount of $XXX for breach of warranty of habitability." Or do I have to explain how this amount was determined. I realize that it will have to be explained in court, of course. Also, should this be a separate letter from the security deposit demand letter?

By the way, I have ordered "Everybody's Guide to Small Claims Court in California" by Ralph Warner.

Thanks again!

"A tenant is under no duty to move out of a rental unit in order to claim it is uninhabitable. Just because a tenant remained in a rental unit does not mean that the unit was therefore habitable. Many tenants do not have the resources to move quickly, and there is a severe shortage of decent affordable housing."

There may be a severe shortage of housing and you may not have the resources to move quickly. But we aren't talking short term here. You lived there for 17 years!!!! Explain to a judge why you couldn't find accommodations or gather the resources to move at any point in 17 years!

Let's assume you just found out that the place was uninhabitable just before you moved out. If you moved out the very next month, what rent reduction could you get? You didn't live there in the uninhabitable conditions? You left. You aren't eligible for that since you didn't stay in the uninhabitable unit. I can't see you winning this.

I didn't say that it was for the entire 17 years!!! It was for the last two years. It's a long story and I'm sure you're not interested in hearing it. As I said, I have taken everyone's opinion into consideration. It's not your money, so I don't understand what it matters if you think I could win or not. You, hopefully, won't be the judge hearing the case. If you will re-read my prior post, I am just asking about writing the demand letter. Can you not set your opinion aside and respond regarding that matter?