Apartments for Cheap

Questions and Answers

Your Questions About Apartment Lease Pdf

May 24, 2012

Mandy asks…

Should I take my landlord to small claims court?

I moved out of my apartment on July 19 and my lease was up on July 31. On August 20 I received a check for my security deposit for $366, when it was supposed to be for $400. I texted my ex-landlord (that is her preferred way of communicating, it it how we have always communicated in the almost two years that she was my landlord) and asked her why it was for the wrong amount. She told me she was out of town for a few days and would look into when she got home. Turns out she was actually out of town for two weeks, and she returned home yesterday and said she would have an answer for me today. Today she tells me the reason they took money was for a cleaning bill. Now my roommates and I throughly cleaned the apartment before leaving, despite the fact that when we moved in it was disgusting. But according to the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, landlords must send a list detailing any charges they have taken out of your security deposit, along with the check, within 30 days of moving out. Becuase she did not do this, I am actually entitled to double the amount of my security deposit. When I told her this she said there is nothing she could do and to stop being ‘unreasonable.’

I do not think I am being unreasonable. I am out of work and have $6 in my bank account. $44 may not seem like much, but to me it makes a big difference. I just need advice from someone who either had legal experience or has been to small claims court before. Should I bother going? Does it sound like I will win?

Here is the Pa Attorney General’s website, with the laws about security deposits: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/consumers.aspx?id=405

There is also a .pdf of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 on that website.
I have not cashed the check, hence the $6 in my bank account lol.

I asked her for a reason the very night I got it and did not receive a response until 2 weeks later. She was out of town but I asked if I could speak with the person who works above her (she works for a company, she does not personally own the building) she refused. I did not receive an explanation until well after the 30 days she is given by law.
I’m not desputing that she got a cleaning company, however uneccesary it was. The law says that she must send an itemized list along with the check within 30 days of the leas ending. She sent the check 20 days later without a list. I never recieved a list, she text messaged me today. (Sept 3.. 33 days later)

Administrator answers:

You – could however it is a very unlikely win.

The double rule was put in for unreasonable landlords, the fact still remains that partial payment was issue within the timeline it is probable that you accepted that payment by cashing the check.

A reason for deduction was given upon request.

David asks…

Can I get evicted for my age?

(Alberta, Canada) I am living with a tenant, but I have not signed the lease agreement. I am 20 years old and the age requirement for the housing is 21. My roommate was informed that although the min. age is 21, it would be okay for me to live there, just as long as the lease was co-signed when I turn 21. The representative told my roommate when the manager asks “is there anyone else living with you?”, to say that “I am looking for a roommate, but I have not found one yet” . He is not a manager, but was representing housing at the time. My roommate told the manager what he was told to say stated above.

3 months after the lease was signed, my roommate received a phone call from the owner of the apartment complex asking “is ‘that girl’ living with you?”. My roommate said yes. The owner said “she can’t live here because she is not 21″.

Although my roommate was notified of the age requirement, he was assured it would be okay if I lived there. Nowhere in the lease does it state that I have to be 21 to live there.

I researched a bit and came across “notice to vacate” under the residential tenancies act – applicable to “people who are not tenants and who are living in the residential premises with the tenant, and who are not authorized by the landlord to live in the residential premises (14-day notice).” (http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/pdf/vcop/Code_of_Practice.pdf)

Although I have not violated the lease agreement, can I still get evicted?

Administrator answers:

You are living there illegally. There is no lease agreement. You can’t just move into property you do not own. You have got some balls, I will give you that.

Carol asks…

You get to choose your health care? Really?

Well sort of. Title 1 section 102 Protecting the choice to keep current coverage. This section states very clearly that as of the first day of the first year of the government health care coverage, you will no longer be able to enroll in employer based coverage. You will be required to take the Government coverage.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

throughout the bill they refer to your existing coverage being “grandfathered” what this term means is..well lets say you live in an apartment, and you have a dog. New ownership takes over the apartment. And they decide no dogs. People who already had dogs and are still in their lease are “Grandfathered” through the term of the lease. At the end of the lease, you either have to move out or get rid of the dog. Same principle applies here. If you move jobs, or at any point lose your health care, you must go to the government health plan. Or if you start on the Government health plan, and then decide you want what your employer offers, to bad, you cant get it.
Hater police, No you don’t. You can only keep your employer based, if you have it on the first day of Year one of the enactment of this bill. That is not choice. It is simply delayed slow moving control. it means your children will have no choice. Your grand children will have no choice.
Check out the link, notice the constant references to “The Commsioner” one could argue that they are not talking about some kind of health care czar, however they make very clear references to the insurance issuer. So basically what you are telling me is some guy in washington will have ultimate authority over my health care coverage? what could possibly go wrong there?
Amber rose: seriously don’t worry about it? Your joking right? The “Don’t worry about it” mentality is what led to this mess in the first place. People need to take action they work for us you know. We need to call our representatives and tell them NO. Inaction=death.;

Administrator answers:

Obama wants to force as many people on the government health care plan as he can and I don’t like it at all. This is all about control too bad more people don’t see what his plans really are for us.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers