Tenants Can Be Charged for Damage Beyond 'Normal Wear and Tear'

QA friend of mine recently moved out of the apartment where she lived for three years. When she moved in, she was not required to put down a security deposit. However, now that she has moved out, the landlords say she owes $400 to replace the carpet, which they claim was stained beyond repair. My friend had no pets and no wild parties; she even has her own steam cleaner, which she used to clean the carpet before moving out. The landlords didn't notify her when the inspection took place, so she wasn't present. She is afraid of being turned in to a collection agency because there's no security deposit from which to deduct the $400. What in the world is "normal wear and tear?" Are the rules different because this is money my friend owes as opposed to it being deducted from a security deposit? -- Fairfax

AAlthough there is no precise definition of normal wear and tear, the basic idea is that landlords are supposed to pay to replace or repair appliances, carpets, etc., that have gotten old because of regular use. Examples include things that happen over time, even when people are treating a unit well, such as faded paint, a rickety refrigerator or a worn carpet.

When items in apartments age normally, the tenant is not responsible for replacing them. But when they age faster than they're supposed to because of a resident who lives too aggressively and has caused damage beyond normal use, a landlord can deduct for damages. Examples include carelessly staining or ripping the carpet, breaking a window with a football or damaging wood floors.

Even in buildings where tenants have not paid security deposits, a tenant can be charged for damage beyond normal wear and tear.

Lately, many larger, more upscale apartment buildings have begun getting rid of security deposits. They do so not necessarily as a move-in incentive, but as a way to help make the rental process easier for tenants and themselves, said Karen Kossow, director of sales and marketing for KSI Management of Centreville, which no longer requires its tenants to pay security deposits.

Kossow said that typically, a management company will replace the security deposit with a nonrefundable "move-in" or "amenity" fee that is less than a security deposit would be.

"It makes the process a lot easier, and everyone knows up front what is required," she said. "It's less money for a customer to come up with up front, and it helps us to maintain all the common areas for us, such as laundry rooms, pools and any other common area upkeep."

But just because there is no security deposit does not mean residents can damage apartments. Paying an up-front amenity fee or something of the sort does not exempt a tenant from move-out charges. Included in the lease in buildings that forego the security deposit, Kossow said, is a clause saying a resident will be billed for damages beyond normal wear and tear.

Second-Hand Smoke Solutions

Readers of my April 2 column had additional ideas about how to handle a next-door neighbor's secondhand smoke seeping into their units. Some people shared methods that have worked for them. These generally were consistent with my suggestions about keeping out the smoke by covering holes, gaps and cracks in walls, ceilings and other places that allow the transfer of air from one person's abode to another's.

Barbara Negley of the District said: "It seems possible that adhesive foam weather stripping along the sides and top of the door, combined with a 'door sleeve' across the bottom, would prevent smoke from entering. . . . That worked for me when I had a neighbor who routinely sprayed air freshener in the hallway to mask the smell of smoke. Which was worse, I couldn't say. But best of all would be for the smoking neighbor to install weather stripping and a door sleeve -- unless, that is, the building's ventilation system is contributing to the problem. In my building, there is no common ventilation system, and no ventilation system whatsoever in the hallway (the opening and closing of the two hallway doors is what refreshes the air), and that's why sealing the doors worked well."

H. G. deGast of Falls Church said good ventilation systems are key.

"Limit how often the exhaust fans in the apartment are used, as they pull more smoke odors into the apartment, making conditions worse. Landlords should install a small, quiet exhaust fan of about 100 CFM [cubic feet per meter] capacity in all smoker apartments. Likewise, install a fresh air intake fan to those apartments who complain of smoke odors," deGast said.

Bronson Frick, associate director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, a nonprofit organization in Berkeley, Calif., said the only way for people to truly rid their air of secondhand smoke is to live in a smoke-free building and to not come into contact with smoke. Because that is not always possible for residents of multi-family housing, it's still a good idea to try to trap smoke and keep at least most of it out.

But Frick doesn't think that's possible using air filtration devices because, he said, they merely work to reduce the odor of the smoke rather than trap impurities from the smoke.

"Air purifier devices do not protect people from the health dangers associated with exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. These products will at best reduce the odor of smoke and merely provide a false sense of security that the problem is being addressed. In fact, most major manufacturers of air filtration products now carry explicit disclaimers that their products do not protect people from tobacco smoke," he said.

"Tobacco smoke has what scientists call a non-linear dose response, so reducing, but not eliminating, the smoke doesn't provide health protection. Cardiovascular damage in particular can occur at very low levels of exposure, even below the threshold of a person's ability to smell the smoke. Also, tobacco smoke contains a toxic brew of carcinogenic gases, in addition to the particulates, that most systems do not address at all and that no system can completely filter out," Frick said.

Frick's stance against air purifiers may be justifiable, but if people know they are affected by secondhand smoke or other strong odors and want to reduce the smell, using an air purifier won't hurt their health more than not using one.

Smoking laws continue to be a hot topic. As more jurisdictions around the world ban smoking from restaurants and bars, more landlords are listening to their residents and turning buildings into smoke-free properties. By law, a smoke-free policy is not considered discriminatory as long as the policy is not used to target a protected class or minority. So, if more renters request such complexes, more landlords are likely to choose to go smoke-free.

Do you have questions, comments or ideas about apartment life? Contact Sara Gebhardt via e-mail at gebhardts@washpost.comor by mail, c/o Real Estate Editor, The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.