Cat Damage to Ratty Carpet Shouldn't Cost Tenant

By Sara Gebhardt
Saturday, November 10, 2007

Q: We've been living in our apartment for 4 1/2 years. We'll be moving out after five. How do places typically handle carpet damage and old carpets?

When we moved in, the carpet was not in great shape. I asked the rental office when it was put in, and they said 1999. That means that when we move out, the carpets will be nine years old.

We have a cat, and the cat hasn't been especially kind to the carpet. That, and our building is under new management. Tenants have been grumbling about being overcharged on move-out.

Considering that we paid a nonrefundable pet deposit and pet rent for five years and that the carpet was old when we moved in, I think we should not be charged for the carpet on move-out.

I would understand if we had been here for six months and the cat tore up the place, but I figure nine years is about as long as a landlord could expect carpets to last anyway. They would be replaced regardless of condition.

Is this reasonable? Are apartments usually reasonable about this around here? -- Fairfax

A: I don't think you should be charged for damage to a nine-year-old carpet. Most landlords replace carpets when they turn over units even after just a few years. Some replace them after a few years for long-term tenants simply because the cheap carpet that many landlords buy wears out quickly.

That your cat may have worsened that "normal" wear and tear is a consideration. However, I think that given your length of tenancy and the age of the carpet -- along with your pet deposit and pet rent -- the new management company would be violating standard practice if it charged you for damage to an old carpet it would have replaced anyway. (This assumes that the damage was just to the carpet, not to the floor beneath it.)

It might help if you have pictures of your unit at move-in or a signed copy of a move-in checklist stating the original condition of the carpet. However, if you don't have documentation, it would seem that the new management company would not have much proof of the move-in status of the unit, either.

You can approach the move-out two ways. One is to wait and see: Allow the management company to go through your unit after you leave and dock you for what it sees as damage. The other is to have someone on staff do a move-out walk-through with you so that you are prepared for any deductions from your security deposit.

In either case, you should feel free to talk to management about the age of the carpet and its condition when you moved in. Let the staff know that because the carpet long ago exceeded its normal life span, you do not expect the damage to affect your security deposit.

If it does affect the deposit, file a complaint with your local housing office.

I recently received a similar question from a tenant whose old carpet had cigarette burns. My answer there would be the same: When the cheap carpet is so old that it would have to be replaced anyway, you should not be charged for additional damage.

That's not to say that a landlord won't try to charge you. Also, if the landlord buys cheap carpet, that doesn't give you an excuse to damage it. How much of a security deposit to keep is a subjective decision. It's better to avoid tempting the landlord to stick you with the bill.

I have a friend who is trying to get a one-bedroom apartment. He makes way more than the minimum income but is being told his credit score is too low. His employment history is strong, three years with the same employer. He was denied because of a low credit score -- he doesn't have much credit history -- and doesn't even qualify to pay an larger security deposit.

Why is having bad credit better in these situations than having little or no credit? One doesn't want to get too much credit and massive debt. I have witnessed rental companies taking chances on people with horrid credit, just as long as they pay a much higher security deposit. Any advice?

-- Hyattsville

Legally, an apartment community can deny people based on financial reasons such as minimal credit or bad credit, as long as they are applying those standards equally across all applicants. If your friend suspects discrimination, he should complain to a local housing office.

It does seem strange that someone with enough income would be denied unless there is a lot of competition for these units. Assuming that your friend does not have any major marks against him on his credit report -- such as a history of unpaid rent -- the logical reason for his rejection is that the landlord has a prospective renter who equals your friend in terms of income and solid employment but beats him on credit.

By the way, someone with bad credit or too many credit lines will also have a low credit score. A low score is not the same thing as no credit history.

As you have seen, landlords have different ways of reviewing rental applications. Likely, those who are in the market to fill empty units will be more amenable to giving someone with a bad -- or no -- credit history a chance, especially if the would-be tenant is willing to pay an extra security deposit.

The best thing your friend can do is go elsewhere. He may find a landlord who isn't bothered by his lack of credit history or perhaps agrees with you that it is better to have a renter who has stayed out of debt.

With a good job and income, your friend will eventually find a place that wants him.

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