Hi pigs — since several of you took the time to provide feedback and advice, I wanted to come back with an update.
I decided to go the demand letter route– I spent a good deal of time on it, attached a table itemizing the disputes, and sent it by email and certified mail. I’m not even sure they’ve received the certified envelope yet, but we received a terse email today saying that they wholly disagreed with our letter but were cutting us the check we asked for since it would be a waste of their company’s time to do otherwise. Close to $500 — totally, totally worth it to me, mostly emotionally. Yes, it was a lot of time scouring the internet, but I’ve never made $500 on the internet before. 🙂
Flu, hopefully this doesn’t mean we can’t still avail ourselves of your home-owning and engineering expertise. We’ve been here a little over a month and I think we’re about to run out of issues that can be solved by turnbuckles and J-B Weld!
For other renters who might end up in this thread, I’ll paste in some of the most useful parts of the letter:
Landlord did not comply with the requirements of Section 1950.5(f)(1-3) with regard to noticing, conducting and documenting a Pre-Move-Out Inspection.
Identification of the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity paid to perform the repairs was required per California Civil Code Section 1950.5(g)(2)(B).
Receipts for the cost of materials were required to be provided per California Civil Code Section 1950.5(g)(2)(C).
Section 1950.5(e) prohibits security deposit deductions for ordinary wear and tear and pre-existing conditions.
[Specific to broken leases and, in our case, the $175/hr admin charges]
The proper calculation of amounts due to Landlord under Section 1951.2(a)(4) requires consideration of excess rents Landlord will collect as a result of the cancellation of our lease and the subsequent rent increase charged to the new tenant. (“Unless the total detriment suffered, whether by loss of rentals or consequential damages, exceeds the amount to be received under the new lease there is in fact no detriment, and hence no damages.” Willis v. Soda Shoppes of California, Inc. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 899 at p. 905.)
ETA: There is still a question about whether any of landlord’s administrative time can be charged. We just assumed it could be and then said it didn’t matter because the rate was unreasonable and excess rent would cover any reasonable rate.
