 Already Damaged (by NotThatJosh [CA]) May 20, 2012 9:56 PM
 Already Damaged (by Kyle [IN]) May 20, 2012 10:33 PM
Already Damaged (by ll [AZ]) May 21, 2012 12:15 AM
Already Damaged (by Pattyk [MO]) May 21, 2012 5:04 AM
Already Damaged (by V [OH]) May 21, 2012 5:28 AM
Already Damaged (by S i d [MO]) May 21, 2012 5:54 AM
Already Damaged (by Moshe [CA]) May 21, 2012 9:41 AM
Already Damaged (by NotThatJosh [CA]) May 21, 2012 10:15 PM
Already Damaged (by Sue [MI]) May 23, 2012 5:50 PM
Already Damaged (by NotThatJosh [CA]) Posted on: May 20, 2012 9:56 PM
Message:
I don't think you can be charged for murder if you try to kill a person who's already dead, although you could be tried for attempted murder.
Would the same principle hold if you try to collect on damages beyond normal wear and tear if something was already damaged?
Ignoring the 5 year lifespan of carpets, but let's say you rented a place to a person where the carpet was already damaged- it had stains or burns that you couldn't wash out or whatever without getting an entire new carpet for that room.
And, then, when person leaves, the carpet is an even bigger mess- there's additional holes, stains, or whatever that you can't fix without getting a completely new carpet in that space.
In this hypothetical situation, could you collect for getting new carpet even though the tenant would argue that the carpet was already damaged before he moved in and so it already needed new carpet?
I guess its like you see those beat up cars on the road, and you accidentally damage it. If the bumper on that car is already pretty rough and you gave it an additional scratch or dent, could the owner of the car demand you to pay for a new bumper?
--66.27.xxx.xxx |
Already Damaged (by Kyle [IN]) Posted on: May 20, 2012 10:33 PM
Message:
I think you could technically charge for that. I have a unit where the carpets were not in great condition when I rented it out, and I told my tenant I would not charge them for damages to the carpets when they move out. --71.194.xxx.xxx |
Already Damaged (by ll [AZ]) Posted on: May 21, 2012 12:15 AM
Message:
Depends on what his or your pictures show. No pics no proof. Charging someone like that is unfair though. I would pro rate it. --166.216.xxx.xx |
Already Damaged (by Pattyk [MO]) Posted on: May 21, 2012 5:04 AM
Message:
I think you should have collected it from the first people who damaged the carpet to begin with. You have to run your business. After the second people it's on your pocket book. Just my 2cents worth --173.143.xx.xxx |
Already Damaged (by V [OH]) Posted on: May 21, 2012 5:28 AM
Message:
Back in the day of carpet we rated by the cost of repairing the damage, yes it is possible to have 700bux in repairs on a carpet that overall cost is 350bux. --68.76.xxx.xxx |
Already Damaged (by S i d [MO]) Posted on: May 21, 2012 5:54 AM
Message:
My answer to your question is I would only charge a prorated amount. Since it's a hypothetical question, my hypothetical answer is charge whatever is "fair" (i.e. cost to replace that particular room, minus depreciated value of carpet).
My recommendation is: Get rid of carpet...and life will be a lot less hypothetical and much more profitable. I can repair a single piece of Allure that gets damaged. I know the cost off the top of my head $25 for labor, travel and materials. $8 each additional piece. Good luck doing that with carpet!
--208.70.xxx.x |
Already Damaged (by Moshe [CA]) Posted on: May 21, 2012 9:41 AM
Message:
When donkeys fly.
He didn't do any harm to you by "ruining" an already ruined carpet.
In CA (as if it is only CA), previous damage is a defense against responsibility for damage.
--96.247.xx.xxx |
Already Damaged (by NotThatJosh [CA]) Posted on: May 21, 2012 10:15 PM
Message:
But, just because something is already damaged doesn't necessarily mean its "ruined". You can have a carpet that is stained, but still in overall good enough shape to reuse again.
In that scenario, it seems like you're giving the tenant a free pass to destroy the carpet because it was already stained to the point where it cannot be reused again. --66.27.xxx.xxx |
Already Damaged (by Sue [MI]) Posted on: May 23, 2012 5:50 PM
Message:
Seems unethical to me.
--75.21.xxx.xx |
Reply:
|
|