Charging beyond a Security Deposit?

Question

Is it legal in the state of Massachusetts to bill a resident for carpet replacement on top of the security deposit after that resident has moved out? I understand that if a carpet is very damaged, you could be held responsible.

But since a standard lease only mentions "wear and tear" what is considered really damaged? I ask because a certain property in a certain central MA city has repeatedly charged residents additional fees on top of their security deposit for "carpet replacement" It seems it should be the responsibility of the management company to do renovations for new residents, especially when it is an apartment community, not a private residence. Further isn't the point of the security deposit to cover damages? I think that this place is up to something fishy that they charge a few hundred dollars more than just the security deposit.

Answer 1

If the damage exceeds the deposit, yes, the landlord can charge the former tenant the difference. However, it sounds like they are replacing the whole carpet at the former tenant's expense instead of billing them for repair. And if the tenant had been there more than 5 years, the carpet has to be replaced for wear and tear anyway, and the tenant should not be billed.
So, yeah, it sounds very fishy.

Answer 2

When a tenant vacates a property, the landlord is entitled to charge for damages BEYOND normal wear and tear. In other words, if the carpets are clean and simply show evidence of wear from normal use, that is the landlord responsibility. However, if those same carpets exhibit grape juice stains or similar, the landlord is well within his rights to charge for carpet replacement.

The point of a security deposit is to cover potential damage ABOVE and BEYOND normal wear and tear.

Answer 3

Your question solutions itself. You had a secure practices DEPOSIT. It replaced into in basic terms a deposit, no longer the finished itemized invoice. That comes once you progression out. basically because it is not legally allowed to maintain each and all the deposit of there replaced into no harm (by using fact no invoice is due for damages), you're legally to blame for all damages to a property. i'm undecided why you are able to think of in any different case. i can not think of all and sundry who thinks a deposit is a alternative for a whole invoice. once you're making a reservation for a lodge, you place a deposit down on the room (often on your credit card). you do no longer pay the finished invoice until you circulate away. you do no longer think of your deposit covers the finished invoice on a lodge do you? in case you harm the lodge room, they value you for damages on precise of the value of your stay.