My family and I moved into a house about a week and a half ago. We rent in Ohio. We offered to clean the house ourselves before moving in, because the landlord lives in Indiana, and we were only 10 minutes away from our new house. Plus we wanted to get it done so that we could move in sooner. They accepted. It really was a disaster before we cleaned it. I had a friend come over to clean the carpets. They were the worst part of the whole place. She used her bissel steam cleaner, and cleaned each room at least 3 times, the worst rooms, 4. This did nothing to the carpet. The water in the steam cleaner was still coming out black, and most spots were still present. The carpet was still matted, and after all of this cleaning, it still smelled. We put out our own money for all of the cleaning, but this was OK since we offered.

After we realized that the carpet was just too dirty, and needed to be replaced, my husband offered to pay up front for the carpet, and deduct the amount we paid from our rent, even over a two month span. So this is what the land lord wrote in the lease so that this would be ok:

Tenant and landlord agree for tenant to replace the livingroom wall to wall carpet and or any other flooring. In addition, Landlord agrees to allow tenant to paint the livingroom or any other walls if neutral color is restored by tenant upon move out.

After moving in, we gave it a few days before we asked the landlord about the carpet. All of the sudden, her story was different. She said that we signed a lease stating that we would pay for the new carpet. My husband said, no, this must have been a misunderstanding, because as renters, why would we pay for carpet when we can't take it with us when we leave? She said, well my cash flow is really low right now, I have a vacant property, and I didn't count on replacing a window and your sump pump. (The sump pump in the basement did not work, and there was a broken window that needed repairs.) She said she didn't have enough money to get us new carpet. She also added that she would only replace the living room and hallway carpet. In my opinion, my daughters room is the worst, but she disagrees. She went on to say that, she has to think about this, because she thinks she is going to require us to pay for half of the carpet.

Is this in anyway legal? We looked up our rights, and tenants rights stated that the landlord cannot pass off any cost of repairs or up-keep that is the landlords responsibility. Never did we say we would pay for the carpet. It really does have a foul odor, there are sticky spots all over the living room, and by the end of the day, my daughters feet, and mine are black from walking on it barefoot.

So my question is, is she required to replace this nasty carpet for us? And can she require us to pay for half?

Let me also add that the landlord states that the lease says, replace carpet at tenant cost, but it no where states that. It states exactly as I have posted here. It doesn't specify who pays for it, only who physically replaces it.

I can't stress how much damage is done to this carpet. It is way beyong normal wear and tear. If we are barefoot, at the end of the day, our feet are black.

And if it's the landlords responsiblility and she passed it on to us, then I believe she is violating our rights as a tenat. Landlords are not allowed to pass on the cost of maintenance to tenants. She is totally trying to use us.

Tenant and landlord agree for tenant to replace the livingroom wall to wall carpet and or any other flooring. In addition, Landlord agrees to allow tenant to paint the livingroom or any other walls if neutral color is restored by tenant upon move out.



IF you typed her the way you signed it then you are responsible to replace it

Agree for tenant to replace

I agree with nohelp. According to the wording you typed out, I would read that as the tenant is replacing and paying for the carpet. It doesn't specifically say the tenant pays, but it also doesn't specifically say she pays.

Your situation is actually very common when tenants agree to take possession of property in "as is" condition. It's unfortunate, but I'm not surprised that this is how it's ending up. These things need to be decided, in writing, PRIOR to signing a lease - not after. You can always go back and ask for the moon, but she doesn't have to agree to it.

It sounds to me like she's actually making some kind of attempt to work with you on it. I know many, many landlords who would just flat out tell you "you're out of luck". I'd just keep trying to work with her. Has she seen the carpet in person? What is underneath the carpet?

rockinmommy
In a court who would have the burden of proof? I would think the tenant would have to prove that it meant replace but not pay?

Reading the wording. It would be up to the tenant to pay for the carpet if they want it replaced.
This happens often that the tenant wants newer carpet than what the landlord provides and pays for the upgrade. I once had 1 year old neutral carpet in one of my houses and made the mistake of letting the tenant pay for new carpet she put in $4000 bright blue carpet(only 1000sq feet of carpet) and tried to get me to pay her for it when she left.

The only advice I can give is to work with your landlord. I assume you signed a year lease so if landlord knows you are going to be gone at the end of the year they might offer incentives to keep you because it costs money to have an empty property. I know I try very hard to keep good tenants that pay always and on time. At the same time though try not to be too much of a bother because often complaining tenants are worth the loss.

Very true but I also read somewhere that normal wear and tear for a rug means a rug more than 5 years old is the landlords responsibility but since they signed this they have to go by the interpretation of it.
The landlord is responsible for normal wear and tear but them signing this could have put the obligation on them when it may well have been the landlords responsibility due to wear and tear.

I agree with everyone else... the wording you signed says that you can replace any flooring that you want, but it's at your cost. If you wanted the landlord to pay for it, that should have been explicitly spelled out (by adding wording such as "and deduct the cost of the replacement from the next X months rent.)

However, if this carpet is as bad as you say it is, then you might be able to argue something about habitability. On the other hand, you are currently living with it, so I don't know how far that is going to fly.

Your best bet may very well be to accept the half-price that she is offering. Because you are out of luck based upon the lease wording.

rockinmommy
In a court who would have the burden of proof? I would think the tenant would have to prove that it meant replace but not pay?

I don't know that there's a clear cut answer to that. I just went back and re-read what the OP typed out again. So much depends on intent. The tenant could use that clause to claim that the landlord was giving them permissing to replace the carpet. (Because normally replacing carpet w/out permission would be a violation.) Or the landlord could even attempt to use that clause to claim that the tenant agreed to replace the carpet, now they haven't, so now they're in breach of the contract for not doing it. Does REPLACING the carpet include paying for it? Or just physically installing carpet?

I always say that's why the Judge is called the JUDGE. Because they have to make a JUDGEMENT on these things.

And, ultimately none of it matters one lick unless one party sues the other. Until that point it's just paper. It's nice when everyone follows the rules on the paper are followed, but if they don't there's really only one way to enforce what's on the paper.

Exactly intent and it is the LL word against the tenants of the intent.
I agree with froggy that since it didn't disguish tenant not responsible for paying that the LL has a better case.

Had you used a professional carpet cleaner instead of cleaning it yourself you could have had the carpeting in much better condition that what you are currently left with now. Have you at least called a professional cleaner and asked them what they could do for the present carpet? Just because you could not clean it and get it truly clean and not more black dirt on your feet tells me you were not using the right chemicals. I always use the real professional chemicals and I can get any rug/carpet back to new condition with a little elbow grease. Having to do the carpets 3 and 4 times just threw a lot of water onto the carpeting. The dirt was not properly extracted I can tell you that off the bat. A Bissell steam cleaner does not have the suction of a professional machine - sorry.

Carpeting is expensive. Have you tried to go to a remnant store and pick out some less expensive remnants? If the landlord is willing to pay half of the new carpeting costs - go for it. If you want new carpeting and plan on staying there as you like the house then half the cost is not outrageous.