In Wiconsin:

Are landlords required to change the locks after every tenant?

Are landlords allowed to walk on the property and look in the windows?

Are landlords allowed to require you to use a specific carpet cleaning company after moving out?

Is my X landlord required to provide proof of the installation and age of the carpet/flooring at my request?

My landlord claims to have paid 3 water bills on my behalf to the city water utility. This totalling over $200. When I contacted the water utility about these alleged payments, they do not have any record of those payments, nor do the alleged payment amounts appear as an amount due on my bill/payment history. Would this be something approved for double damanges?

When I moved out, I was given a bill instead of my security deposit. They claimed I had intentinally damaged the carpet by "numberous stains". I only know of 3 stains. They took pictures of the stains. They took at least 4 pictures of each stain from different angles to make it look like there was a million stains. What is my recourse on this?

I already filed a complaint with consumer protection, unfortunately they could not make a determination due to the landlord lying to them about my complaint issues. Small claims is next week.

Wis-law.com has all the answers - and more.

The problem here is proof. Did you take pictures doing the walkthru? Do you have a signoff from the landlord about the condition of the unit?

If not, they are going to bring in their carpet cleaner or mainteance man who will testify as to the damages. ANY stain might be reason for replacing the carpeting.

Well I will say that 3 stains could be consdered numerous or at least several, they did not say 10 stains, or 20 stains, so there is really no lie in their statement. If there were stains not cleaned there can be billing for cleaning and /or new carpet if it can not be cleaned.

And if there was no stain left after you cleaned, your cleaner will need to testify. Actually your photos will show the limited stains, but any stain that can not be removed may be grounds for them to still win.

Them peeking in, is not related to this case.