Thanks for your input, u def seem to know what your talking about. Yes the common room was not owned by one person, there were 6 people in the house. I understand the painting of the hall ways and new flooring, but the room not being usable was the main problem.

As for the deposit, what do you mean it will have to stand with the facts that were given? In this case, your own opinion, if you saw those photos as a judge, and saw the damage list the LL gave me (which listed mud stained carpets and dirty floors ((which wad due to his construction)) would I be merited some money back? Or would the judge most likely rule in favor of the LL)

First, you don't use the Comments feature for follow-up questions or info. Use the Answer options near the bottom of the page.

Second, That this was a not a personal apartment makes a big difference and should have been info initially provided.

But if he did not adhere to the law in the handling of the deposit then you are golden.