Battle Against Ants Calls for a Tenant-Landlord Alliance

Question: We live in an apartment that has been invaded by red ants. The pest-control company has sprayed several times to no avail. They come into our unit primarily through the electrical outlets. Is the landlord responsible for solving this problem or should we move?

Property manager Robert Griswold replies:

Yes, the landlord is responsible for pest control unless a tenant is creating a condition that is conducive to pests by not keeping the unit in a clean and habitable condition.

At certain times of the year and in certain locations, red ants are difficult to control without an aggressive plan and everyone’s cooperation. Of course, even though you want this problem addressed immediately, you still retain control of when and if access is allowed to your unit.

You should cooperate with the owner or his pest-control or maintenance representatives in their efforts to mitigate the ant problem.

Attorney Ted Smith replies:

Griswold points out that the responsibility for pest control ordinarily falls on the landlord and suggests a good way to try to resolve the problem. However, as a landlord attorney, I need to remind you of a couple of things.

First, though you may have a serious ant problem, your unit is not uninhabitable as defined by California law. Note that you have all the other services: heat, water, plumbing and various amenities.

If the matter is not resolved, one option for you is to move, but you’ll need to give proper notice and pay full rent to the day your tenancy ends.

Management has the right to enter the apartment. Cooperate by allowing access at reasonable times to take care of the problem.

Attorney Steven R. Kellman replies:

In respectful disagreement with Smith, the unit may not be habitable with an infestation of red ants. If you are thinking of moving, the problem must be severe. Having basic services, as Smith points out, is not much good if you can’t live in the place.

Though Griswold makes a good point that ants may be a serious problem at certain times of the year, it simply remains the responsibility of the landlord to correct the problem.

In severe ant infestations, the landlord must take more serious (and more expensive) steps to handle the problem. Maybe low-budget spraying is not enough. There are many methods available, including laying down a barrier at the border of the property to repel the ants and placing traps designed to eradicate them at the source.

If the problem is severe, the landlord should have figured out by now how to correct it or should have warned tenants of the problem before renting to them.

Landlords Can’t Take Automatic Deductions

Q: I recently moved into an apartment. My neighbor casually informed me that she had heard the landlord will automatically deduct $50 for carpet cleaning even though this was not mentioned by the manager and is not stated anywhere in my lease.

I know from my legal background that the landlord cannot legally charge for “reasonable wear and tear.” Upon consulting two legal references, I learned that “reasonable wear and tear” is defined as moderate staining and usage, which should not be deducted from my security deposit. I don’t believe that the cost to clean the carpets after normal use would be my responsibility.

What is your definition of “reasonable wear and tear” as it relates to carpets? Am I obligated to shampoo the carpets when I leave even though I take excellent care of them?

Smith replies:

Unfortunately, legal standards in this area are vague. Trying to define ordinary wear and tear in a given case is difficult at best.

We know what landlords cannot do. For example, knowledgeable landlords know there are no “automatic” deductions, so a $50 automatic carpet deduction from the deposit would be illegal. Still, a reasonable charge for carpet cleaning could be made.

But that brings us back to the first problem: Is carpet cleaning above ordinary wear and tear? You stated you took excellent care of the carpet and it is in great shape. If this went to court, it would be the landlord’s burden to show it wasn’t in good shape, that it had such problems as stains, odors or cigarette burns.

Landlord Reneges on Rent Refund

Q: Recently my landlord gave me the legally required 30-day notice to terminate our month-to-month rental agreement because a divorce meant he had to find a place to live. There is no rent control in this area. This move was very inconvenient as I had planned a vacation at that time.

The owner agreed that I would leave a week early because I had already found a new apartment, and he verbally agreed that I would receive one week’s rent back with the return of my security deposit.

I moved as planned and received my deposit but no rent credit. My calls are not returned, so I even left a self-addressed, stamped envelope (and note regarding the reason) on his doorstep. Still, I have not received any response. Do I have any legal recourse to get the pro-rated rent (about $200)?

Griswold replies:

Yes, you can always file a Small Claims Court action if your phone calls and written notes do not generate a satisfactory resolution. Naturally, it would have been better to confirm your agreement to leave early with a rent credit in writing; however, you still should be able to prevail in Small Claims Court. The evidence procedures are very simple and each party presents its own side, with the commissioner or judge pro tem (usually a local attorney) ruling on the facts.

You could also seek an additional $600 if you can prove to the court’s satisfaction that the landlord is guilty of “bad-faith retention” of your money. You have the burden of proof, and I understand, after speaking with commissioners, that the $600 is not often awarded unless it is very obvious that the landlord was malicious.

Smith replies:

First things first. The 30-day notice requirement is a two-way street. The landlord has every right to boot the resident, even though it may have been timed inconveniently for the tenant. The landlord had the right to keep rent up to the date the 30-day notice ended. He returned the security deposit to you.

The two of you have a dispute regarding that other $200. In this case, the law is on the landlord’s side, and it will be your burden to prove the existence of a valid agreement to refund the $200 in rent. This is going to be a tough row to hoe for you, because everything was verbal.

Kellman replies:

A verbal contract like yours is a binding one. If he promised to return the one-week rent, then he owes you the money. His refusal to pay is a breach of the contract for which you can take him to Small Claims Court.

The problem is in proving the agreement, because it was not in writing. Smith is correct when he says that it will be your burden to prove such a contract. When you make oral agreements, you more or less trust the other person to honor his word, as you honored yours by moving out on a certain day.

Sometimes verbal agreements can be proved by other evidence; for example, you can certainly argue that this agreement was a logical one for a landlord anxious to move into the unit.

There are other ways, however, to make your case without proving the contract. For example, if he moved in right away, it would be unfair, and thus perhaps not legal, to make you pay rent for that time. Don’t give up on this one if you can spare the time to file and appear for this case in Small Claims Court.

*

This column is written by property manager Robert Griswold, host of “Real Estate Today!” (KSDO-AM [1130], 10 a.m. to noon Saturdays); and attorneys Steven R. Kellman, director of the Tenants’ Legal Center; and Ted Smith, principal in a law firm representing landlords.

If you have a question, send it to Rental Roundtable, Real Estate section, L.A. Times, 202 W. 1st St., L.A., CA 90012. Or you may e-mail them at [email protected]. Questions should be brief and to the point and cannot be answered individually.