If you read through this email chain, you will see that on September 1st, 2015, I requested a move out inspection for a later date. Debbie confirmed in her email 4 days later that this would happen, but it never did.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Debbie Foss debbie@whitewaterrealty.com wrote:
Dear Tenant,
Please do not contact the owners. We will make arrangements to schedule a pre- walk thru 2 weeks or so before vacating.
Thank you,
Debbie Foss
Property Management Assistant
per California Civil Code § 1950.5
"the landlord shall notify the tenant in writing of his or her option to request an initial inspection and of his or her right to be present at the inspection" (LANDLORD FAILED TO DO THIS)
"the landlord, or an agent of the landlord, shall, upon the request of the tenant, make an initial inspection of the premises prior to any final inspection the landlord makes after the tenant has vacated the premises. The purpose of the initial inspection shall be to allow the tenant an opportunity to remedy identified deficiencies" (LANDLORD FAILED TO DO THIS)
"The landlord shall give at least 48 hours' prior written notice of the date and time of the inspection" (LANDLORD FAILED TO DO THIS)
"Based on the inspection, the landlord shall give the tenant an itemized statement specifying repairs or cleanings that are PROPOSED to be the basis of any deductions from the security the landlord intends to make" (LANDLORD FAILED TO DO THIS)
"The tenant shall have the opportunity during the period following the initial inspection until termination of the tenancy to remedy identified deficiencies, in a manner consistent with the rights and obligations of the parties under the rental agreement, in order to avoid deductions from the security." (I requested this but was denied this opportunity by the failures and or inaction's of the landlord)
"The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord or the landlord's successors in interest of the security or any portion thereof in violation of this section, or the bad faith demand of replacement security in violation of subdivision (j), may subject the landlord or the landlord's successors in interest to statutory damages of up to TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITY, in addition to actual damages. The court may award damages for bad faith whenever the facts warrant that award, regardless of whether the injured party has specifically requested relief. In an action under this section, the landlord or the landlord's successors in interest shall have the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed or the authority pursuant to this section to demand additional security deposits." (I emailed you my forwarding address, and said I expect a 100% refund and alerted you that an inspection was requested BUT never provided in total failure to comply with the law and you still kept 100% of my deposit. You were also notified that I had been recently laid off from my work and was in a tight position financially. Because I did not get my refund within 21 days from the end of the lease, additional actual damages have occurred that I'm still adding up. This is bad faith on your part.)
Additionally bad faith can be proven from past real estate law violations from White Water Realty, when they knowingly (I have proof) employed Vicky the prior property manager to manage real property in California without a real estate license in complete and total violation of the law. They got their lawyer to say it was legal, but a plain and clear reading of the law states that the only way a NON-licensed person can manage property in California is if they LIVE IN THE UNITS THEY MANAGE as when someone lives in an 80-plex unit and manages the property where they reside. Vicky never lived at 206 Rosa and therefore was practicing real estate illegally with the full knowledge of White Water Realty's broker. I'm sure she never lived at any of the properties that White Water has managed in the decade or so she worked for Sharon. read more