The carpets had a year warranty They were years old The tenants cat urinated all over the carpets in every bedroom The carpets were replaced The tenant was charged 50% of the cost since the carpets were years old Everything was done is accordance to Montana Landlord Tenant Code
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Although told that the carpets had a twenty-year warranty, and that they were ten years old, documents proving this were not provided When we first occupied the property, the carpets were already in need of replacement Instead of doing so then, Byrd Property Management and the property owner had the carpets stretched This did help the carpet's condition temporarily, but in all actuality the carpets should have been replaced before another tenant occupied the property, even without the cat urine incident Since, as mentioned before, Pro Carpet Cleaners informed me that the urine had been removed, I believe that Byrd Property Management took advantage of my being a cat owner and her urinating on the carpets in order to have me pay a large portion of this replacement cost Furthermore, at the time of check out, I was not in Bozeman Instead, my fellow tenant went to the house to complete the walk-through and check-out He was told to either wait in his vehicle or to come back later It seems entirely improper that he should not be allowed in as part of the check-out processes Although I was the main tenant on the lease, he was still in Bozeman representing our joint interests in the return of our damage deposit After given and completing a list of cleaning items, he was never invited back to inspect the supposedly ruined carpets himself It is incredibly unlikely that the cat could have urinated in all the bedrooms of the house, since she was never allowed into his room Sincerely, [redacted] ***
The facts are that the tenants cat urinated over the carpets in a rental house rented by the tenantWe tried salvaging the carpet and the damage was beyond repair due to the amount of unine in the carpetThe tenant was charged the prorated amount for the carpet he damaged The whole situation could have been avoided if the tenant would have not let his cat urinate on the carpetsThe damage was so extensive that the flooring installer had to seal the whole subfloor with kilz primer to prevent the urine that had soaked into the wood subfloor from saturating the new carpet and padIt's unfortunate this tenant refuses to accept personal responsibility for damage his cat did to the rental unit
The carpets had a 20 year warranty. They were 10 years old. The tenants cat urinated all over the carpets in every bedroom. The carpets were replaced. The tenant was charged 50% of the cost since the carpets were 10 years old. Everything was done is accordance to...
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Although told that the carpets had a twenty-year warranty, and that they were ten years old, documents proving this were not provided. When we first occupied the property, the carpets were already in need of replacement. Instead of doing so then, Byrd Property Management and the property owner had the carpets stretched. This did help the carpet's condition temporarily, but in all actuality the carpets should have been replaced before another tenant occupied the property, even without the cat urine incident. Since, as mentioned before, Pro Carpet Cleaners informed me that the urine had been removed, I believe that Byrd Property Management took advantage of my being a cat owner and her urinating on the carpets in order to have me pay a large portion of this replacement cost.
Furthermore, at the time of check out, I was not in Bozeman. Instead, my fellow tenant went to the house to complete the walk-through and check-out. He was told to either wait in his vehicle or to come back later. It seems entirely improper that he should not be allowed in as part of the check-out processes. Although I was the main tenant on the lease, he was still in Bozeman representing our joint interests in the return of our damage deposit. After given and completing a list of cleaning items, he was never invited back to inspect the supposedly ruined carpets himself. It is incredibly unlikely that the cat could have urinated in all the bedrooms of the house, since she was never allowed into his room.
Sincerely,[redacted]
The carpets had a year warranty They were years old The tenants cat urinated all over the carpets in every bedroom The carpets were replaced The tenant was charged 50% of the cost since the carpets were years old Everything was done is accordance to Montana Landlord Tenant Code
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Although told that the carpets had a twenty-year warranty, and that they were ten years old, documents proving this were not provided When we first occupied the property, the carpets were already in need of replacement Instead of doing so then, Byrd Property Management and the property owner had the carpets stretched This did help the carpet's condition temporarily, but in all actuality the carpets should have been replaced before another tenant occupied the property, even without the cat urine incident Since, as mentioned before, Pro Carpet Cleaners informed me that the urine had been removed, I believe that Byrd Property Management took advantage of my being a cat owner and her urinating on the carpets in order to have me pay a large portion of this replacement cost Furthermore, at the time of check out, I was not in Bozeman Instead, my fellow tenant went to the house to complete the walk-through and check-out He was told to either wait in his vehicle or to come back later It seems entirely improper that he should not be allowed in as part of the check-out processes Although I was the main tenant on the lease, he was still in Bozeman representing our joint interests in the return of our damage deposit After given and completing a list of cleaning items, he was never invited back to inspect the supposedly ruined carpets himself It is incredibly unlikely that the cat could have urinated in all the bedrooms of the house, since she was never allowed into his room Sincerely, [redacted] ***
The facts are that the tenants cat urinated over the carpets in a rental house rented by the tenantWe tried salvaging the carpet and the damage was beyond repair due to the amount of unine in the carpetThe tenant was charged the prorated amount for the carpet he damaged The whole situation could have been avoided if the tenant would have not let his cat urinate on the carpetsThe damage was so extensive that the flooring installer had to seal the whole subfloor with kilz primer to prevent the urine that had soaked into the wood subfloor from saturating the new carpet and padIt's unfortunate this tenant refuses to accept personal responsibility for damage his cat did to the rental unit
The carpets had a 20 year warranty. They were 10 years old. The tenants cat urinated all over the carpets in every bedroom. The carpets were replaced. The tenant was charged 50% of the cost since the carpets were 10 years old. Everything was done is accordance to...
Montana Landlord Tenant Code.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Although told that the carpets had a twenty-year warranty, and that they were ten years old, documents proving this were not provided. When we first occupied the property, the carpets were already in need of replacement. Instead of doing so then, Byrd Property Management and the property owner had the carpets stretched. This did help the carpet's condition temporarily, but in all actuality the carpets should have been replaced before another tenant occupied the property, even without the cat urine incident. Since, as mentioned before, Pro Carpet Cleaners informed me that the urine had been removed, I believe that Byrd Property Management took advantage of my being a cat owner and her urinating on the carpets in order to have me pay a large portion of this replacement cost.
Furthermore, at the time of check out, I was not in Bozeman. Instead, my fellow tenant went to the house to complete the walk-through and check-out. He was told to either wait in his vehicle or to come back later. It seems entirely improper that he should not be allowed in as part of the check-out processes. Although I was the main tenant on the lease, he was still in Bozeman representing our joint interests in the return of our damage deposit. After given and completing a list of cleaning items, he was never invited back to inspect the supposedly ruined carpets himself. It is incredibly unlikely that the cat could have urinated in all the bedrooms of the house, since she was never allowed into his room.
Sincerely,[redacted]