orangenerd
New Member
Just curious,
I have never heard of carpet cleaners going into an apartment and NOT cleaning because the apartment wasn't dirty. I am wondering HOW a carpet cleaner's "Expert" testimony is considered credible in court. Meaning, Cleaning companies exist to make money. Therefore, isn't it in the best interest of the cleaner to "say" that there was damage to the carpet, thus justifying the need to clean it? Doesn't this fact make the cleaning company biased against the person stating the carpets were not dirty beyond normal wear and tear(most likely the tenant).
Also, even though the carpets are "routinely" cleaned between tenancies, wouldn't the cleaning company be pressured into testifying that the carpet in question was "damaged" so as to not lose future business with the Landlord?
(P.S. I live in Wisconsin where LL cannot charge for routine cleaning)
I have never heard of carpet cleaners going into an apartment and NOT cleaning because the apartment wasn't dirty. I am wondering HOW a carpet cleaner's "Expert" testimony is considered credible in court. Meaning, Cleaning companies exist to make money. Therefore, isn't it in the best interest of the cleaner to "say" that there was damage to the carpet, thus justifying the need to clean it? Doesn't this fact make the cleaning company biased against the person stating the carpets were not dirty beyond normal wear and tear(most likely the tenant).
Also, even though the carpets are "routinely" cleaned between tenancies, wouldn't the cleaning company be pressured into testifying that the carpet in question was "damaged" so as to not lose future business with the Landlord?
(P.S. I live in Wisconsin where LL cannot charge for routine cleaning)
