<p>My son just finished his freshman year at Emory. He lived in Few. We had been 'warned' by a friend whose son recently graduated that it's inevitable that we'll get a sizable damage bill from housing at the end of each year.</p>
<p>Sure enough, we got a bill for a little over $200 for damage to the room. What caused that is some double sided tape that pulled off the paint in about 3 - 4 places on 1 wall from some posters he had on the wall. THey are saying they will repaint the entire wall after they spackle those spots. The paint came up, NOT the sheetrock (relatively superficial damage, what I would consider wear and tear).</p>
<p>I am wondering if that's the typical amount others have received for damage to their kid's room, does the appeal process get anywhere and do others feel that a $200 bill for a few spots needing spackle seem justified? Do they repaint entire rooms routinely after each year? If so, would you think the student should bear the entire cost for painting that wall or just the 10 - 20 minutes for someone to spackle then sand? </p>
<p>Our view is that they can take the $$ from us this way, but when it comes time to donate, we've already donated by these excessive room 'damage' charges.</p>
<p>Yes, I was there when he moved out. it was just these peeled off spots from too strong double sided tape. Oh, he made a point to wait around to do the walk through with the RA to retain his ability to appeal, if that matters. He will appeal, but I’d like to know if that cost is typical for even nominal damage, etc.</p>
<p>200 bucks seems excessive. Normally it is much lower as far as I know. However, some advice (don’t spread this too much): Many students (I saw some in LSM) got clever and purchased the correct color to go over damaged areas of the wall. They did a solid enough job to avoid charges. Basically, there are ways to get around this before it comes down to being billed for damages (though if done poorly, you will still be billed, and it may increase billing). I guess they repaint the room if they “feel” (or pretend to feel) that simply speckling over the damaged areas would make the color and texture of the wall appear non-uniform. Basically, they want new dorms to continue to appear new. They want to avoid signs of wear-and-tear. Perhaps I don’t know anyone ever charged that much because I have never stayed in any of the newer dorms (I get the feeling that appearances of wear-and-tear in Harris are less important than in LSM, Fevans, or Turman).</p>
<p>Yes the housing people almost always overcharge for damages, since at Emory they automatically assume that you’re loaded and will thus try to profit from you whenever they can…As some examples, they can charge $200 to clean your room if they think you didn’t clean it adequately, at Clairmont they can charge $600 if you have a tear in your couch since they supposedly are going to replace the entire couch, and one of my suitemates got charged $300 for a hole he made in the wall, so I don’t think a $200 charge for a wall that “needs” to be repainted is excessive as far as Emory goes (but yeah just be aware of that for his remaining 3 years). They even charge common area damages on everyone in the building if they can’t find who caused it, even if it could’ve been someone not even living in that dorm (at least those aren’t that much at all since they’re split evenly among the 100 to 400 or so people in the dorm). Also did your son have a roommate, because if so the cost would by default be evenly split between them two so the total charge would have been $400 (unless once of them confessed to the damages)? At least it’s a good thing he did traditional checkout instead of express so at least you can try to appeal. Also, did the RA that did the inspection mention anything about the tape marks? If not I’d mention that in the appeal.</p>
<p>And if you want payback, maybe have your son get an on campus job or even better get one of those Emory scholarships for continuing students. That should even things out…</p>
<p>Yea, excessive charges for sure. However, I’m pretty sure tape isn’t allowed on walls … for this exact reason.
You can try a request thing to try to lower the charges, because $200 is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Hey Baba – D also just finished freshman year; she was in Turman. My husband helped her move out. He said there were a few spots on the wall where she’d put up posters (I don’t know if she used double sided tape or not). Our bill? $50. Plus $55 for a new lock (she forgot to turn in her key).</p>
<p>Were you there when he moved out? Maybe next year, tell him to videotape the room with a “before” and “after” shot. $200 seems excessive. I would fight it, but not sure how much ammo you have without before and after photos to document the lack of damage.</p>
<p>Also, not that I endorse this but some students have suggested writing in fake damages on your RCR during the beginning of the year for damages you expect to happen during the school year. This may be hard to predict and obviously you can’t write down every possible type of damage that can occur. But you also never know if one your roommates or suitemates, or even one of your friends or their friends, will break something in your room and leave you and your roommate equally responsible for the damages. </p>
<p>And I don’ think the before/after videos are useful. As I mentioned in my above post when you did traditional checkout the RA is supposed to point out all the damages that you can get charged for and give you a chance to appeal at that time. While I believe the more senior housing staff still go through all the rooms after the RA (in case he/she missed something), if the RA didn’t point it out during the inspection I think your best argument is that you didn’t know you would be charged (cuz the RA didn’t let you know during the inspection).</p>
<p>Bernie12 - I thought of that paint idea - when moving in, I saw a maint. guy and asked about finding out the name of the paint they use and he said the paint department handles that and I never pursued it.</p>
<p>My son did the walk through with the RA to be able to appeal (if you aren’t there, you are at their mercy as to what they charge and have no recourse? That’s criminal). So he’s submitting an appeal.</p>
<p>CollegeStu816: You said:</p>
<p>did the RA that did the inspection mention anything about the tape marks? If not I’d mention that in the appeal.</p>
<p>What’s your thinking on that? The RA might not have mentioned the tape ( I have to ask my kid), but obviously wrote it down.</p>
<p>The whole point of the RA doing the inspection with your son (as opposed to the Express Checkout where the RA just checks it by him/herself) is so that the RA can point out the damages on the spot and give you a chance to see the damage and discuss it with the RA before you get charged. If the RA didn’t point out the damage during the inspection then you could argue that you didn’t know that it was considered a damage that can be charged nor had the chance to discuss it with the RA first. In other words, why wasn’t he told about it sooner? If the RA wrote it down on the RCR form and signed/dated it then he/she should have mentioned it to your son, or even if the RA didn’t mention it your son should still have noticed it listed before he also signed to form.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info, but I’m not following - ‘you didn’t know that it was considered a damage that can be charged’. Seems a moot point? say the RA didn’t point out a hole to the student but documented it on the sheet the student signed. I didn’t know that hold was billable because the RA didn’t point it out to me? Seems a weak argument but I’m not legal person - like the story that if a cop makes a typo on a traffic ticket, you can argue that the ticket is invalid, should be thrown out and you are off the hook? I’ve heard that but don’t know if it’s true or not. I made a hole in the wall (maybe accidentally), and the RA didn’t discuss it with me (but did document it on the form I signed). So I don’t have to pay for that damage? Not trying to be difficult with you. Just trying to understand. Is what I am describing what you are thinking? I like it but don’t think its a legit argument.</p>