XXXX XXXX has submitted to the collection company Hunter Warfield unauthorized charges for cleaning fees from apartment I lived in for 1-year until XXXX/XXXX/XXXX California Civil Code Section 1950.5 States : " The tenant is not responsible for damages resulting from normal wear and tear You can not charge cleaning fees for conditions caused by normal wear and tear during the tenancy or previous tenancies, or for cleaning a rental unit that is as clean as it was when you moved in. '' Civil Code Section 1950.5 ( b ), ( e ). 

The lease agreement states : That I agree to leave the premises clean and in the same condition received, except for ordinary wear and tear. I left the premises in better condition then I received ( included are photos of the dirty apartment when I moved in ). According to the lease, California Civil Code and California Tenant Rights : when I provided my 30-day notice I 'm entitled to an " initial inspection '' that requires a list of proposed deductions beyond normal wear and tear. This inspection was scheduled on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to be held on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX from XXXX-XXXX and no one showed up. I have phone records showing I called and talk to manager XXXX XXXX and she never got back to me, and no one showed up for my scheduled initial inspection. Under California Tenants ' Rights, the initial inspection shall provide itemized statement of intended deductions beyond normal wear and tear. 
The cleaning fees that Sequoia equities is charging are from normal wear and tear, which under California Civil Code Section 1950.5 I 'm not responsible for because I left the apartment in better condition and received my full deposit back. They have no documentation, stating that the cleaning fees are from beyond normal wear and tear because they never showed up to the agreed initial inspection providing me with the proposed deductions and the opportunity to fix any identified deficiencies beyond normal wear and tear. 
On XX/XX/XXXX I sent a letter to Hunter Warfield disputing these claims by providing evidence and asking them to validate the debt within the required 30-day period. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act they are in violation by reporting these claims to the bureaus some 4-months later with no accurate validation required. After not receiving the validation. I contacted XXXX XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX no response so I called Hunter Warfield again on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX at XXXX pacific and talked to XXXX asking again for Validation they said " NO '' then a manager got on the phone and I asked him the same thing he said " NO '' then hung-up the phone. 
