I moved to California 2 years ago and rented a townhouse. When I planned on moving I gave a 30 days notice in writing. After about about 2 and half weeks I asked for a pre move out walk through and then a final walk through after I left. I did this because people I knew in town told me it was the law and they should have offered to do it. They came to do the first walk through the day before I moved. At that time nothing was written down and the only thing that was said to me is that I might have to prime the light blue paint I painted in the living room and dining room. I said I didn't have time by the next morning and she said I might be charged for the primer. After moving I and a friend cleaned the apartment, which wasn't dirty to begin with, for 5 hours. We washed windows, baths, floors, etc. And I took pictures after we were finished. At the final walkthrough the office girl told me that everything was fine and I would only be charged a cleaning deposit. I said there was nothing to clean and she said yes but we always charge that. Once I received my check I was shocked to discover that they took out over $1000.00 is charges. Painting, primer for nicotine damage, general cleaning, carpet cleaning and painting the garage, which wasn't painted when I moved in. So am very glad I have detailed pictures of my claim that there was no nicotine damage or dirt or anything but my question is: In the California law 1950.5 it states that a landlord must notify me in writing of my right to have 2 inspections. Then the pre inspection any problems must be in writing and give me reasonable time to make repairs and then the list shoud checked against and signed off by each of us at a final inspection. The only additional charges would be if there was damage during the move out. Also the that apartment need only be as clean as when I took over. Now I know I have pictures to prove me case but other than that and witnesses we both could produce, it is my word against his. What woudl stop that from being true is that written list of repairs. Basically, as the landlord did none of those requirements, he broke the law. Isn't that a good enough case right there? That his lack of following the law has set up for this? Or does a judge not really pay attention to that?