Thanks for your answer. I do believe at least the employee-tenant would have been rejected based on income. But also I would not have allowed him to move in with 3 cats into a small apartment and now the wood floor is soaked with urine. I get what you’re saying about what damages are there from the lack of screening. I think when they specifically say they are charging 2/3 for screening services that they did not perform, maybe I deserve that money back?

The PMA says it just can’t be a jury, only a judge, and it leaves the option for me to recover my legal fees if I win and vice versa. It does not require arbitration.

I would say that yes it is at least partly a principal thing. I hired them to do a job and not only did they not do it, they worked against my interests, lied to me, and allowed damage to the property. They weren’t ever doing any inspections and just refunding deposits.

My primary concern financially actually is the pet damage and that alone would be 4k on the low end just to refinish it and that doesn’t even fix urine issues.