Shouldn’t be a issue since landlords never lie to keep deposits right?
It’s a requirement in Australia for it to be paid to the government bond agency. Typical method of paying it is a cheque payable only to the bond authority. Once you hand back the keys at the end of the lease you can apply directly to the bond agency for it to be refunded to you and the landlord needs to formally object to claim any of the bond.
In NZ if the bond is not lodged with the tenancy tribunal within a couple of weeks, the LL is in serious trouble.
As someone who is likely going to be stuck renting for the foreseeable future, I agree. I’ll happily pay my deposit to some sort of escrow that the landlord has zero access to until it’s proven by a neutral third party, with no financial interest in the property, who has seen the property before and after renting.
Who’s going to pay this neutral third party to come see the property twice and allocate the deposit between the tenant and landlord?
Either the landlord or a split between the parties
A split between the parties might help avoid conflict of interests
Where I live it’s up to the landlord to dispute the return of the government-held bond and prove their case to the tribunal. If they do not dispute within two weeks after the tenant claims it, or are unsuccessful in proving damage, the government automatically releases the bond back to the tenant.
Last time we rented we put the deposit into a savings account. The landlords got the book needed to access it and we were the people needed to access it. That way we also collected interest on the deposit (which I think is technically mandatory in Germany).
And good thing we did that because we did have some trouble after we moved out.
Here, too, the tenant gets the deposit back and any interest accrued.
Realistically the viewing could be replaced by the landlord taking a series of before and after photographs that are approved by the tenant. A $2000 deposit held in just a CD would generate $100 in a year, which is enough to cover a good bit of any random additional costs
That’s if everything goes well. What if the tenant does not approve the photos?
My honest opinion? By the city. Yeah i know that introduces another layer of issues, but there needs to be some sort of integrity in place so there’s no conflict of interest coughutahlegislaturecough
It’s important to prevent conflict of interests but asking the city to step in in every single rental agreement is not necessarily an effective solution. Someone else here suggested having the cost split between the tenant and the landlord, which has the merit of addressing the potential conflict of interest.
Splitting costs between a party paying money and a party receiving money (in exchanage for goods or services) never works. If the landlord wants to rent for X but have to pay Y, they will simply rent for X+Y so they end up with X the way they wanted.
What we are trying to avoid here is a conflict of interest where the third party would side with whoever pays them most of the time.
In Brazil, tge escrow is keep by an insurance company, for the landlord to keep its need a judicial order, and at the end you receive it back adjusted by inflation.
They have a deposit protection scheme in the UK where neither the landlord nor the tenant have full control of the amount. It’s very useful. Much better than the landlord having the money in his possession.
This, the limit on how much it could be, and the ban on charging any additional fees, absolute game changers! The changing them not being able to tax deduct mortgage payments has also changed behaviour. I mean, landlords are still a huge drain on society and rents are mental but these steps help
This was a big change when we moved to the UK. It makes sense to have a third party involve with photos of everything before you rent. Should be standard really.
Ah yes… Lords of land… The greatest of leeches.
It’s different in my region.
Landlords have been challenged to show when and why they withold deposits. It’s not guaranteed but when brought to the board the tenant often wins unless the landlord can present a good case.
Then again, we only rent from companies for a reason.
You can demand itemized receipts for everything they want to take from the deposit, at least I’m California
Above $125.
Why more? Why add an extra layers, more complexity? Why not just ban deposits? The rental contract already covers damages caused by tenants. And it’s not like you pay a €2000 deposit, cause €10.000 worth of damage and not have to pay the additional €8000.
Maybe in the past, with cash payments and paper records. Deposits added a layer or security. But does that still hold true today? I’m sure landlords will disagree.
If the landlord believes the tenant left the property in a damaged state, they can enforce the contract. Upside is that it’s not worth it to sue for trivial shit like nail holes or greasy stove vacuums. Now the tenants are always on the backfoot, spending money to get their own money back.
This is actually how it works in some places in Canada. It’s a very effective system.
I mean, the court will definitely be involved if i don’t get my deposit plus interest back.
I had to sue for my security deposit once. It’s very common in the US for landlords to fraudulently keep some or all of the security deposit.
Check your local laws and ordinances, your landlords may be required to provide itemized expenses to you within a certain time frame. Where I am, it’s within 30 days.
I mean apartments should be run by the state but baby steps I guess
In Canada, most provinces do this already.
Check unclaimed funds with states you’ve lived in. No shit. I did it last year and found like 1500 bucks just in deposits past landlords said I didn’t deserve. The landlords might be shady but their accountants aren’t.
… what kind of deposits? 😮
Security deposits are a type of refundable fee where a tenant pays a specific amount (often many hundreds of dollars) to a landlord to “ensure” that they don’t damage a residence while living there. If the residence is damaged, the landlord keeps the deposit. The term is derived from contract law where “security” just means a way to make sure that a party to a contract meets their contractual obligations.
There are many instances where a landlord illegally keeps the deposit over damage that was either already existing or minimal (also referred to as “wear and tear” damage, which is expected when you live somewhere long-term), so OP is calling for the courts to determine the extent of damage to prevent landlords from taking advantage of tenants.
In some jurisdictions (like the one I live in), security deposits and most other related deposits such as key deposits (i.e., a refundable fee paid to obtain a key to the residence) are completely illegal in order to eliminate the possibility entirely.
Thank you for the explanation.
You’re welcome. Hopefully you don’t have to deal with security deposits any time soon. :3
Sorry, still new migrant. Just wanted to say I have never seen the descriptions of the emojis before! I was getting some of them SO wrong! 😱
