Shouldn’t be a issue since landlords never lie to keep deposits right?
In Germany, it is possible to ‘‘make a deposit’’ with the bank, so the landlord gets only the confirmation (Bürgschaft). Furthermore, it is also a thing to pay that deposit in rates (installments), not to burden the new tennant immediatelly.
I think it works a lot like insurance: you pay a smidge every month, but you also get no money back at the end, so… not really a deposit. However, it does satisfy the landlord and the deposit is legally provided, so… to give up one or two coffee’s every month (for a couple of years) is worth it at the rough beginnings.
For comparisson, you pay some 20 € monthly instead of 3500 € on hands of the landlord. You are moving, you are already burdened with the costs and expenses, so instead of having a financial blow on top of all the misery, you simply walk into the bank, make ‘‘Bürgschaft’’ (depost confirmation), agree to pay 20 € monthly, beginning from next month… and you exhale. It is a practical guarantee that the bank wil cover your deposit.
You give that ‘‘Bürgschaft’’ (deposit confirmation) to your landlord and all is good. If your landlord later, turns out to be an a…hole, he has to claim the deposit with the bank. If you contest landlords claims (bank will 100% contact you in that case), then it is a direct war between him/her and the bank… and good luck with that. To you it is all the same anyway, as you pay (paid) monthly installment (rate).
If there are no disputes and you are moving out earlier, then you can simply cancel the ‘‘Bürgschaft’’ contract (based on canceled rent agreement) and you don’t have to pay anymore.
The downside is - no money back.
It is not really a hype thing here, but I’ve done it and it worked OK; (no disputes though).
Wait, this ISN’T how it works where you live?
Where I live (in Victoria, Australia), the bond is held in trust by the residential tenancies bond authority. At the end of the lease the landlord can try make a claim, but you can take them to VCAT (a small claims tribunal) to argue against it, and until either all parties agree, or the court orders it, the bond doesn’t get paid out to anyone.
Our laws are far from good, and still favour owners too much, but damn. Just trusting them to pay you out of their own pocket?
Just trusting them to pay you out of their own pocket?
actually the opposite! everyone here just expects to never see their deposit ever again
😬
In my state they have to give you an itemized statement of damages and/or return your deposit within
3045 days or you’re entitled totrippledounle the amount.What state is that??
Sorry, it’s 45 days and only double.
In Canada your landlord is required to pay back your deposit with interest, so if you gave them a $1000 deposit and stayed for 10 years and interest is at 5% they would be giving you back about $1600.
Very few actually do this and most of the time interest is so low nobody bothers to fight for it.
Better yet, don’t allow corporations to own residential properties at all. Only allow individuals to own two residential properties. Make renting residential property a crime like human trafficking, because that’s what it is. Let hedge funds speculate on commercial and industrial real estate. #RentIsTheft
eh if I took up travel nursing I’d probably still want something similar to a house or apartment to rent for 3-6 months because most hotels aren’t really designed to be lived in that long but I also don’t want to buy a wholeass house then worry about selling it in 6 months. but that’s splitting hairs, at what point do you just call that an extended stay hotel? but also at what point does an extended stay hotel become a rental property?
but every time I hear a “property owner” complain about how hard and expensive it is to own other people’s homes I’m just like my guy no one is making you do that if it’s so damn hard just sell it to the person who lives there except deep down you realize how good of a deal you’re getting you’re just mad everybody isn’t acting like you’re not a prick for it.
In Norway your deposit is payed into a special account in your name and both parties have to agree to it’s release or settle in court. If the landlord takes some for repairs to abnormal damage (can’t charge for “normal wear and tear”) they have to provide proof that they used it for that (receipts etc).
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.
That sounds like a way more reasonable system! As far as I’m aware it’s not super common here (Netherlands) for landlords to not pay back the deposit but it is entirely in their hands :(
Well, still plenty of dogdy landlords who take advantage of people who don’t know about that requirement and either take it for themselves or push renters towards “resolving disputes between themselves” and not involving the bond authority at end of lease time.
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?
The escrow company gets to invest the deposit. They can use a portion of those funds to determine who receives the payout.
You mean they keep a portion of the deposit to determine who receives the payout? If you meant they only keep a portion of the revenues produced by the investment, which obviously must be one of the safest ones available and thus will have low return on investment, I’m afraid that would not be economically viable for the escrow company.
Looks like there are accounts that can earn 3.5%. It’s an hour or two of work. Average occupancy rate is close to three years. A $2000 deposit would cover an inspection after a year.
Fallback could be on the renter if there is reason to withhold and on the owner if there is no need to withhold.
Assuming your numbers are correct, after one year the interest is $70. I doubt you’d get anyone out to conduct the inspection at that price, let alone two because you need one at move in and one at move out; and let’s not even get started about potential the additional work should there be a dispute by the tenant or the landlord.
The state. It’s literally how this works in other countries. (Victoria, Australia, anyway)
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.
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.
Or just make some laws about impartiality, and use fines and loss of licence as punishment. Lastly, allow renters to choose the inspector.
Unfortunately in many places houses are rare and landlords can choose from a wide range of interested renters. They can always choose the renter that is willing to pay for the inspection completely and choose the inspection company favoured by the landlord.
If you’re going to ask the government to step in, I would suggest to make building more housing easier.
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 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.
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
The UK is pretty bad for tenants rights but they do force landlords to putting deposits into special accounts that have legal protections for the tenant, and if said landlord tries to avoid it you can usually easily win back a multiple value of your deposit with little the landlord can do.
Landlords regularly take the piss with claiming exorbitant amounts for “damages” which is harder to contest, and many of us just accept a few deductions even knowing they will just pocket it.
You can demand itemized receipts for everything they want to take from the deposit, at least I’m California
Above $125.
Ah yes… Lords of land… The greatest of leeches.
This is actually how it works in some places in Canada. It’s a very effective system.
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.
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.
