Shouldn’t be a issue since landlords never lie to keep deposits right?
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?
Assuming US, it actually depends on the state (may be all states, but I can only speak of those I’ve lived in). The law is that the money must go into a separate interest bearing account and that is the money that is to be returned. So the money isn’t supposed be 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
😬
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
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.
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?
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.
