636
Shouldn't be a issue since landlords never lie to keep deposits right?
In my state they have to give you an itemized statement of damages and/or return your deposit within 30 days or you're entitled to tripple the amount.
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
636 points (98.6% liked)
Memes
48466 readers
3458 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
Ah yes... Lords of land... The greatest of leeches.
In NZ if the bond is not lodged with the tenancy tribunal within a couple of weeks, the LL is in serious trouble.
Meanwhile in America, my old ll tried to tell me I couldn't have my deposit back because "it's summer and the bank is on vacation"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You can demand itemized receipts for everything they want to take from the deposit, at least I’m California
Above $125.
In Canada, most provinces do this already.
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.
How annoying was that? My last landlord claimed some pretty indefensible justifications for keeping our deposit (among other things, $300 to "sweep and vacuum the attic") but I'm not convinced that I'll actually wind up ahead if I'm missing work to go to court.
It was during the pandemic, so the courtroom was a teleconference. For $300, it's not worth the stress (unless you can also claim statutory/punitive damages). But it is worth knowing you've deprived a leech of committing theft, if that appeals to you.
Small claims court is not too hard and doesn't require a lawyer, but do try to find some free legal advice before your court date. Housing issues usually have free legal advice in most jurisdictions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
view more: next ›