Shouldn’t be a issue since landlords never lie to keep deposits right?

  • Bzdalderon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    This is actually how it works in some places in Canada. It’s a very effective system.

  • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    In my state they have to give you an itemized statement of damages and/or return your deposit within 30 45 days or you’re entitled to tripple double the amount.

  • Grool The Demon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

    • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

  • Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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).

  • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    normally in brazil you have three alternatives:

    • find someone who sponsors you: increasingly in disuse, since your sponsor needs to have property paid in full within municipality’s limits, metro regions or in neighbouring cities, and a monthly income that is at least 3 times the rent and other associated expenses;
    • pay an insurance: generally it amounts for an increase of 10-25% on top of your rent. however, by the end of the contract you won’t have it back;
    • traditional deposit: most tenants and real estate agents will charge you three rents in advance, since normally contracts have a standard 30-month length. after an year elapses and you decide to leave, you will receive your deposit in full with the inflation that incurred during that time. if you decide to leave before that year, you will have to pay a penalty of your rent multiplied by the number of months that are left in your contract divided by 10 (e.g. if you leave with about 24 months left, the penalty will be rent * 2.4). this penalty is usually waivered after 12 months. however, if you didn’t really trashed out your former house, they will charge you painting and cleaning expenses (sometimes even if you paint and clean yourself, depending on how much son-of-a-b*tch they are).
  • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    In NZ if the bond is not lodged with the tenancy tribunal within a couple of weeks, the LL is in serious trouble.

    • meteorswarm@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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”

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • cattywampas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • BJ_and_the_bear@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    You can demand itemized receipts for everything they want to take from the deposit, at least I’m California

  • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • alkbch@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Who’s going to pay this neutral third party to come see the property twice and allocate the deposit between the tenant and landlord?

        • alkbch@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          A split between the parties might help avoid conflict of interests

          • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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.

      • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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

        • alkbch@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • groet@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • alkbch@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • groet@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                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.

                • alkbch@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  If you’re going to ask the government to step in, I would suggest to make building more housing easier.

      • DrFunkenstein@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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

        • alkbch@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s if everything goes well. What if the tenant does not approve the photos?

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The escrow company gets to invest the deposit. They can use a portion of those funds to determine who receives the payout.

        • alkbch@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • alkbch@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              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.

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      When I was in Belgium I had to open a specific bank account for it. The money was then blocked on this account.

      To release the money both me and the landlord had to find an agreement and sign the release documents. If we could not find an agreement then we would have to go to a judge to decide who gets what.

      And at the end you get the deposit back+interests.

      I liked this solution, it felt fair for both parties.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • meliante@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • ladydragonfruit@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • brewery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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