|
Odd deposit situation Just wondering if anyone has any unbiased input on this situation.. I won't say who's who, but here it is.. Prospect tenants paid a security deposit on August 18th, 2014 for a move-in on September 1st, 2014. A receipt was issued by the landlord to the tenants that states "Damage deposit for [address]". Landlord considers the suite taken, and rejects all other inquiries about the suite. On August 21st (3 days later), said prospect tenants contacted landlord that they will not be requiring the rental space anymore and are seeking their deposit back. No agreements or tenancy forms were signed, and tenants have not moved in yet. Landlord is now forced to find new tenants before September 1st. (9 days) Does the landlord have the right to retain a portion or all of the deposit? Or do the prospect tenants have the right to receive their full deposit back? My perspective: Landlord can retain all of the deposit, plus losses of September's rent. However, tenants never moved in, never signed any forms, and were never officially "tenants." Might be a situation that's up to the arbitrator, because both sides do have a solid argument. HMMMmmmmm...... |
Isn't it a bit stupid on both parties side to have not signed anything when the deposit was handed over? |
The lease should've been signed at the time the deposit was given. Tough spot either way but the tenant should be held liable for wasting the owner's time (logically speaking). |
Quote:
Quote:
I have a feeling it's going to be close to 50/50. Landlord will probably get to keep half of it or something. |
I think the landlord would be lucky to get anything. |
I spoke to an RTO officer and explained both sides of the story. Basically, the tenant can issue a formal request for their deposit back, and the landlord has 15 days to either challenge it or return the deposit. BUT, if the landlord doesn't return it and the challenge doesn't stick, the tenant has a right to receive double their deposit back. BUT. If the landlord challenges it and wins, then he has a right to keep the deposit PLUS any missed rental time, pro-rated. (This is if the arbitrator decides on 100% one way or the other) It'd be interesting to see how things actually play out if landlord and tenants decide to go the distance with this thing. I almost want to drag it out just to see. |
would the realistic approach in this instant be to mutually agree to bypass arbitration and all the paperwork and split the deposit 50/50? since they didn't sign on the spot they both fucked up and reasonable people would accept some responsibility and be happy somewhere in the middle? who are we kidding :fuckthatshit: this is gonna get dragged out :ilied: |
i think in this case the landlord would probably want something more than 50/50. landlord was expecting the tenants to move in and get rent for the month of September and now their hooped. both parties dun goofed. |
A 50/50 settlement has been put on the table. Not sure what the verdict is going to be yet. It's interesting because if this dragged out, both parties are at risk of losing double+. And it doesn't seem like it's a sure thing for either side. :Popcorn |
Quote:
Did a lot of reading, and it seems like RTO seems to favor the tenants more often than not. :suspicious: :concentrate: :heckno: :fuckthatshit: |
I'm assuming the deposit was by check, and that's the proof the "tenants" have that they gave the landlord any money? |
Just to make the scenario even more interesting, deposit was made by cash. Landlord issued a signed receipt saying "$x.xx Damage Deposit for [address]", with the landlord's signature on it. Nothing more, nothing less. |
I would love to hear the tenants definition of a deposit |
The way I see it, the land lord should give the deposit back after he finds a new tenant prorated for the time it took. Seems like the most fair way to each party. Renter went back on the deal and land lord said no to other tenants. Other side of the coin is, land lord could call back those other tenants and say the place is up again and offer 50% off first months rent. |
Quote:
:facepalm: |
Quote:
|
So it seems like a conclusion has been reached. I'll update you guys with the verdict when everything has been wrapped up and finalized. (It's interesting one... definitely brings up a loophole.) |
Land lord should be actively looking for new tenants and keep proof of that. If he does not find a new renter by the first keep the money. If it ends up at the RTB landlord should win because the renter will have to admit he put down a deposit. |
if the receipt says "damage deposit" then i would look put that to the side of the would-be-renter. If it only says "deposit" then that would be on the landlord. If the landlord has connections to other landlords, then he can just warn others about the possibility of this happening to them but from the beginning, a signed lease form should have been done stating the intent to rent |
Quote:
|
^ True but there is a distinction between first months rent and a damage deposit. The damage deposit is to cover just that, damages to the property. They never moved in no damages good have been done so I don't see how it wouldn't be returned. We all know what the intent was but IMO when it comes down to it I don't really see how it can play out any other way as far as the money goes. I could see the landlord coming after that person for his own damages if it costs them money by not having it rented for the first of the month but that's a separate issue. I've never been a landlord or a renter I've always owned since moving out of my parents house and I could be totally wrong but it makes sense to me. |
Previous conclusion withdrawn. Landlord/Tenant meeting again on Thursday. Will update when details are finalized. |
|
So. Case over. Short answer: Tenants win everything. Full story: Before I start, I'm gonna go ahead and say that I was one of the tenants. For some reason people here thought I was, or friends with, the landlord. Even got a few PM's with landlord advice and rental inquiries. (But really, thank you for the concern! :) ) Bit of a read. Might wanna crack open a beer. Spoiler! |
You guys backed out of a deal but at least you owned up to it and made, what I think, is a reasonable offer to concede half the deposit. My guess is that the landlord was pissed after he got bad advice from his friends/family, leading to his decision not to give you the cheque. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably be happy to take the 1/2 and not have to deal with "flakey" tenants for the next year+. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net