i havent. it was designed originally to protect the landlord from bad tenants but its turned into a scam for landlords. basically it gives the landlord an advantage. most people wont bother going to court over a few hundred bucks, so most of the time the landlord gets away with keeping your money.
2007-03-26 23:52:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by healthy life 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Whooo Awesome Questions. Let me see if I can help with some of these. FROM an Agents' Perspective. (Agent for landlords/lessors)
1. Finding a reason to hold a bond (security deposit - usually 4 weeks worth in rent) - OKay this is your opinion, but honestly (no digging at you) the only reason a landlord will hold your bond is if you
a - don't pay until you vacate the property
b - Vacate the property without giving notice (not tellng anyone) and cannot be contacted
c - Vacate the property leaving it in a crap heap
In other words don't give them a reason to hold it and they won't
2 - Not paying rent after giving notice
Again, if you don't pay your rent due till when you move out then of course your not going to get your bond back. If you go in expecting it to go **** up then it will go **** up because your not following your obligations. If you do the right thing, pay your rent until the date that you are vacating, don't leave any damage, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. By not paying the rent you are really throwing the first punch in a fight!
3 - There are two sides to your final questions. (this is going off Australian Capital Territory Legislation - it is different in every country and state so please check with your landlord/agent/tenant advisory board for specific. This is the general)
Firstly, an eviction notice cannot be passed on unless there is a specific reason why the landlord is evicting you and if you have been given at least 2 warning notices about that reason. Ex: You have signed a lease, 4 months into you stop paying you rent. The landlord/agent sends you a notice to remedy, you still don't pay. A second notice to remedy is sent warning you of the outcomes should you fail to pay. You still don't pay. The landlord/agent can then evict you. If you still haven't paid until the date that you are required to leave then the land lord/agent can make an application to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to have the full bond refunded to them.
To avoid confusion lets determine what a bond is for:
Bond = 4 x weekly amount of rent
If the property is through an agent a Bond is lodged with an Office of Rental Bonds (held in a government trust account until the time comes when the lease is over or the tenant vacates. If the property is rented privatley or through a friend (depending on legislation) a bond may not be lodged. Remember - a smart landlord has Lanlord Insurance and a Bond!
Bond is to cover -
a) loss of rent should a tenant do the "dirty" - abandon the property and their legal obligations
b) to cover damages made to the property BY THE TENANT at the end of a lease ie holes in walls, gouges in paint etc
Bond does/should NOT cover -
a) outstanding water consumption invoices not paid when tenant vacates
b) outstanding rent owing when a tenant vacates without following correct procedure (abandoning) or without paying to date.
So to answer the last two questions:
NO, you wouldn't go through the process of evicting a tenant who is leaving already. You would file a simple form requesting the bond be returned in full to you as the landlord/agent.
Does this help? :)
2007-03-27 07:12:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Beth 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've been on both sides of the fence on this one, as both a landlord and a tenant a number of times.
I only had trouble getting my security deposit back one time. The landlord was a real dirtbag and made life miserable for months. We finally did a "Midnight Move" and broke the lease. I waited patiently for 30 days for the required statement (it never came) and filed in Small Claims Court for the deposit. Local law required the landlord to forfeit the deposit if he didn't render the accounting of the deposit within 30 days. The judge wouldn't even let him raise the issue of the broken lease and ruled in our favor.
In virtually every other case I always left the property in as good a condition as it was when I moved in and often in better condition. I always did the move-in and move-out inspections with the landlord or property manager so there was no doubt as to the status of the deposit. And I always got my deposit, several times right there at the move-out inspection.
As a landlord I expected my tenants to treat my property as I had treated other landlord's property. Most of my tenants were not a problem. I always insisted on the inspections and they didn't get the keys until we did the move-in inspection. If they balked at the move-out inspection I required a signed waiver that they would accept my opinion of the condition without question or rents would continue to accrue until the property was cleared and repairs were completed. This was all in the lease and I rarely had a problem with it. I also offered a "pre-final" inspection to point out items that needed attention. Most tenants accepted that offer and there were never any surprises at the final inspection.
On the few occasions that a tenant tried the "last month" trick, I advised them in writing of the terms of the lease and gave them their 3-day notice to pay or quit immediately. All but 2 quickly paid up. Yes, I did file eviction proceedings against the other 2 as well as a Small Claims action for the unpaid rent -- as much to be a pr*ck as to protect my interests. One paid up quickly after I threatened to call his Commanding Officer and I got an eviction order on the last one and had him put on the street about 4 days before his intended moving date.
I'm a firm believer in keeping it business-like. From my perspective it was a business and MOST tenants will repond in kind when you act that way. No emotions, just business.
2007-03-27 07:08:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bostonian In MO 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would evict! Why do people think that they don't have to follow the lease?? It will also show as a late payment on your rental record, is it worth it? The deposit is to cover damages, etc when you move out and yes, I have refunded plenty of full deposits.
2007-03-27 09:40:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know where you live, but where I live (Canada) it is standard practice to NOT pay your last month's rent because the security deposit stands in lieu of the rent, barring damages. Then it would be up to the landlord to prove damages and sue you for them, which never happens unless you've extremely ripped up the apartment to shreds.
If this isn't the standard practice where you live, you can still go ahead and do that, a landlord would need to prove in court that you damaged the place "beyond normal wear and tear" and in such a manner that it cost him your full deposit to repair.
2007-03-27 06:49:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by charmedchiclet 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
legally if there is no damge to to the property the landlord should refund the deposit, if the property is damaged then the landlord needs to decide if the deposit can cover the damages done, if not the tenant can be sued to make up for the difference.
2007-03-27 06:48:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by julia4evert 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Keep the deposit. The legal costs and hassle of eviction far outweigh just keeping the money you already have. If there were extensive damages to the place, it would be a different matter.
2007-03-27 06:49:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nicktu 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
That'd be illegal, as cleaning deposits MUST be kept seperate from rent monies. Cleaning deposits are cleaning deposits, not rent. Get it?
2007-03-27 06:48:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by omnisource 6
·
0⤊
0⤋