Memes

In Germany, it is possible to ''make a deposit'' with the bank, so the landlord gets only the confirmation (Bürgschaft). Furthermore, it is also a thing to pay that deposit in rates (installments), not to burden the new tennant immediatelly.

I think it works a lot like insurance: you pay a smidge every month, but you also get no money back at the end, so... not really a deposit. However, it does satisfy the landlord and the deposit is legally provided, so... to give up one or two coffee's every month (for a couple of years) is worth it at the rough beginnings.

For comparisson, you pay some 20 € monthly instead of 3500 € on hands of the landlord. You are moving, you are already burdened with the costs and expenses, so instead of having a financial blow on top of all the misery, you simply walk into the bank, make ''Bürgschaft'' (depost confirmation), agree to pay 20 € monthly, beginning from next month... and you exhale. It is a practical guarantee that the bank wil cover your deposit.

You give that ''Bürgschaft'' (deposit confirmation) to your landlord and all is good. If your landlord later, turns out to be an a..hole, he has to claim the deposit with the bank. If you contest landlords claims (bank will 100% contact you in that case), then it is a direct war between him/her and the bank... and good luck with that. To you it is all the same anyway, as you pay (paid) monthly installment (rate).

If there are no disputes and you are moving out earlier, then you can simply cancel the ''Bürgschaft'' contract (based on canceled rent agreement) and you don't have to pay anymore.

The downside is - no money back.

It is not really a hype thing here, but I've done it and it worked OK; (no disputes though).

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?

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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

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

I mean, the court will definitely be involved if i don't get my deposit plus interest back.

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

Ah yes... Lords of land... The greatest of leeches.

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.

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.

I mean apartments should be run by the state but baby steps I guess

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.

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.

In Canada, most provinces do this already.