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

  • alkbch@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day 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?

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours 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
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours 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
          1
          ·
          1 hour 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
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            56 minutes 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.

        • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours 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.

    • DrFunkenstein@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day 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
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day 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
      4
      ·
      1 day 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.

    • lka1988@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day 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
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day 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
          3
          ·
          1 day 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
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            24 hours 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
              1
              ·
              8 hours 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
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

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