>while it’s normal to put down a month or two worth of rent as a security deposit, it’s much less normal to get it back
This looks insane to an Australian. I have moved house 4 times in the past 5 years and I have never not got all of my bond back. Some states here have a rule that the bond money is held by the state so that the landowner doesn't just take that money for themselves. How can the poor ever break the cycle if no one is willing to help protect them from shitty rent-seekers?
Yeah, a bunch of things in this article strike me as very American (I'm British). No-one in the UK worries about not being able to afford healthcare if they're poor, nor do they need a car to get to the grocery store in under an hour (unless they live in an isolated home out in the countryside, which probably means they're rich, not poor.) There are many, many places you can live in the UK without needing a car to get to work.
The deposit thing looks insane to me too. My rental deposit is held in escrow by some third party; I've never heard of anyone not getting their deposit back when they move (unless they did something to deserve it e.g. trashing the place). The only issue around deposits is that you usually have to pay a deposit for the new place before you've received the deposit back for the old place, which can cause cashflow issues.
I've always thought of the U.S. as a great place to be rich, but a terrible place to be poor.
On the other hand, I find it laughable that this author describes a 900sqft apartment as "very small". 900sqft would be considered a decent-sized, mid-range apartment in London, and if you're poor you'll live somewhere MUCH smaller. Americans have such ginormous houses, even the poor ones.
>My rental deposit is held in escrow by some third party; I've never heard of anyone not getting their deposit back when they move (unless they did something to deserve it e.g. trashing the place).
This is only a relatively recent thing in the UK, introduced about 10 years ago, to tackle the problem described in the original post of landlords running off with tenants deposits.
When I was a student ~10 years ago, just before compulsory deposit protection was introduced, it was very common for landlords to invent or wildly exaggerate damages to keep the £1000+ deposit, especially because they thought that students would be a push-over.
On paper many states in the US actually have pretty strong protections for tenants for their security deposits. It's not uncommon for states to have fairly strict standards as to the valid reasons a landlord can take money out of a security deposit. If a landlord withholds money for frivolous reasons the tenant can be entitled to double or treble damages. (So if they withhold $1000 for no reason, you can get back that $1000 and an additional $2000 or $3000.)
The main issue is enforcement. If your landlord withholds the deposit, often your only recourse is to sue them (usually in small claims court). This is going to require paying some court fees, maybe on the order of $100 (which you may get back if you win, but you still need to pay them up front). Plus you're going to have to show up in court, which likely means missing work. And obviously you're not going to have a lawyer for this, whereas most landlords will.
When I moved out of my last apartment my landlord withheld $100 because he claimed there was dust on the blinds. (There was not, we specifically dusted the blinds before moving out.) But the only way I could get that money back was to sue them, and it just wasn't worth it for me.
I don't know about most states, but in Maryland, the tenent is automatically entitled to attorney's fees when the landlord improperly withholds a deposit.
Granted, if you are poor, this likely means that you need to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency.
For what it is worth, just threatening to sue along with citing the relevent law and possible damages is probably enough. Landlords don't like going to court either, so if you make even a halfway credible threat they will probably pay.
Rural poverty is a real thing, and often overlooked by politics / media / society. Rural villages no longer tend to have a shop or post office, the bus services can be erratic and infrequent, it's a real problem.
The student rental market 12 or so years ago was definitely full of horror stories about getting deposits returned, knowing which letting agents to go with useful insider knowledge. The Scottish deposit security scheme is only a few years old and has definitely helped improve the situation. The rental market is one in which there can be significant power/information imbalances and where some protections make absolute sense.
Student and tourism rentals are worse than the regular rental market because 9x/10 the people getting screwed out of their deposit can afford it so there's less latent "it might actually be worth someone's time to sue you" to keep the landlords in check.
>>On the other hand, I find it laughable that this author describes a 900sqft apartment as "very small". 900sqft would be considered a decent-sized, mid-range apartment in London,
Yep, we actually bought a 3-bed house(not apartment) in UK, and the total space is 950sqft(about 90square metres). And that's not a small house around here by any measure. American houses are like their cars - absurdly large.
American here that grew up in a 3 bedroom house with around 900sqft of space and 4 people, and now live in a 2500sqft house with just my wife and 1 dog..I don't know how we did it. Thinking back it was so insanely cramped, my parents bedroom was the 'big' bedroom and it was just large enough to fit a queen sized bed, a chest of drawers, a gun case, and then a night stand on one side of the bed. The kids bedrooms barely fit a twin sized bed and a small desk with room to stand. Tiny bathroom, living room just big enough for 4-5 people. Very tiny kitchen, not large enough for a dishwasher.
I mean, it isn't some weird flex with me going yeah it's cramped BUT WE LOVE IT THIS WAY. Like, yeah, this house would be too small for 4 people. But right now, with just me, wife, and a baby on the way - no problem.
>>my parents bedroom was the 'big' bedroom and it was just large enough to fit a queen sized bed, a chest of drawers, a gun case, and then a night stand on one side of the bed
That's exactly what ours is, minus the gun case ;-)
Haha I'm now quite disappointed the estate agent didn't try to advertise it as a safety feature.
I did once see a house listed as having "conveniant access to the motorway for commuting". It was actually directly underneath a bridge of the motorway :|
The US is a large and very diverse place, and very frequently you will find that there are very clear laws about what a landlord is and isn't allowed to charge for, as well as what proof they need to take a deposit. For example, Seattle has its own set of rules which are quite clear and don't allow contracts that would override them, in other places there are no rules, and what is in the contract is what you must abide by.
The problem, that the author alluded to, is that there is no one that will solve or mediate a dispute short of taking a claim to court in the US. This is generally pretty cheap and easy for small claims, if you know what you are doing. Most people don't know what they are doing, or have no idea that small claims is even an option.
As an American who now lives in a place with socialized healthcare, I can safely say that I'm not moving back until the US sorts out the healthcare crisis. I'm in Canada now, which is used as a punching bag by conservative Americans for how bad socialized healthcare can be. Anyone who has lived in both places knows how laughable that claim is. Canadians certainly have their complaints about this system, but I have never heard a Canadian ask for US style healthcare.
This comment was an aside about right wing news stories that pop up in the US about how Canadians are flocking to the US to get healthcare. It normally revolves around how some person was on a waiting list or couldn't get the procedure they wanted in Canada and had to come to the US. The truth is that there is normally an extenuating circumstance that isn't mentioned (e.g. the treatment is experimental or not approved in Canada. The patient is stuck on a wait list because it is a need-based system, so they might not 'need' that procedure more than the people ahead of them.)
>>The deposit thing looks insane to me too. My rental deposit is held in escrow by some third party; I've never heard of anyone not getting their deposit back when they move (unless they did something to deserve it e.g. trashing the place). The only issue around deposits is that you usually have to pay a deposit for the new place before you've received the deposit back for the old place, which can cause cashflow issues.
Anecdotal but myself (multiple moves) and most friends in London had to battle for a few hundred quid being attempted to stolen from the deposit before returning for various BS reasons. The dispute scheme was great as a tenant, but did mean months without the funds back.
In central London just 600sqft can easily cost you a million pounds... The place I rented when I lived there was a bit smaller and was for sale at 950k asking price.
I don’t know the statistics, but I live in the US, and had rented for 10+ years with 5 of 6 different landlords in 3 cities, and I always got my deposit back, and I don’t know anyone who was stiffed either. But I wasn’t staying in the worst places, but not the best either. One was an informal cash transaction rental from a Craigslist ad and it worked out.
Stay in a slum and you'll find those who are more than happy to break the rules if they know they can.
You probably have the mental fortitude to figure out how to fight back on your own. To read the docs, know your position, agreements, and how to take a landlord to court to win.
In low income, people don't know their rights nor do they ever believe that the system could ever be on their side. And, they're not unjustified in that thinking.
A lot depends on state and local laws. In San Francisco, for example, I get interest on the security deposit my landlord is holding credited to my rent every year. They cannot charge for reasonable wear and tear. So even though the deposit is large, I expect ~100% of it back when I leave. If not, there is a strong tenants union that will support my case.
Then you're lucky - I've had enough friends in QLD and WA who have had their bond partially kept back because the landlord company thought they could get a few hundred or thousand for free. Usually the trick is to say that pre-existing damage was caused by my friends. It's impossible to defend from if you don't claim the damage when you move in!
I've personally only had one huge battle with the company as they thought our place was dirty when we moved out, despite spending two full days cleaning it (townhouse). I now always pay a cleaning company to avoid the hassle, but that's $100-200 not everyone can afford.
I always take photos when I start a tenancy. More often than not, the property manager/landlord tries that I caused pre-existing damage and the photos always help.
Same in UK. I have moved 8 times in the past 11 years and I always got my full deposit back.
Also yes, the entire article just screams "the experience of being poor....in America". From the lack of social net, to the absurd costs of insurance and healthcare. I don't mean to say that life elsewhere is all rosy and there are no problems at all, but I can't even imagine worrying about costs of health treatments - it's just a given you will get them and you won't pay anything. I guess it's part of the author's point - that some people don't realize how good they have it.
The last place I rented from took my deposit for damage they knew existed before I started renting. (They literally painted over mold in the kitchen closet.) Then they tried to send me a $1000+ bill over a year later for “damages”.
In the US, there are sharp race and class disparities here: if you’re white and pass for at least lower middle class, you are much less likely to have an issue because even unethical landlords know the police and courts will listen to complaints. Go outside of those communities and complaints become more common, often with accounts of a rental company caving immediately after someone demonstrated knowledge of their legal rights and lack of fear to contact the justice system.
> caving immediately after someone demonstrated knowledge of their legal rights and lack of fear to contact the justice system.
Sounds like the solution. When I was younger, people would try to take advantage of me, but all it takes is a bit of standing up for yourself and they concede.
The post explained the problem with getting deposits back very clearly:
> This is because apartments at both of these levels quite accurately assume that you can’t afford a lawyer - while it’s normal to put down a month or two worth of rent as a security deposit, it’s much less normal to get it back; the apartment complex has no reason to give back thousands of dollars they can simply keep.
When you were younger, were you (or your parents) able to afford a lawyer? Even if you couldn't, did you at least look or sound like you could? You seem to assume that this person has the same tools available to them that you do, and maybe that's the assumption the post is trying to get you to revisit.
The "tool" is to stand up for yourself. Actually having to get a lawyer is very rare. You can also simply take them to small claims court, no lawyer required.
The thing is, nearly all these people trying to take advantage are bluffing. Call the bluff, and they fold immediately. They're just testing to see if you're a sucker.
But if you did leave the apartment damaged, they're not going to cave and you're going to forfeit the security deposit.
Yes, but note that your standing to do so varies considerably — I've never had problems doing that as a white man but I know people who declined to involve the city / law enforcement because they had had past bad experiences due to being black, gay, etc. If the landlord threatens to call the cops and you know a history of people like you having been mistreated or simply blown off, you might give up and accept it as another example of the world being unfair to add to many others.
If you believe that nobody has tried to cheat me, steal from me, take advantage of my ignorance and inexperience, steamroll me, threaten me, con me, etc., you're very mistaken.
This varies on a state-by-state basis. In Chicago, rental protections allow for the rentee to sue for beyond the deposit, as well as their lawyer's wages, in the case of a security deposit being wrongly taken. I know because I won back a lot of money from bogus 'damage' claims. Other states have laws that lean towards favoring the renter.
Since we're throwing anecdotes out there, I've had my landlords attempt to wrongly and knowingly take money from my security deposit about 30% of the time. The lower-class the apartment is, the more likely the owner is a slumlord, and will try to scam you.
American here. I've always gotten my deposit back, but more often then not it involves work and knowledge on my part. Most tenets (even my wealthy peers) don't really know there rights and just write off the deposits as a cost of moving, so most landlords assume they can get away with stealing them.
I have always gotten payed after sending a letter to the effect of "I moved on XXX date. With interest (as required by the lease and state law) you owe me my security deposit of $YYY within 45 days or I am entitled to sue for 3x that amount and attorneys fees."
There are also some procedural rules around how to deduct from security deposits (among other things, you must send an itemized list by certified mail to the last known address of the former tenet within 45 days of the end of the lease). I'm pretty sure most landlords don't even follow that for otherwise valid deductions
Although bond is held by the RTBA (or whatever it's called outside Vic), it's pretty common for landlords/property managers to try and strong arm tenants into giving up part of their bond for "damages", most of which are either resonable wear and tear, pre-existing, or not the responsibility of the tenant. For poorer people, who need the money sooner than later, it's often easier to agree to get half your bond back than to apply to VCAT (not to mention a lot of tenants fear they'll get blacklisted if they do) and possibly get all your bond back several months later.
I'm currently in the process of trying to claw my bond back from my previous landlord, it's been over 3 months now. Luckily I can afford it, but I know a lot of people who can't.
Yeah some. Landlord pocketing the interest on it can happen, and if they're nasty they might argue re you can't get it all back cause of a scratch on the floor over there but just straight up refusal is insane
I'm American and my experience matches yours. I've always got my deposit back. However, if there is a country that embodies "your mileage may vary" it is the USA.
This looks insane to an Australian. I have moved house 4 times in the past 5 years and I have never not got all of my bond back. Some states here have a rule that the bond money is held by the state so that the landowner doesn't just take that money for themselves. How can the poor ever break the cycle if no one is willing to help protect them from shitty rent-seekers?