[PJ]

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......

[underscore]

Isn't it a bit stupid on both parties side to have not signed anything when the deposit was handed over?

[fliptuner]

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).

[PJ]

Isn't it a bit stupid on both parties side to have not signed anything when the deposit was handed over?
totally.
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).

Should be. But you never know how the arbitrator weighs things.. Tenants never moved in, never damaged anything, it's not the tenant's responsibility to have the landlord find tenants to take their spot in time.

I have a feeling it's going to be close to 50/50. Landlord will probably get to keep half of it or something.

[fliptuner]

I think the landlord would be lucky to get anything.

[PJ]

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.

[GLOW]

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:

[Alby]

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.

[PJ]

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

[PJ]

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.

Both parties agree that 50/50 is on the table until the end of the day, but the choice has not been made yet.

Did a lot of reading, and it seems like RTO seems to favor the tenants more often than not. :suspicious: :concentrate: :heckno: :fuckthatshit:

[underscore]

I'm assuming the deposit was by check, and that's the proof the "tenants" have that they gave the landlord any money?

[PJ]

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.

[sdubfid]

I would love to hear the tenants definition of a deposit

[tiger_handheld]

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.

[underscore]

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.

So they took the time to issue a receipt but not to sign everything else? I know I'm not a landlord but...

:facepalm:

[PJ]

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.

The problem with this solution is that there's nothing stopping the landlord from getting new tenants in right away, charge full deposit and rent, and not letting the previous "tenant" know that the space has been occupied until the month is up.

[PJ]

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.)

[Manic!]

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.

[JesseBlue]

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

[Manic!]

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

Why would someone give a damage deposit if they are not going to rent the place? The only reason you give a damage deposit is if you are agreeing to rent the place.

[quasi]

^

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.

[PJ]

Previous conclusion withdrawn.

Landlord/Tenant meeting again on Thursday.

Will update when details are finalized.

[GLOW]

Sounds like both sides are "all-in"

http://www.onlinepoker.ro/fileadmin/mw-opr/images/sections-images/allin_1_.jpg

[PJ]

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.


Anyways, here it is. A couple of close friends and I have always talked about getting a place together, so we figure, hell, if we don't do it now, we're never gonna do it. So we found a place that we just couldn't give up. We had a look and paid the deposit (Monday the 18th). No agreements were signed, but we got issued a receipt that states "damage deposit." Landlord says we can sign the agreement when we move in. Sounds fair enough, move-in is in just a week, so it shouldn't be a problem.

But. A couple days pass, there's no other way to put it than, an unfortunate freak coincidence occurred. One of our friends lost his job, and had a family member sent to the hospital on the same day. He decided that given the circumstances, it's not a good time to get the place. Things were a bit delicate, so I didn't push him. I figured, alright, it's only been a few days, and it still gives the landlord plenty of time to find tenants. So I call the landlord, apologize, explain the situation, and request our deposit back. And of course, he refuses. I acknowledge the fact that we're the ones at fault, and I offer to cover any lost rent for September, pro-rated, until he finds a new tenant. He refuses.

Things go back and forth for a while, very professional, friendly, and diplomatic, and the landlord finally offers us half of our deposit back. I talk to my friends about it, and we agree that logically and ethically, it's a fair decision, since it was our fault for pulling out of a verbal agreement, and even if we went the pro-rated route, it would be pretty close to 50% anyway.

This is where it gets interesting.

Landlord tells me to pick up the cheque on the weekend.
I agree.
Landlord reschedules until Tuesday.
I agree.
Landlord reschedules again until another day.

At this point, I'm like, alright. Is he trying to pull some sort of technicality that pushes us out of a certain timeframe to file a dispute or whatnot?

So I start reading into it, but in the meantime, I called the landlord and asked, very respectfully, "is it at all possible for me to come sooner? I can come pick it up anytime today or tomorrow. It shouldn't take more than a minute of your time."

He responds, "you know what, that offer was out of good will and it is off the table now. You keep pestering me, and honestly, I lost all respect for you. You seem like you have way too much time on your hands. I'm glad you guys didn't move in. I don't want anything to do with people like you. I don't know if you're the only one like this, or if your friends are this annoying too. How do you live like this?"

This was the first time our interaction took this turn out of the blue. Before this, it was very professional and straight-forward. I was not "pestering" him in any way. But I still responded with, "Again, I'm sorry for the position we put you in, and I'm sorry you feel this way. Thank you for your time and good luck."

At this point I'm thinking, alright, now he's just being a dick. So I start reading into all the laws and tenancy acts. Everything seemed pretty 50/50 even if I did file a dispute... until I found this gem.

http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2012/03/Decision1113_032012.pdf
(For the lazy, it's a housing case that's pretty much the exact same as our situation. Basically, because no agreement was signed, nothing was officially breached. A damage deposit does not count as an agreement. Landlord has no right to keep the deposit.)

So I reach out to him again, apologize, explain our situation one more time, I request our full deposit back, and inform him that once I formally hand him a letter requesting our deposit back and he doesn't return it within 15 days, he'll be ordered to pay double.

He (rudely) concedes, and I leave to go pick up the cheque in person. I bring along the formal letter requesting our deposit back, the case file, and a dispute resolution form in case things go sour.

I arrive and pick up the cheque (while he's insulting me the whole time), again I apologize and acknowledge our mistake (while he continues to banter), and as I sign the letter of acknowledgement, he starts insulting my morals. This is when I finally had enough and handed him over the housing case file and said, "Look, I've been nothing but apologetic and understanding about this whole thing. Here's a case file. If you don't like the rules, take it up with the government."

He continues to go on about how I have too much time on my hands, yadda yadda. Then his MOM joins us and says "next time make up your mind! We were lucky we were able to find another tenant!"

Then I just paused and thought, alright. He already found another tenant. He's not losing any rent. So I don't understand what all this fuss and commotion is about. But I was like, what the hell, I have the cheque. Just let this guy think whatever he wants. I apologized again, said thank you and good luck, and went off on my way.


In the end, yes, I agree it was our fault, and I was ready to pay a price for that. But in all fairness, the landlord really did screw up big time for not having us sign an agreement on the spot. Did we get off lucky? Depends how you look at it. In a way, we were lucky that he started acting like an asshole, or else we would've just taken the half. (Assuming he was going to stop rescheduling the pick-up date.) But at the same time, according to the Tenancy Act, we did have him beat from the very beginning, without that signed agreement.

Lessons learned...

If I ever become a landlord, get that damn agreement signed right away.
And secondly, don't be a dick. It never works. In this case, it ended up costing the landlord a good chunk of money.

/rant

[fliptuner]

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+.

[PJ]

Agree.

Apparently he got tenants already, so I don't see what he's making a stink about.

But it's all over now. Lesson learned.

[Gumby]

Hope his new tenants give him problems. :)

But in all seriousness, I'm glad you were professional about it throughout the process, even when the landlord was being a dick.

As a side note, I recently became a landlord, and these kinds of issues give me nightmares! Fortunately, I think I found myself some good tenants.

[GLOW]

actually I thought OP was some sort of legal counsel looking over the case or assisting in mediation or something. good on your for suggesting the 50/50 to make the mess go away, somewhat amicably. disappointing to hear the reaction from the landlord. being a landlord isn't glamorous and not all rainbows and butterflies like HGTV likes to make it out so I can see their point of view. but still talking all that trash after they found tenants already :seriously: I won't give my thoughts on it I don't want points/ban :lol

[PJ]

In all fairness, we suggested pro-rated, and he suggested 50/50.

We were ready to take the 50/50 deal because we thought pro-rated probably would have ended up pretty close to 50/50 anyway, so we figure, let's just get this over with.

In hindsight, maybe the landlord already got a new tenant right away, therefore 50/50 would get him more than pro-rated. But, who knows.

[underscore]

Out of curiosity, what would've happened if you just cancelled the check before it was deposited?

[PJ]

Our deposit was made in cash.

But according to that case file I linked in the full story post with virtually the same situation, the tenants cancelled their deposit cheque, the landlord filed a dispute and got nothing. (And lost a $50 filing fee.)

So I'd assume pretty much the same would have happened.