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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Who’s going to pay this neutral third party to come see the property twice and allocate the deposit between the tenant and landlord?
The escrow company gets to invest the deposit. They can use a portion of those funds to determine who receives the payout.
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.
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.
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.
The state. It’s literally how this works in other countries. (Victoria, Australia, anyway)
Either the landlord or a split between the parties
A split between the parties might help avoid conflict of interests
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.
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
That’s if everything goes well. What if the tenant does not approve the photos?
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.
Here, too, the tenant gets the deposit back and any interest accrued.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you’re going to ask the government to step in, I would suggest to make building more housing easier.