What can security deposit be used for? (credit, inspection, fee)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should be illegal anyway. Non-refundable "deposits" or *cough, cough* "fees" are a scam. Charge a deposit and if there is no damage return it. No games. NO BS. Be honest with others and stop exploiting people and extorting them because their nine year old daughter would be heartbroken if they had to give up Fido.
Why? That is part of the cost of having a pet on that property. Don't like it? Rent elsewhere or don't have a pet. By the way, resident pets make taking care common areas more expensive.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Why? That is part of the cost of having a pet on that property. Don't like it? Rent elsewhere or don't have a pet. By the way, resident pets make taking care common areas more expensive.
I happen to believe there needs to be a major nationwide shift in renter rights. A landlord should not be able to prevent lawful pets, guests, or relatives from being within the unit. The only test should be the laws of the local jurisdiction (maximum occupancy) and a criminal background check. We give landlords way too much power over their tenants these days and it is making it so the rental population is practically having to live like serfs or even prisoners.
If for example someone wants a pet then it should be none of the landlord's business as long as a reasonable REFUNDABLE pet deposit is made. If someone decides they want to get married or adopt a child then likewise it is none of the landlord's business. I don't want to hear any excuses or if ands and buts. Landlords these days are starting to take the LORD part of the word way too literally and it needs to be changed. You provide the premises and the tenant(s) pay the rent and take reasonable care. You don't get to lord it over the tenant and be their prison guard or father/mother.
Last edited by paradigm72; 11-03-2016 at 02:25 PM..
I happen to believe there needs to be a major nationwide shift in renter rights. A landlord should not be able to prevent lawful pets, guests, or relatives from being within the unit. The only test should be the laws of the local jurisdiction (maximum occupancy) and a criminal background check. We give landlords way too much power over their tenants these days and it is making it so the rental population is practically having to live like serfs or even prisoners.
If for example someone wants a pet then it should be none of the landlord's business as long as a reasonable REFUNDABLE pet deposit is made. If someone decides they want to get married or adopt a child then likewise it is none of the landlord's business. I don't want to hear any excuses or if ands and buts. Landlords these days are starting to take the LORD part of the word way too literally and it needs to be changed. You provide the premises and the tenant(s) pay the rent and take reasonable care. You don't get to lord it over the tenant and be their prison guard or father/mother.
My property, my rules. Don't like them? Find some other place. Nobody is forcing you to rent.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
My property, my rules. Don't like them? Find some other place. Nobody is forcing you to rent.
That can go both ways:
Our country, Our State, Our County, Our City, Our Community. Don't like the laws (or what we change them to)? No one is forcing you to rent out property here. Find another way to make a living.
We have every right to change the laws in order to expand renter rights.
I happen to believe there needs to be a major nationwide shift in renter rights. A landlord should not be able to prevent lawful pets, guests, or relatives from being within the unit. The only test should be the laws of the local jurisdiction (maximum occupancy) and a criminal background check. We give landlords way too much power over their tenants these days and it is making it so the rental population is practically having to live like serfs or even prisoners.
If for example someone wants a pet then it should be none of the landlord's business as long as a reasonable REFUNDABLE pet deposit is made. If someone decides they want to get married or adopt a child then likewise it is none of the landlord's business. I don't want to hear any excuses or if ands and buts. Landlords these days are starting to take the LORD part of the word way too literally and it needs to be changed. You provide the premises and the tenant(s) pay the rent and take reasonable care. You don't get to lord it over the tenant and be their prison guard or father/mother.
I rent and have pets and disagree. My partner also has a felony on his record, and I disagree. It is the property of the landlord, they should be able to dictate if they want animal pee on their carpets and bite marks on their trims. I also agree with full background checks. My partner technically has a violent crime, and even though I know what happened, no one else knows what really happened. I don't want my child, or other children, around other adults who can't take care of themselves. And what if someone in the building has a serious pet allergy? That's not fair to them that someone else wants a furry buddy. I have a peanut allergy so I understand not being able to control what you can or cant be around. I also agree most other requirements, it secures everyone involved. The only one I question is the credit score, it's still odd to me that people must go into debt to have good credit to have nice things. Or when a crappy place has an income requirement when the place in question isn't worth that much.
Are things perfect? No, of course not. But you can't go into someone else's property and do whatever the heck you please because you have a contact that states you live there for one year.
Our country, Our State, Our County, Our City, Our Community. Don't like the laws (or what we change them to)? No one is forcing you to rent out property here. Find another way to make a living.
We have every right to change the laws in order to expand renter rights.
You guys done derailing the thread? There are plenty of other threads on this topic so how about you go find one and bump it.
Well, it depends on where your property is. Your city or state rules may trump yours. And even lowly renters have laws that protect them.
Why would someone who feels such animosity towards renters be in the landlording business?
I don't and I think reasonable tenant protection laws are neccessary to protect people who are in a vulnerable position. But notice I said reasonable. It is not reasonable to not allow me to screen tenants based on criteria I decide on or to force me to rent to someone that gives me bad vibes, as long as I am not discriminating against protected classes. It is not reasonable to force me to allow pets, especially if there is no additional compensation and/or protection from the addition wear/tear and even outright destruction of my property. It is not reasonable to prevent me from putting a cap on the number of people living in my property. It is not reasonable to not allow me to decide what to charge for the use of my property. It is not reasonable to say I can't decide to not renew a lease, for whatever reason, including a tenant who is a major pain in the butt and creates unnecessary extra work.
We have a property that the tenant has lived there over 15 years, along with other properties with long term tenants. We try to be good to our tenants and treat them in way that we would find reasonable if the tables were turned, including just raising the rent to cover additional expenses created by inflation for good long-term tenants. We do that, not because we are made to by some law, but because it is the right thing to do. Almost all of our properties are either homes we once lived in or condos we bought for our kids to live in during college. So far, we have not had major problems with tenants, in part because we carefully screen them and in part because we do try to treat them decently. We didn't start out to be landlords, it just sort of happened, and we certainly have no intention of being slum lords. But, while all that is true, it is still my property, and if you don't like my rules either don't rent from me or move if you are already renting from me.
My original point, however, was there is nothing wrong with landlords charging a non-refundable pet fee and the situation the OP describes is one of the reasons why it is done. If a person doesn't want to pay that kind of fee then they need to find a different place to rent where there isn't one. No one forces a renter to rent a specific property, there are other options.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I don't and I think reasonable tenant protection laws are neccessary to protect people who are in a vulnerable position. But notice I said reasonable. It is not reasonable to not allow me to screen tenants based on criteria I decide on or to force me to rent to someone that gives me bad vibes, as long as I am not discriminating against protected classes. It is not reasonable to force me to allow pets, especially if there is no additional compensation and/or protection from the addition wear/tear and even outright destruction of my property. It is not reasonable to prevent me from putting a cap on the number of people living in my property. It is not reasonable to not allow me to decide what to charge for the use of my property. It is not reasonable to say I can't decide to not renew a lease, for whatever reason, including a tenant who is a major pain in the butt and creates unnecessary extra work.
We have a property that the tenant has lived there over 15 years, along with other properties with long term tenants. We try to be good to our tenants and treat them in way that we would find reasonable if the tables were turned, including just raising the rent to cover additional expenses created by inflation for good long-term tenants. We do that, not because we are made to by some law, but because it is the right thing to do. Almost all of our properties are either homes we once lived in or condos we bought for our kids to live in during college. So far, we have not had major problems with tenants, in part because we carefully screen them and in part because we do try to treat them decently. We didn't start out to be landlords, it just sort of happened, and we certainly have no intention of being slum lords. But, while all that is true, it is still my property, and if you don't like my rules either don't rent from me or move if you are already renting from me.
My original point, however, was there is nothing wrong with landlords charging a non-refundable pet fee and the situation the OP describes is one of the reasons why it is done. If a person doesn't want to pay that kind of fee then they need to find a different place to rent where there isn't one. No one forces a renter to rent a specific property, there are other options.
I can see that the landlord-tenant laws really get your goat. But, in CA, you are not allowed to have any non-refundable fees, so that just wouldn't fly here.
I have to ask you about not being allowed a cap on occupancy. Doesn't your city or state have an occupancy standard? Surely, you aren't required to allow any amount of people with no maximum?
And you can always use a security deposit (charge the max allowed by law) or sue someone and garnish their wages, etc. It's not like you have no recourse for damage. And, as you say, if you screen someone well, and they have no history of damaging previous rentals, etc., you should be able to minimize your risk.
I just don't think it's reasonable to write your own rules and say take them or leave them - unless they are legal. Because that would not be reasonable, in my opinion.
I can see that the landlord-tenant laws really get your goat. But, in CA, you are not allowed to have any non-refundable fees, so that just wouldn't fly here.
I have to ask you about not being allowed a cap on occupancy. Doesn't your city or state have an occupancy standard? Surely, you aren't required to allow any amount of people with no maximum?
And you can always use a security deposit (charge the max allowed by law) or sue someone and garnish their wages, etc. It's not like you have no recourse for damage. And, as you say, if you screen someone well, and they have no history of damaging previous rentals, etc., you should be able to minimize your risk.
I just don't think it's reasonable to write your own rules and say take them or leave them - unless they are legal. Because that would not be reasonable, in my opinion.
I always follow the law. I would never own rental property in California and if a place where we have property adopted some of those laws I would sell. I am not a government entity and have no desire to be treated as such.
Again, to get back on topic, the reason landlords want to charge non-refundable fees for pets is animals increase the wear and tear of a property and accelerate depreciation. The OP's example of what happened with the three dogs is a perfect example. It constantly amazes me how many pet owners are totally blind to the damage their pet does. You hear things like "He just had little accidents and only in the same three places" or "Well, all puppies chew" or "What urine smell?" or "Oh, those little black things are fleas?" Not that it matters anymore with the explosion of emotional support animals.
By the way, going to court to sue for damages costs me money and time. Plus, it's a lot hard to garnish someone's wages than you think. When my friend won a judgement from a renter in court it took her over 5 years to collect.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
