Every September, the perpetual battle between tenants and landlords heats up when security deposit checks are returned. Tenants receive their security deposits minus deductions for damages. Sometimes these deductions are itemized in detail. Sometimes they are not.
To recover disputed funds regarding damages or repairs, the burden is placed squarely on the tenants: They can write to their landlord, file a complaint with consumer protection or sue in small claims court. Even if there are legitimate disputes over charges, the current system provides tenants with limited recourses to recover disputed funds for repairs or damages or guarantees a protracted legal battle with the landlord.
To solve such concerns, Ald. Eli Judge, District 8, has proposed a Tenants' Rights Ordinance mandating that landlords maintain photographic evidence of the damages they deduct from security deposits for 12 months.
While we must qualify our support for this newly proposed ordinance since many important questions must be worked out, we consider it a novel approach that will increase tenants' rights and limit liability for landlords.
The current process for disputing security deposit charges for damages clearly needs amending. When a dispute arises over the security deposit check, a time-consuming and potentially costly burden is placed on the tenant to contact the landlord and hopefully recover money. If landlords maintained photographic evidence of damages deducted from the security deposit, tenants would have recourse for legitimate disputes. At the same time, with photographic evidence landlords would be able to provide solid evidence for turning down unreasonable tenant complaints.
This ordinance also has the potential to benefit landlords in the long term by reducing litigation fees and limiting overall liability. If a landlord keeps photographic evidence of damages, then claims by previous tenants can be dismissed or accepted without intervention from outside agencies.
Although this ordinance would require up-front costs for landlords (cameras or hard drives), an inspection and repair system mandating photographic evidence is not an insurmountable burden.
A number of questions regarding the impact, feasibility and enforcement of this ordinance must be resolved within the upcoming weeks, however. For instance, how many cameras will large landlords need to purchase to document all of the damages? Is it possible to document all of the damage among many apartments within the one-to-two-day moving period in August? Will the cost of this proposal be prohibitive for small landlords or those landlords lacking computers? What are the enforcement mechanisms for violations by landlords? What happens when landlords refuse to release pictures?
Even with these questions in mind, this plan moves student interests a step forward, and over the long term will be a boon for tenants and landlords alike. This thoughtful proposal deserves serious consideration by the City Council.
