Asahi: Supreme Court rules that tenants' deposits shouldn't cover damages caused under normal circumstances
In a decision that will have a huge impact on the rental housing market, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that tenants' deposits should not cover repairs for normal wear and tear. The top court's No. 2 petty bench said repairs to inevitable damages, such as scratches, stains and smears, caused under normal circumstances should be paid for by the rent money. The only exception, the court said, is if the tenant fully understands the terms and agrees to allow the deposit to be used for those repairs..."The ruling made a small achievement of only 300,000 yen, but the impact it will bring on the Japan's current rental housing system is significant," said the plaintiff's lawyer, Tadashi Matsumaru. "From now on, tenants will not so easily lose their deposits for stains caused while leading normal lives" ...more...

Mulboyne wrote:
Asahi: Supreme Court rules that tenants' deposits shouldn't cover damages caused under normal circumstances

I was so screwed over by the agent when I moved out. They charged me 2 man against my deposit just to replace a lousy water filter in the kitchen sink!

Bastards.

That's good news for renters and way overdue. I mean, they'll fucking charge you for shit like buying a new water heater when the old one was just some piece of shit they found on big garbage day back in the sixties! But...

The only exception, the court said, is if the tenant fully understands the terms and agrees to allow the deposit to be used for those repairs

What do you want to bet that every fucking rental agency will have the same policy adopted before next year is out?

Nothing ever changes in Japan.

AssKissinger wrote:

The only exception, the court said, is if the tenant fully understands the terms and agrees to allow the deposit to be used for those repairs

What do you want to bet that every fucking rental agency will have the same policy adopted before next year is out? Nothing ever changes in Japan.

The clauses are already in many contracts but the courts have said they are unenforceable if not explained to tenants. This at least invalidates the majority of such clauses on agreements for current tenants. I'm also not convinced that letting agencies will have the power in all sectors of the market to compel prospective tenants to agree to tighter terms. However, I wonder whether FGs might still have to sign up to such agreements more than the national average since our negotiating position is generally weaker.

Mulboyne wrote:I'm also not convinced that letting agencies will have the power in all sectors of the market to compel prospective tenants to agree to tighter terms. However, I wonder whether FGs might still have to sign up to such agreements more than the national average since our negotiating position is generally weaker.

Won't everyone's negotiating position be reduced to nil if brokers uniformly adopt practices that exploit this loophole?

kamome wrote:

Mulboyne wrote:I'm also not convinced that letting agencies will have the power in all sectors of the market to compel prospective tenants to agree to tighter terms. However, I wonder whether FGs might still have to sign up to such agreements more than the national average since our negotiating position is generally weaker.

Won't everyone's negotiating position be reduced to nil if brokers uniformly adopt practices that exploit this loophole?

The Japanese show no prejudice, they fuck everyone in the ass.

Really, it's classic J-BULLSHIT. The judge hands down a sentence that allows the people feel like they won something but at the same time it allows for the landlords to continue with the same rip offs. Everyone's happy, no one loses face and the status quo doesn't move an inch.

AssKissinger wrote:Really, it's classic J-BULLSHIT. The judge hands down a sentence that allows the people feel like they won something but at the same time it allows for the landlords to continue with the same rip offs. Everyone's happy, no one loses face and the status quo doesn't move an inch.

That's what I first thought when I saw the news but Japanese friends seem to think something has changed since they believe the ruling now discourages landlords from including such clauses in contracts even though, by the letter of the law, they would be permitted. We'll soon see.

Mulboyne wrote:

AssKissinger wrote:Really, it's classic J-BULLSHIT. The judge hands down a sentence that allows the people feel like they won something but at the same time it allows for the landlords to continue with the same rip offs. Everyone's happy, no one loses face and the status quo doesn't move an inch.

That's what I first thought when I saw the news but Japanese friends seem to think something has changed since they believe the ruling now discourages landlords from including such clauses in contracts even though, by the letter of the law, they would be permitted. We'll soon see.

When I moved 6 weeks ago I lost 50k. There was no explanation. No breakdown on the invoice. It basically was the cleaning bill from the cleanup company that readied the place for the next person and it got passed on to me.

Captain Japan wrote:

Mulboyne wrote:

AssKissinger wrote:Really, it's classic J-BULLSHIT. The judge hands down a sentence that allows the people feel like they won something but at the same time it allows for the landlords to continue with the same rip offs. Everyone's happy, no one loses face and the status quo doesn't move an inch.

That's what I first thought when I saw the news but Japanese friends seem to think something has changed since they believe the ruling now discourages landlords from including such clauses in contracts even though, by the letter of the law, they would be permitted. We'll soon see.

When I moved 6 weeks ago I lost 50k. There was no explanation. No breakdown on the invoice. It basically was the cleaning bill from the cleanup company that readied the place for the next person and it got passed on to me.

That's a jaw-dropping figure, but not at all unusual for Japan. Compare that with the US, where a lof landlords will let tenants pay their $500 (or whatever) deposit in installments because the average American has about $223 in his checking account.

dingosatemybaby wrote:That's a jaw-dropping figure, but not at all unusual for Japan. Compare that with the US, where a lof landlords will let tenants pay their $500 (or whatever) deposit in installments because the average American has about $223 in his checking account.

The lease wasn't in my name. I think I could get a copy of the lease agreement. But I don't really know how I could fight it.

dingosatemybaby wrote:That's a jaw-dropping figure, but not at all unusual for Japan. Compare that with the US, where a lof landlords will let tenants pay their $500 (or whatever) deposit in installments because the average American has about $223 in his checking account.

The lease wasn't in my name. I think I could get a copy of the lease agreement. But I don't really know how I could fight it.

Captain Japan wrote:

dingosatemybaby wrote:That's a jaw-dropping figure, but not at all unusual for Japan. Compare that with the US, where a lof landlords will let tenants pay their $500 (or whatever) deposit in installments because the average American has about $223 in his checking account.

The lease wasn't in my name. I think I could get a copy of the lease agreement. But I don't really know how I could fight it.

Yeah, and when it's in your employer's name, the employer will generally pay it without question and then go after you for it. I'd rather fight a real estate company than fight my own employer.

Let me play the devil's advocate for a sec. You are a landlord. Rent control is absolute - you are never going to be able to raise the rent. If you are stuck with Dirk the Dirtball, Frieda the Floozy, or Mike the Metalhead there isn't a hugh amount you can do to get them out. Tatami mats have to be completely replaced after a few years usage as will scrren door and in some cases the wooden floors. The deposit is the only way to ensure their good behavior. Yes some landlords gouge their tenants (although I suspect the racket is more in the 'cleaning' business), and this is especially true when the lease is under someone else's name (Eikaiwas are famous for screwing their employees this way). There are ways do recognize this.

It befits us all to look at the charges before renting and realize that if you are renting it is probably better to start thinking about being there for the long term. Far too many jump on the first cheap place we find only to get screwed on with the deposit. If you personally know the landlord (ours lives in the big house next door) you will find them pliable when it comes to returning deposits.

Now I have never lived in Tokyo so I won't try to pretend that what I am famaliar with situation there...

I have no problem paying reasonable charges for cleaning up the apartment when I leave,

However........

I have ALWAYS withheld my last months rent.

This put me in a slightly better positions for later negotiating the charges to my deposit.
Any charges I feel are too expensive, unnecessary or unreasonable.

I just refuse to pay, or I negotiate a lower price. And....... since I have their money instead of them having my money it makes it a lot easier to do this.

The Real-estate agents are never too happy about this, but why should they have all the power?

This is a pen wrote:I have no problem paying reasonable charges for cleaning up the apartment when I leave,

However........

I have ALWAYS withheld my last months rent.

This put me in a slightly better positions for later negotiating the charges to my deposit.
Any charges I feel are too expensive, unnecessary or unreasonable.

I just refuse to pay, or I negotiate a lower price. And....... since I have their money instead of them having my money it makes it a lot easier to do this.

The Real-estate agents are never too happy about this, but why should they have all the power?

That's a good tactic, but as I said above, it won't work if the lease is in your employer's name. Your company will automatically pay the rent up front and leave you without leverage in negotiating the return of your deposit.