[IMAGE-1]
When Melanie Quigg moved out of the house she had rented in Bedford last June, her rent was paid up and—after a thorough cleaning by her and her father—the place was spotless. She expected the return of her $650 security deposit 10 days after the end of the month, as specified in Nova Scotia’s Tenant’s Guide. Instead, she’s spent the last four months texting, emailing and phoning the property manager for an explanation as to why he’s still holding the money.
“I just want to know why it’s being held back,” says Quigg, the parent of a five-year old boy. “I was counting on that money, and I had to borrow from my parents because it put me behind.”
David Kennedy, owner of Top Flight Property Management (a Fairview business that he’s operated for 25 years with an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau) says the situation with Quigg’s deposit “has to do with her not living up to her obligations with respect to the conditions of the lease. You are only getting part of the story, so be very careful.” He didn’t remember another former tenant, Dr. Ann Marie Joyce, who told The Coast she also never got back her $500 security deposit.
Section 12.5 of the Tenancies Act says renters should get their security money back after a 10-day waiting period, provided there is no unpaid rent or damage. It’s also the policy adopted by the Residential Tenancies Board, which hears disputes in a province where one third of the population rents. Unfortunately, the section is at odds with Section 13.1 of the Tenancies Act, which gives landlords and tenants up to one year to make a claim for any monies in dispute.
“The 10-day reference is both useless and confusing for tenants who assume they will get their deposits back quickly,” says Megan Deveaux, a lawyer with Dalhousie Legal Aid, where security deposits are the second biggest complaint. “It doesn’t work. Decisions in Small Claims Court have ruled that one year trumps ten days. The law needs to change to deal with the contradiction.”
Repeated requests for an interview with either Service Nova Scotia minister Mark Furey or a senior manager with the Residential Tenancies Board to discuss this problem were denied, but Service NS spokesperson Heather Desserud writes over email that the two timeframes have different objectives.
“Landlords have 10 days to return a security deposit if they do not make an application to retain it. The one-year timeframe allows for different types of circumstances to play out,” writes Desserud. “If a situation occurs where a security deposit was not returned nor an application was made to retain it, and subsequently both parties make applications for different awards, it is possible that a return of the security deposit to a tenant may offset some or all of the awards made to the landlord.”
Got that? The bottom line is that security deposits can remain up for grabs and in dispute for up to a year. Kennedy says he has a separate, corporate bank account where he keeps all damage deposits in trust, “unlike some other property managers and landlords who simply put the damage deposits directly into their own bank account.” There’s no evidence Service Nova Scotia does an annual spot-check of these accounts.
Chasing after a security deposit is “an incredibly involved process that only works for the most determined tenants,” says Deveaux. Renters must go to a Service Nova Scotia office in person and fill out a form (cost: $31.15) to initiate a hearing before the Residential Tenancies Board. The tenant must then deliver a copy of this form to the landlord or property manager—if they can find them. The tenant must make a second trip to the Service NS location to swear an oath that the paperwork was served.
The system New Brunswick uses “makes more sense” says Deveaux. Instead of relying on property managers to hold money “in trust,” the deposit is dropped off to any Service New Brunswick office, payable to a third party. At the end of the tenancy, the renter fills out an application in person or online (an option still unavailable here) requesting the deposit be returned. If the landlord doesn’t make a claim for damage or unpaid rent after seven days, Service NB sends out a cheque.
“We are aware of the system used in New Brunswick, but we are not currently considering that approach,” writes Desserud.
There are other ways the province could act to make the tenancy system simpler and fairer to use, says Deveaux. It could amend the law to support the policy of the Residential Tenancies Board which says landlords must return deposits after 10 days or file a claim with the Board. There doesn’t appear to be much political will for that, though.
Ironically, in a news release sent out on October 21, Service Nova Scotia announced it had just modernized and amended the Tenancies Act to allow for hearings over the telephone as well as a quicker process to waive fees for low-income renters.
Maybe the status quo is working fine for government and property owners but the same can’t be said for countless renters without damage or unpaid rent who struggle to get their deposit back. They don’t appear to have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to requesting the swift return of their money. Instead they are at the mercy of their landlord, entrusted with millions of dollars by a bureaucracy which does not appear to have much active oversight.
Related Stories
Navigating the slow labyrinth of tenancy disputes
Good luck getting that damage deposit back
This article appears in Nov 10-16, 2016.
Somebody needs to sue the government and the minister for causing stress and undue financial harm. Ditto to for the landlord too.
What can we actually do to change things?
Thank you for this article and bringing this issue back on my radar. As someone who has also been burned by slum landlords in this province, I know that it is a serious problem.
The current laws needs to be expanded as well to charge Landlords that engage in harassment activities. While there are indeed some people who are habitual bad tenants, there are equally or more Property Owners that are much worse. Citizens of this province should not have to live in fear of the people they rent from. A stronger system is needed to police this problem, and bring fines against those who thumb their nose at the responsibilities on either side of a rental dispute.
I have had first hand experience using the system in New Brunswick. It is indeed a better way to administer and maintain Tenant and Landlord agreements. The NB system is much cleaner, prevents many disputes in the way it creates a solid paper trail of deposits filed and deposits returned. It also handles enforcement much more timely and professionally then the current Nova Scotia approach.
I can promise you that reforms to this Act will be one of the bills that I will personally be introducing to the legislature within the first few months after we are elected. Our party has many positive changes to bring forward. From Election and Healthcare reforms, to Social and Economic Reforms. We are about far more then just Environmental issues. Everything is connected after all.
I think Nova Scotian’s will be pleasantly surprised at the new approach this newly reborn party is bringing to the table.
We are listening.
Stephen Chafe
Green Party of Nova Scotia
I am a Green Party supporter both emotionally and financially. I also believe capitalism should not be permitted to run amok as it has for the last few centuries. More socialist methods and ideals need to permeate our society including housing. I have been a tenant for 15 years and a landlord/property manager for over 20. I disagree vehemently with the view of the author of this article, Ms Deveaux, and Stephen Chafe. Landlords have an equally hard time with the current Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) as tenants. Landlords lose a lot of money from damage to their units which is unrecoverable. A half month’s security deposit is not enough to cover the damage a lot of the time.
While there are slum landlords, there are equally as many slum tenants if not more. Tenants seldom admit to damages and usually leave a unit much dirtier than they received it. The RTA is “interpreted” by the Residential Tenancies Officers (RTO) and it is often a twisted interpretation. Take the meaning of clean, RTB says a tenant is only required to maintain the unit with “ordinary cleanliness”. It doesn’t matter if it was given to the tenant in spotlessly clean condition. Tenant is not required to clean it to the same standard. Clean is clean. I am certain dictionaries and common sense would say that it is either clean or it isn’t. I believe the definition to a logical person would be that it is dirty if there is dirt or staining visible to the naked eye up close, within 3 feet. Not standing up 10-20 feet away and taking a poor quality picture. RTO often reduce the cleaning bill charged by a cleaner in half simply because they feel $25/hour is too much to pay a professional cleaner. I would like to know how much a RTO earns and how they think a person can make a living on $12.50 per hour. A Living Wage is $20/hour. That is just barely enough to get by on in today’s economic climate. $25/hr is perfectly reasonable for a cleaner to charge considering all the aspects of self-employment.
Often landlords need to replace items that were damaged such as fixtures, counters, hardwood floors, carpet, etc. How do you charge tenants for damages that don’t necessitate replacement, however shorten their expected life? A landlord has to present receipts to show an expense in order to make a deduction from a tenant’s security deposit. This means landlords are forced to replace items that don’t need to be replaced other than to ensure the tenant pays for what they damaged. The problem is that the item may have had its life shortened by 25% damage and only had 20% of its life used up (ie. 4 yrs of 20 yr life expectancy). Tenant would end up paying 80% of the cost of replacement instead of 25%. This makes the landlord look bad to the tenant, but they are only following the rules.
The RTA needs to be overhauled, BUT it requires input from tenants, landlords, AND most importantly RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES OFFICERS. When the NDP made changes to the RTA in 2012 they did not even consult with the RTO. I don’t believe RTO have ever been consulted for improving the RTA. RTO are the ones who oversee disputes between tenants and landlords every day. Who better to help devise a better Act? .
Landlords and tenants are both forced to work within a broken system that has seen little good change since the RTA was created. Changes should not be made by politicians to simply please the majority and obtain more votes. The changes need to be fair for both parties so there is less disputes, less disgruntled people, and enough quality rental housing to ensure no one is homeless.