A BC renter decided to pursue legal action against her former landlord because she only got a portion of their damage deposit back.
Mitsuru Fujimoto rented a room in a house from Genesis Montero.
Fujimoto told the tribunal that only $75 out of $325 was returned, while Montero argued that Fujimoto was late paying for rent and her deposit, according to a publicly posted tribunal decision.
“They also say they bought certain household items Ms. Fujimoto requested. For these reasons, they say they were entitled to withhold $250 from Ms. Fujimoto’s deposit,” the tribunal decision read.
Both parties came to an agreement about the room for rent in June 2023. One month later, the rental began on a short-term basis for $650 a month, and Fujimoto could leave after the first month if she wanted to.
Fujimoto decided to move out on July 24. Fujimoto asked for her deposit back, but Montero declined.
The BC landlord claimed that upon the request of the renter, she bought some household items, which entitled her to keep the deposit. Montero wasn’t able to provide any documentary evidence to support her claims.
“The parties’ text messages did not mention anything about circumstances where Genesis Montero could keep the deposit. In the absence of a specific contractual term allowing Genesis Montero to withhold Ms. Fujimoto’s deposit because she paid her rent late or because they bought certain household items, either by request or not, I find they were not entitled to do so. It is commonly understood that security deposits are to cover unpaid rent or damage that goes beyond normal wear and tear and that damage deposits are to cover the latter only,” the tribunal decision states.
Ultimately, Fujimoto won her deposit back, and Montero was also ordered to pay for her tribunal fees, which amounted to an additional $125.