A Cambridge, Ont. woman hasn't been able to live in her rental home for six months because of mould and she's upset her landlord isn't doing anything about it.
Nothing special needed. Trivial to set up, and you control the release of funds. Doesn’t seem to have any ability to schedule deposits, but most rent payments are done manually anyhow. And since the money is clearly being held in reserve for the landlord, there is clear evidence of intent to pay.
This website requires that the ‘buyer’ and ‘seller’ agree to mediate their one time financial transaction arrangement via this website.
It isn’t a savings account with some kind of legally notarized purpose that a court will give a damn about. At least in the US, and only in some states is there even a legally valid option to petition the court to supercede the rental agreement with a court controlled rental escrow program.
This site is for buying and selling domain names and cars and jewelry between two parties that are on good terms, but just want a bit of extra security.
This website does not make sense in a situation where a contract already exists and one party to it feels the other is in violation of it.
Do you think the landlord is going to willingly agree to this, in this situation? Why would they? They’d arguably be legally incriminating themselves, if not nullifying their own original rental contract.
When the renter has already determined the landlord is acting in bad faith and likely violating laws, why would they trust the landlord in another contract?
While the landlord is still demanding rent whilst (falsely) claiming they have not done anything that constitutes a breach of the rental agreement, why would they ameliorate their existing contract or means of payment?
Should be equally as easy anywhere.
Escrow.com.
Nothing special needed. Trivial to set up, and you control the release of funds. Doesn’t seem to have any ability to schedule deposits, but most rent payments are done manually anyhow. And since the money is clearly being held in reserve for the landlord, there is clear evidence of intent to pay.
This website requires that the ‘buyer’ and ‘seller’ agree to mediate their one time financial transaction arrangement via this website.
It isn’t a savings account with some kind of legally notarized purpose that a court will give a damn about. At least in the US, and only in some states is there even a legally valid option to petition the court to supercede the rental agreement with a court controlled rental escrow program.
This site is for buying and selling domain names and cars and jewelry between two parties that are on good terms, but just want a bit of extra security.
This website does not make sense in a situation where a contract already exists and one party to it feels the other is in violation of it.
Do you think the landlord is going to willingly agree to this, in this situation? Why would they? They’d arguably be legally incriminating themselves, if not nullifying their own original rental contract.
When the renter has already determined the landlord is acting in bad faith and likely violating laws, why would they trust the landlord in another contract?
While the landlord is still demanding rent whilst (falsely) claiming they have not done anything that constitutes a breach of the rental agreement, why would they ameliorate their existing contract or means of payment?