Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.
"You signed the contract, so you agreed to the deposit"
high likelihoodThe landlord points to a deposit clause in the lease and treats the tenant’s signature as consent.
What answers it
Article 16 is an imperative provision of a protective statute; it cannot be contracted around, and the article expressly catches guarantees agreed "en documento distinto al del contrato de arrendamiento" and those "sustituidas por otras bajo denominaciones diferentes". A clause that requires what the statute forbids does not become lawful because it was signed.
Ley 820 de 2003, art. 16 — art. 16 (prohibición de depósitos y cauciones reales)
"It is not a deposit, it is an administration fee / an advance / a bond"
high likelihoodThe landlord relabels the money to escape art. 16, or has the tenant pay it to an agent rather than to the landlord.
What answers it
Article 16 anticipates exactly this. It forbids the guarantee being stipulated indirectly, through interposed persons, or substituted by others under different denominations. What matters is what the money does — if it is held to secure your obligations under the lease, the article catches it whatever it is called and whoever holds it.
Ley 820 de 2003, art. 16 — art. 16 (prohibición de depósitos y cauciones reales)
"The property needed cleaning and redecorating"
high likelihoodThe landlord charges for cleaning, carpet wear, scuffed paint or tired fittings and treats the deposit as a refurbishment fund.
What answers it
Fair wear and tear from ordinary use is not a recoverable loss in any of the regimes this product covers — a deduction must reflect damage or a breach beyond ordinary use, must be evidenced, and must be reduced for the age and remaining life of the item. Ask for the invoice, the check-in and check-out evidence, and the calculation.
"Prove you did not cause it"
high likelihoodThe landlord asserts damage and expects the tenant to disprove it, often without a check-in inventory.
What answers it
It is the party seeking to keep the money who must justify keeping it. Where there is no dated check-in record to compare against, an adjudicator has nothing to measure the alleged damage from, and the deduction generally fails on that ground alone.