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.
"We found the damage after you left"
high likelihoodThe landlord never inspected the property with the tenant present at the end of the lease, then produced a list of damage and deducted for it.
What answers it
Section 5(3) requires a joint inspection at the expiration of the lease, and provides that a landlord who fails to inspect in the presence of the tenant is DEEMED to have acknowledged that the dwelling is in a good and proper state of repair, with no further claim against the tenant. That is not a presumption to be argued about — it is a deemed acknowledgement, and it disposes of the deductions without anyone looking at a photograph. Put it in the first line of your letter and take it to the Rental Housing Tribunal if they persist.
Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999, s. 5(3) — s. 5(3) — deposit to be invested in an interest-bearing account; joint inspection before occupation and at expiration; refund within 7, 14 or 21 days according to the facts
"There is no interest — we just kept it in the business account"
high likelihoodThe landlord or agent concedes the deposit was never in a separate interest-bearing account and treats that as the end of the interest question.
What answers it
Section 5(3) obliges the landlord to invest the deposit in an interest-bearing account with a financial institution at a rate not less than that applicable to a savings account, and entitles the tenant to written proof of the interest on written request. A landlord who did not open the account still owes the interest — the obligation was theirs, and their failure to perform it is not a defence to it. Make the written request for proof; the request itself often produces the payment.
Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999, s. 5(3) — s. 5(3) — deposit to be invested in an interest-bearing account; joint inspection before occupation and at expiration; refund within 7, 14 or 21 days according to the facts
"We have always held deposits ourselves"
high likelihoodThe landlord confirms the deposit sat in their own account, or in the agent’s, and treats that as normal practice rather than a breach.
What answers it
Where the statute says the money must be held somewhere specific — a blocked account in your name, a separate interest-bearing account, a savings book, a public deposit body — holding it anywhere else is a breach in its own right, not a matter of custom. It also means the interest the statute gives you was never earned, which the landlord must make good. Ask for the account details and the interest calculation in the same letter as the refund demand.
"We are still working out the costs"
high likelihoodThe landlord holds the whole deposit indefinitely while quotes, invoices or utility bills are said to be pending.
What answers it
The statutory return period exists precisely so the landlord can obtain quotes and final bills inside it. It does not restart because they left it late, and it does not licence holding the whole deposit against one unquantified item. Ask them to return everything not genuinely in issue now, and to quantify the rest by a stated date.
"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.