news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

The more critical question is, who should determine the nature of the damage to the rented house? What kind of damage should be compensated?

On August 20, a netizen posted a video on a social platform saying that he encountered "damage assessment with a lantern" when checking out. On August 21, Ms. Chen, who posted the video, told the Zonglan News reporter that she rented the house for one year and the rent was 9,000 yuan per month. When checking out on August 20, the landlord found a professional house inspector with a flashlight to check it bit by bit, marking 70 or 80 problems, including the loose bonding of the induction light strip of the wall cabinet, the wall paint pollution, the wall paint bulging, the baseboard loose, the socket panel scratched, the dry area ground water, etc.

Ms. Chen disagreed and reported the matter to the police, but the landlord refused to mediate. In addition to refusing to return the 18,000 yuan deposit, he also asked her to make compensation. The community staff of the house in question said that they had learned about the matter from the property management office, and since the landlord refused to mediate, they suggested that Ms. Chen resolve the matter through legal means.

↑Housing report. (Source/Housing report screenshot)

When the term "lantern damage assessment" is mentioned, one cannot help but think of a rental dispute that occurred in March this year. At that time, "lantern damage assessment" attracted widespread attention and discussion. Now, "lantern damage assessment" has appeared again, and it has once again attracted attention with an ordinary civil dispute over house damage and compensation. It can still generate empathy, and one cannot help but sigh, why is it so difficult for tenants to return their deposits?

Obviously, the landlord's move reveals his distrust of the tenant - some landlords always think that the tenant does not take care of the house as much as they do, so they want to seek a kind of "compensation" when inspecting the house. If you live in your own house, it is not excessive to take care of it. However, once it is rented out and a social relationship is established with the tenant, the landlord's mentality must be relaxed, at least he should be willing to accept minor damage to the rented house. After all, as long as someone moves in, it is inevitable that the items in the house will be bumped into and it is impossible for them to be intact. It is even more difficult for the tenant to guarantee that they are intact when the rent is stopped and the house is inspected. Psychologically speaking, everyone can understand that the landlord takes care of the house, but this "cleanliness obsession" is obviously not a legal basis for nitpicking and refusing to return the deposit or even asking for compensation from the tenant.

Similar incidents of "using lanterns to determine damages" also reflect, to a certain extent, the need to improve the management of the housing rental market. In fact, the landlord asked a house inspector to use a flashlight to check whether the house was damaged, which was also seeking justice, seeking the "justice" that should be regulated in the housing rental market. However, judging from the house inspection report issued by the landlord provided by the tenant, the details of the house damage, including the detachment and loose bonding of the wall cabinet induction light strip, wall paint pollution, wall paint bulging, loose skirting, socket panel scratches, and water accumulation on the dry area, seem "professional", but in fact there is no corresponding compensation list for the relevant damage. Moreover, should the tenants really compensate for these details of damage? Such a house inspection report, although issued by a third party, has no detailed basis for compensation, and is easily questioned as nitpicking.

So, how should we regulate the housing rental market to solve such problems?

For example, in the well-known house rental contract, the landlord should negotiate with the tenant in advance and clarify the house damage clauses and compensation matters. The intermediary company as a third party should also be subject to supervision to allow the landlord and the tenant to trade fairly and ensure the interests of both parties. However, these seem to be nothing more than gentleman's agreements. If, when terminating the lease contract, the landlord does not recognize the originally agreed house damage clauses and compensation details, and does not accept mediation, in addition to taking legal procedures to protect personal rights, are there any more effective channels for tenants to appeal? The more critical question is, who should determine the damage to the rented house? What kind of damage should be compensated?

In this regard, is it time for professional grading and characterization of the housing rental market? Just like the assessment of a person's disability, the grading of housing damage should also be carried out by an authoritative agency. Only more professional and standardized grading and characterization can convince landlords and tenants. After all, the landlord's own rights and interests need to be protected, and tenants also need fair trade and legal protection. As long as it is fair, transparent, and has laws to follow, there is nothing wrong with "damage assessment".

Peng Zhiqiang, Red Star News commentator

Editor: Wang Yintao