How Tenant Deposit Refund and Key Handover Work When Leaving a Home

Moving belongings out is not in every case sufficient proof that the dwelling has been legally returned. Delivery of the keys to the landlord or an authorised person, and documenting that delivery, matters. For a deposit refund, how the security was held, rent and ancillary debts, claims of damage beyond ordinary wear and the contract terms are assessed together.

This guide focuses on handover and the security amount in residential and roofed workplace leases. When and for what reason the lease ended is a separate question. Returning the immovable may not automatically extinguish every claim that can arise from an early departure. This is general information, not a determination of an individual file.

The security commonly called a deposit is the amount agreed to cover obligations arising from the lease. It does not mean that the last month’s rent has automatically been paid in advance, or that the landlord obtains unconditional income. The conditions of refund are determined within the contract and the statute.

Under TBK Art. 342, the security agreed in residential and roofed workplace leases may not exceed three months’ rent. If the security was given in money or negotiable instruments, the statute contains a special arrangement for holding them in a bank. The refund mechanism for cash taken by hand and for a bank security complying with the statute may not be the same.

TBK Art. 342 provides that a money security is placed in a time savings account so that it cannot be withdrawn without the landlord’s consent. The bank’s return of the security is tied to statutory conditions such as the parties’ consent, a final enforcement proceeding or a final court judgment.

The same article provides a refund mechanism at the tenant’s request if the landlord does not notify the bank in writing, within three months after the lease ends, of a related action or proceeding. It is not correct to generalise that period to every cash-deposit dispute as “the landlord may hold the money for three months”. The special conditions of the bank-security regime should be checked separately.

The transfer slip, receipt or contract record showing that payment was made should be kept. If the landlord has changed, the position between the former and new owner and the provisions on assignment of the lease are assessed separately. The information “I paid the money to the previous landlord” is important but does not by itself determine all liability.

A refund request should explain the amount paid, the payment date, the contract clause on security and how the lease ended. Whether the deposit is to be returned on the current rent, on the amount paid in, or by another calculation is examined according to the form of payment, the contract and the concrete request. A single automatic formula should not be given for every file.

Emptying the dwelling and returning use to the landlord may not be the same event. If the keys remain with the tenant or delivery is disputed, the date of actual return can be in issue. That date matters when rent and ancillary claims are assessed.

Leaving the keys with a caretaker, a neighbour, an estate agent or in the letterbox does not in every case replace delivery to an authorised person. The authority of the person taking delivery and the landlord’s knowledge should be assessed. The clearest method is to create a record, checked by the parties, showing the date and scope of handover.

The handover record should record, in an understandable way, the situation actually established that day. Refund of the deposit, delivery of the keys and a waiver of all claims are not the same statement. A broad release sentence in a ready-made form should not be signed unread.

If the record says “no debt remains”, it matters whether that is truly accepted. A statement “I have received the deposit” should not be written while the deposit has not been paid. If one party has not signed, the document may remain a one-sided record; its evidential value is assessed accordingly.

TBK Art. 334 provides that the tenant is not liable for deterioration arising from contractual use. Damage beyond ordinary use may, where the conditions are met, give rise to liability. The cost of every painting or maintenance need cannot automatically be deducted from the deposit.

The duration of use, the condition at the outset, the age of the material and the cause of the damage matter. Worn equipment after years of use and equipment rendered unusable by breakage do not require the same assessment. If damage is alleged, the item, the cause and the amount should be explained and supported by documents, photographs and, where needed, an expert examination.

TBK Art. 335 contains provisions on inspecting the leased property on return and notifying defects and shortcomings for which the tenant is liable. There is a further arrangement for shortcomings that cannot be established by ordinary inspection. The time of notification and when the damage was perceptible therefore matter.

A general message sent long after handover that “the home was left in a bad state” and damage recorded in detail at the moment of handover do not create the same evidential position. The parties should keep concrete records that, if a dispute arises, show which items are truly in issue.

A tenant should not treat non-payment of the last month’s rent as a safe method merely because a deposit exists. The purpose of the security and the conditions of refund are not the same as the due date of rent. An express agreement of the parties, or the conditions of set-off, are separate questions requiring concrete assessment.

Non-payment can give rise to a rent-debt and enforcement discussion. If set-off is considered on departure, which debt is closed with which amount should be written clearly. One should not assume, on the basis of an oral conversation, that both rent has been paid and the deposit refunded.

If the tenant returns the property before the contract term or the termination period expires, the extent to which liability continues under TBK Art. 325 is assessed separately. Taking delivery of the keys does not in every case mean that the landlord has waived all claims arising from early departure.

Matters such as the reasonable time needed to re-let, a suitable new-tenant proposal and benefits obtained by the landlord or deliberately forgone can matter in the concrete case. This topic should not be described as if a deduction from the deposit were automatic or unlimited.

If delivery is refused, leaving the dwelling open or placing the keys at random is not the course; proper notice and, where needed, consignment (tevdi) should be considered. Which application is appropriate and when delivery is deemed to have occurred are determined according to the file.

Sending a warning, designation of a place of consignment and leaving the keys at the relevant place are different acts. Merely sending a message that “I will leave the keys” does not show that legal delivery has definitely occurred. Application and notice documents should be kept.

First the refund request and the other party’s deduction grounds should be set out in writing. Then the lease, payment document, handover record, photographs and relevant correspondence are gathered. Undisputed payments and disputed items can be shown separately.

In actions arising from a lease, mediation as a condition of action under Art. 18/B of Law No. 6325, and the statutory exceptions, are considered. Enforcement, a lawsuit and mediation are not the same application; the route to follow is determined by the nature of the request. This guide does not predict the certain outcome or duration of a particular case.

The principal bases are TBK Arts. 325, 334, 335 and 342 and Art. 18/B of Law No. 6325. Bank-held security, cash payment and early return should be assessed separately.