Job Discussion Forums

[JimDunlop2]

I remember reading somewhere that the cost of replacing tatami mats upon moving out is the responsibility of the landlord/owner of the building -- NOT that of the tenant.

Can anyone confirm this for me? I can't seem to find very much in the way of Japanese housing/tenant law on the Internet.

Basically, here's the scoop. I've recently moved out of my apartment and the old landlord wants me to pay just over 100,000 yen to replce tatami mats in two rooms (14 mats). I haven't signed anything because I'm pretty sure that it's not my cost to bear. My BoE knows the situation and they are prepared to back me up -- but ONLY IF I can provide the word of the law in Japanese that states that I'm not responsible for the cost.... I also know of someone who is in the EXACT same situation -- except he's being hit for over 180,000 yen. He's already gotten a lawyer (I think). But anything that I can dig up would be beneficial too. I'm just not sure where to start looking.

Before I take the time and money to get a Japanese lawyer to dig this up for me, can anyone point me to a source (or some sources) that substantiate my claim? If I'm wrong about this, then that's fine -- I'll pay the money... But I've got a sneaky suspicion that I'm being cheated here.

[Brooks]

sounds weird.
My key money was 5 months rent for my first place.
Included was money for the new tatami.
After I moved, I didn`t get charged again.

[Mtnkiwi]

If the tatami that needs replacing only need replacing due to actual wear and tear then it should be covered. But it does depend on the individual tenancy contract. If you paid little key money then there may be a clause in your contact that states that is up to the departing tenant to replace matts, curtains etc. Was the tatami new when you moved in? When I moved out of my first apartment I'm pretty sure that they even replaced the bathroom (a one piece plastic mould thing), and it was all part of my initial deposit/rent.

[azarashi sushi]

I don't know exactly but I was always under the impression that tenancy agreements did not take into consideration normal wear and tear of an apartment. I remember reading on this forum that the law was changed in last year (again I don't know for sure) but doesn't cover any leases signed before that. The last apartment I lived in had tatami and my Japanese friends were always telling me that I should put mats over them to save them and hence having to pay lots of money to replace them.

But again, best to check your lease agreement. Good luck anyway.

[JimDunlop2]

Legal precedence in Japan goes to what the LAW states, not what the lease might claim. If the articles of the lease are illegal, they are invalid. This was the case of the man who took his landlord to court a few years ago. He won his suit against having to pay re-contracting money even though his lease said he had to. The word of the law says that you don't.

Dakara..... That's why I'm wondering if anyone knows or has been exposed to what the word of the law says on this issue.

[cafebleu]

Hello Jim, I am going back to where I came from tomorrow but I would like to give you advice before I do! When I lived in Japan the last place I rented with my husband, required that we pay for the new tatami mats BEFORE we moved into our old style dwelling.

That money was included in the total fee sum we paid to the rental agent. We had to pay various fees including for the new tatami, money to the owner AND our REFUNDABLE deposit was 4 months` rent. Did you catch the point about the tatami? CHECK your contract and check the papers you signed relating to fees etc. All the fees and their purposes should be clearly printed on these forms. We had to pay to put new tatami down before we started renting.

That`s nonsense, of course, but Japan is an extremely unfair, unprogressive society in many respects so we just have to put up with it where we have to and challenge it where we can - and usually the Japanese are really cheated as they accept every illegal action of landagents/oyasans without question.

Anyway, when we gave notice (we could leave 2 months before the rental contract finished according to our contract) the rental agent said he would keep all of our deposit for cleaning and replacing tatami mats as well as repairs. At this my husband looked straight at him and smiled. My husband pointed out in very polite Japanese that:

1) We had paid to replace the tatami mats from the other tenants` time so it was the turn of the next tenant to do that, wasn`t it? Nowhere in the contract did it say we had to pay again for new tatami mats when leaving.

2) We would clean the place thoroughly ourselves as it didn`t require a professional cleaner to do it. We would record it all on our digicamera and take photographs of before and after.

3) There was no damage to the place. The only damage was that which had existed before we moved in and we had proof - we produced signed statements and photographs. There was minimal wear and tear, in fact the rental agent would be very challenged to find any.

4) My husband finally pointed out rulings made in courts where we lived before - Kyushu. These legal judgements ordered rental agents/owners to pay back the refundable deposits in full because that was the whole point of their being refundable deposits. The judges said normal wear and tear is not damage.

Again my husband stressed that we had evidence - photographic, digicamera etc. He said we didn`t want to waste anybody`s time so please let`s get the moving process started and please give us our deposit back after you have looked at the place with us present.

We got our deposit back. Don`t let them play you - get a Japanese friend to read your housing contract, and write out a clear letter detailing what you have or haven`t done to the house. In Japan, too, the renter pays for house insurance which I find shocking. The renter is not the owner and should not be covering their responsibilities. Good old feudal Japan living off the citizens`willingness to play the chump.

[JimDunlop2]

Thanks for the advice, cafebleu. Turns out that I'm not the only one in this position. A friend of a mutual friend of a friend recently ended up in the same boat. I spoke to him yesterday.

Anyway, both of us have approached a lawyer about it. He is currently researching the matter for us. I was asked whether I wanted to go for the throat (and get most/all of my deposit back) or whether I was willing to negotiate, and maybe settle for about half. I didn't give them a solid answer because I'm still waiting to see what the law says about it. I suspect, even if I got half my deposit back, I'd likely be happy with that.

I will keep everyone posted with updates on this issue, although it won't be till after we get back from holidays (Jul 31 to Aug 16). In the mean time, if anyone else has any thoughts on this issue, or something to add, please do so.

[Brooks]

I had to pay annual fire insurance in my previous place and an extra month of rent after two years of living there as a `gift` to the landlord.
My key money was less since the housing place knew people from my school so it was less.

As for my new place, I am sure the key money I paid will cover new tatami.

[JimDunlop2]

***Update:

I was advised by a legal dude in town (nihonjin) that my best recourse would be to file a formal complaint in court. So, that is what we will be doing in regards to this issue.

Today my wife, with a Japanese friend filed a formal complaint against my former realty company at the local courthouse.

They were asked if we would consider arbitration. I said we would. What follows is a copy of the complaint (which was translated into Japanese by our friend):



September 2, 2005

To Whom it May Concern:

This complaint is to address the unfair fees assessed by _____________ (realty company) in the matter of tatami mat replacement fees.



Background: The plaintiffs entered into a tenancy contract with the ________________ (realty company) in March, 2003 at the address: (deleted for the thread). Following two years of residence and completion of the contract, the plaintiffs decided to terminate their tenancy at this address following a perceived failure on the part of the realty company to adequately address the concerns of the tenants. 30 days verbal notice was given in the presence of witnesses at the realty office in late April, 2005. The premises at the above address were vacated and cleaned no later than June 30, 2005, in accordance to the notice previously given. Approximately 45 days following vacating the premises, the plaintiffs received a notice and bill for cleaning, repairs and tatami mat replacement. A request was made to sign over the full amount of the (shikikin) deposit that was paid when the contract between the plaintiffs and __________ (realty company) was signed in March, 2003. The amount of the deposit was 100,000 yen. A second was made, in addition to the above sum being used to cover the expenses of the cleaning and tatami mat replacement bill, to pay a sum of 2,_ _ _ yen. (I don't have the exact figure on me right now).

In response to the above monetary requests of ______________ (realty company) the plaintiffs hereby make the following complaints.

1. That ________________ (realty company) has not acted in good faith for the following reason. It is common understanding that a deposit (shikikin) is fully refundable upon contract termination, barring any repairs or cleaning that must be made to return the premises into their original condition. The realty company, as standard practice replaces tatami mats prior to each new tenant moving in. As this is the case, they have foreknowledge of the fees involved in replacing tatami mats, therefore requesting a deposit (shikikin) that is smaller or equal to that cost immediately renders the deposit non-refundable.

2. The plaintiffs were not informed either verbally or in writing at any point before or during the tenancy contract that their (shikikin) deposit would be not be refundable because of the tatami mat replacement costs.

3. The plaintiffs believe that tatami mats are considered to be a "consumable" product, and as such, should not be responsible for the cost of their replacement.

4. The plaintiffs were not informed either verbally or in writing at any point before or during the tenancy contract of the cost tatami mat replacement.

5. The plaintiffs believe that the decision to replace tatami mats is purely arbitrary and based only on the realtor's discression and judgement and does not reflect the actual need to replace the tatami mats.

6. The plaintiffs believe that the good condition of the premises (based on the advice of witnesses) did not warrant the decision to replace all 14 tatami mats in the premises wholesale.

7. The plaintiffs believe that the cost of tatami mat replacement is excessive. The plaintiffs have no way of knowing whether the price being asked is a fair price, as no price quotes from different tatami companies were provided to the plaintiffs. No option was given to the plaintiffs as to which company will replacing the tatami mats.

8. The plaintiffs have not been given any other options to tatami replacement. For instance, tatami mat re-covering.

9. The plaintiffs contend that the amount of any initial deposit given (shikikin) should be more than adequate to cover any and all cleaning/repair expenses and barring excessive damage or neglect, such a request is an act of bad faith on the part of the realty company.

The plaintiffs hereby request that the court evaluate the above contensions and render a verdict based upon their merits.

Without prejudice,


JimDunlop


More to come.... Again, I'll keep everyone updated on my progress.

[louwoo]

New Tatami mats when you leave a place are your responsibility, not the landlords! I must pay to replace them when I leave my place be it after 1, 2, 3 or 100 yrs.
Lou

[JimDunlop2]

[yamanote senbei]

Another simpler explanation:

"Your landlord or apartment manager is responsible for all reasonable repairs that come from normal use."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20050531kj.htm

[JimDunlop2]

The next chapter in the saga:

I finally received a solid answer from the lawyer yesterday.

Here are the recommendations that he made:

First, approach the realtor and state to him clearly that you will not pay the costs associated with replacing tatami mats, and that you are requesting that portion of your deposit (shikikin) be returned to you.

The realtor will respond in one of three ways. 1. Yes (you win). 2. By trying to negotiate with you and give you a partial refund. Whether you accept this or not is purely up to you. 3. No.

If the answer is "no" or if he negotiates and comes up with a number that you're not happy with, you may advise him that you are willing to take the matter to court. If he doesn't change his mind... file your complaint in small claims court.

The lawyer confirmed for me, that indeed I am not responsible for tatami mat replacement, under the premises of the Consumer Contract Act. He further confirmed for me, that if I end up in court, the precedence-setting Osaka High Court decision from 2004 is indeed valid and applicable... (See the links that I provided in my previous post)... He figured that my chances of winning are pretty darned good. I asked him what his law specialty was, and it IS in fact, civil procedure... (cool!) I wouldn't be so comfortable if he spent his days dealing with drug smuggling cases....

Anyway,

Next step if the realtor says "no" to the request for a refund.....
Go to court.

Find out where the "small claims" section of the civil court division is in your city.

Tell them who you want to sue and why. Fill out the required application and paperwork... Have a Japanese speaker with you to help you, unless you are pera-pera. The courts do NOT provide translation or interpretation services, unless it's a criminal case.

Next, unlike North America, you have no choice as to how the defendant will be served. When I went to court back home, I was the plaintiff, and I served the defendant personally rather than hire a process server. In Japan, a court-designated employee does this. (You pay). Filing fees/service fees will run you about 6,000 yen altogether.

The average time before the matter will get to court is a ballpark of about 2 months minimum.

So that's what awaits me.... Again, I'll keep everyone up-to-date, as I think this is good information, especially for us foreigners who are planning to live here longer than just one year.

Since very few foreigners have had the experience of going to court for any reason, no real information exists out there for people considering legal action -- especially on the forums. As a result, I think most people just let issues slide even if they are being hosed over. There are plenty of people here on Dave's who can give advice about labour laws, unions, visas, contracts, working conditions, etc... But it seems that none of the members here, even the old-timers have actually ever sued anyone... I hope to do my part so I can give people some help with civil process as well, to fill in unknown... Don't get me wrong, there's nothing I'd like to see more than to have this settled out of court and quickly, but if not, I'm perfectly prepared to see this to the end, and document every step of the way for future reference.

An acquaintance of mine has been in the same boat as me, and due to lack of information (and not knowing how to proceed) he is giving up his claim (to a lot more money than me)... I hope to talk to him yet and try to change his mind.

[JimDunlop2]

Here's the next (and hopefully last) chapter of this gruesome tale....

Seems that the landlord wants to avoid a lawsuit... So, like everything else in this country, there seems to be room for negotiation. I received word that the oyasan was willing to split the difference with me and meet me halfway... In other words, I'd get half of my 100,000 yen deposit back.

The landlord is also smart. He knows that a reasonable person will not go to court over go-man (50,000)... So I think I'll accept the offer and run. I was considering countering the offer once more, but that would be yet more headache.

Well, looks like I'm going to have to wait a bit longer before I get my Japanese courtroom experience... Sorry it's a bit anti-climactic, but an amenable solution is probably better in the end than having to sue.

This will be my last "report" or update on this situation, unless something unexpected happens to change the final outcome.

Thanks for reading, everyone. Hope it's been at least somewhat helpful or educational.

[GambateBingBangBOOM]

I know when I moved in, my BoE had paid for my tatami (yes, I'm a JET). Anyway, the apartment is in their name, not mine and I doubt they would have paid for new tatami if they didn't have to.