I realize this is just for research and I'm not looking for specific advice. I had a dispute resolution hearing with my landlord where he tried to claim damages that my damage deposit could be used to pay part of. I won but the arbitrator also said I would have to start another dispute resolution to get the damage deposit back.
I'm a little confused with some terminology used. The arbitrator found
there was insufficient particulars to determine whether there had been extinguisher of the right to retain or return of the damage deposit by either party.
So by default the landlord keeps the damage deposit? I thought it was the landlords responsibility to prove why he should keep the damage deposit and if he's not able to the tenant gets it back?
What are they looking for for me to prove I should get my damage deposit back?