> if you had to use the legal system to merely get what you were owed, it was a net negative economically, right? It depends how you anchor things. If you anc

> if you had to use the legal system to merely get what you were owed, it was a net negative economically, right? It depends how you anchor things. If you anchor to the amount you expected to recover assuming a hypothetical alternate reality where the landlord returns the amount of bond money you are lawfully owed, then it may feel as a net negative. If you reframe the situation conditioned on observing the realised reality -- featuring a landlord who is not behaving as they are "ought" to, but are actually deducting BS charges, a more useful anchor would be to compare against the benchmark of "how much could you reasonably expect to recover, given the actual reality we're observed to be in, by the next best alternative to using the legal system". One simple alternative to the legal system is to do nothing and let it go, resulting in recovery of 0% of the disputed value. Another alternative could be engaging a collection agency, who might be willing to buy the debt at a significant mark down from face value, in exchange for accepting the risk that they may not be able to collect. Yet another alternative could be a DIY approach where you get a bunch of mates with baseball bats to advocate on your behalf. Recovering 20% of a debt net legal expenses through the legal system is a huge improvement over recovering 0% of a debt if the alternative is doing nothing and accepting 0% recovery.