Waterloo

This website requires that the 'buyer' and 'seller' agree to mediate their one time financial transaction arrangement via this website.

It isn't a savings account with some kind of legally notarized purpose that a court will give a damn about. At least in the US, and only in some states is there even a legally valid option to petition the court to supercede the rental agreement with a court controlled rental escrow program.

This site is for buying and selling domain names and cars and jewelry between two parties that are on good terms, but just want a bit of extra security.

This website does not make sense in a situation where a contract already exists and one party to it feels the other is in violation of it.

Do you think the landlord is going to willingly agree to this, in this situation? Why would they? They'd arguably be legally incriminating themselves, if not nullifying their own original rental contract.

When the renter has already determined the landlord is acting in bad faith and likely violating laws, why would they trust the landlord in another contract?

While the landlord is still demanding rent whilst (falsely) claiming they have not done anything that constitutes a breach of the rental agreement, why would they ameliorate their existing contract or means of payment?