BC Rental Laws

Richard · January 14, 2008

Notice To End Tenancy

Far Too Double Claused to Work Effectively

On paper the legislation allowing a landlord to serve a notice to end a tenancy on a tenant looks good. In reality it grants the tenant a months free rent meanwhile the landlord loses two.

If a tenant has failed to pay rent, the landlord may issue a Notice To End A Tenancy on the 3rd of the month with a vacate date of 10 days which would be the 13th.

Often the tenant decides, 'Well, if they are going to end the tenancy, they will have to kick me out, I'm not leaving and I am definitely not giving them any more rent'.

Even though the official notice states three times that the tenancy is at an end as of the dates posted, the landlord cannot enforce the notice until he/she has a Writ of Possession.

The landlord has to wait until at least the 8th of the month to file and then after waiting for 2 to 3 hours to file for a hearing, the earliest date available won't be till the last week of the month. If you wait till after the 10th to file, the hearing won't be till sometime in the second week of the following month. Meanwhile the tenant is enjoying rent free housing.

Very seldom do tenants show for a hearing regarding unpaid rent, maybe if they have children. If they do have children, the landlord is in more trouble because he knows the arbitrator will show leniency for the children's sake.

More than likely the tenant will move during the first week of the following month, forfeiting his deposit yes, but leaving the unit in non rentable condition which will cost more than the deposit will cover. The landlord has been prevented from re-renting the unit and has lost 2 months rent plus filing fees, plus damages in the meantime. Good luck on finding your former tenant or collecting any monies owing even if you do have an order.

And they wonder why there is a lack of affordable housing!

THE REMEDY:

The tenant is the one who is in violation and has broken the rental contract with the landlord. If this was a lease agreement for an automobile, the leasing company can seize with short notice or could place wheel blocks on the vehicle rendering non-drivable.

Once the Notice to Vacate is given, it should be the tenants responsibility to comply with the regulations set out by the Residential Tenancy Board and apply for arbitration if he/she feels the order to vacate is wrong. If there are no mitigating circumstances as to why the tenant failed to pay rent, then the order to vacate stands.

The landlord should then have the right to an immediate court order of eviction, call the Bailiff and have the tenant evicted on the vacancy date given. The court can then issue a payment order for any damages and the cost of Bailiff's services to the evicted tenant.

As part of the Residential Tenancy Board, a tenant and landlord file should be kept and accessible in much the same fashion as the Credit Bureau or Better Business Bureau keeps a file of reported cases. Tenants can access the file to find if landlords are legit and fair in their practices and likewise, registered landlords can have access to names of 'deadbeat' tenants.

It is mandatory for vehicles to be ensured, likewise it should be mandatory for renters to carry insurance on the property and contents they are leasing.

Skipping Out

If a person leaves a restaurant without paying the bill, or pumps gas and drives off, the police can charge the perpetrator with theft and this for an amount under $100. All it takes is a phone call to the police. If a tenant robs the landlord of $1,000+ by moving without paying the last months rent, the police won't even get involved. It is left up to the landlord to track the former tenant down, file for arbitration and then sue through small claims court for his money, good luck collecting.

Still wonder why there is a lack of low cost housing!

Community Advocate · January 15, 2008

You are absolutely right. It sucks for the landlord. These laws are made to protect renters, not landlords.

"More than likely the tenant will move during the first week of the following month, forfeiting his deposit yes, but leaving the unit in non rentable condition which will cost more than the deposit will cover. The landlord has been prevented from re-renting the unit and has lost 2 months rent plus filing fees, plus damages in the meantime. Good luck on finding your former tenant or collecting any monies owing even if you do have an order."

And just to further irritate you, the only way tenant forfiets the damage deposit is by not providing the landlord with a forwarding address. In order for a landlord to keep any of the dd for damages or lost rent, he must have that approved by an arbitrator as well, before you can consider the dd yours.

And, winning arbitration only gives you the right to then apply for a payment order (more costs to file, more time to commit, more travel) and THEN you can seek the service of (and pay for) a bailiff to enforce the order of payment.

PS: There is no affordable housing - especially for youth. Employers are very seldom hiring full time with benefits. They hire part time so they don't have to pay benefits, and young people are finding it is impossible to make enough income to cover their rent, food, travel, and medical expenses.

That's why 70% of young people between 20 and 29 are still living at home.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Community Advocate

guyser · January 15, 2008

Still wonder why there is a lack of low cost housing!

Landlords have been their own worse enemy over the years. Services lacking, putzing around on safety issues, things not working.....and so on.

The pendulum swings both ways. Maybe this year the landlord is the one getting the short end. In years past it has been the tenant.

"Most" renters can be found out should landlords complete due diligence. They dont, and they pay for it.

Damage deposits are the biggest scam that I am aware of. Normal wear and tear is not supposed to be included, but a tenant has to apply for abitration (IIRC) to get that back. Landlords will say, oh look scuff marks on the floor, you lose $500 DD , when 10 minutes and some elbow grease corrects it.

As to insurance, there is nothing that stops a landlord from demanding a certificate of insurance prior to moving in.

Renegade · January 15, 2008

Landlords have been their own worse enemy over the years. Services lacking, putzing around on safety issues, things not working.....and so on.

A huge generalization, wouldn't you agree? There have been good tenants, there have been bad tenants and it wouldn't be fair to tar them all with the same brush. Why do so for landlords?

The pendulum swings both ways. Maybe this year the landlord is the one getting the short end. In years past it has been the tenant.

Except I can't remember a time when the law was not hugely in favour of the tenant. I suppose there are more tenants than landlords, so who cares if the legislators screw landlords, right?

"Most" renters can be found out should landlords complete due diligence. They dont, and they pay for it.

I suppose the same thing is true for landlords. If tenants did their due dilligence, they mostly would avoid troublesome situations. If this kind of mutual due diligence was all that was required, why bother protecting anyone with a Rental law?

Damage deposits are the biggest scam that I am aware of. Normal wear and tear is not supposed to be included, but a tenant has to apply for abitration (IIRC) to get that back. Landlords will say, oh look scuff marks on the floor, you lose $500 DD , when 10 minutes and some elbow grease corrects it.

Again sweeping generalizations about landlords, don't you think? Some tenants will damage a property and disguise it so the landlord don't find out till much later. Works both ways.

As to insurance, there is nothing that stops a landlord from demanding a certificate of insurance prior to moving in.

I agree with you. It is up to the landlord to make it a condition of the lease.

Community Advocate · January 15, 2008

damage deposits are the biggest scam that I am aware of. Normal wear and tear is not supposed to be included, but a tenant has to apply for abitration (IIRC) to get that back. Landlords will say, oh look scuff marks on the floor, you lose $500 DD , when 10 minutes and some elbow grease corrects it.
As to insurance, there is nothing that stops a landlord from demanding a certificate of insurance prior to moving in.

Damage deposits can not be kept by a landlord for normal wear and tear. In order for the landlord to not return the DD, a landlord must prove through arbitration that there were in fact damages that presented the landlord with a cost.

I don't see anything in the Act that allows a landlord to refuse a tenant just because they have no contents insurance.

guyser · January 16, 2008

A huge generalization, wouldn't you agree? There have been good tenants, there have been bad tenants and it wouldn't be fair to tar them all with the same brush. Why do so for landlords?

Perhaps not huge, but I get the point. But in the OP there were generalizations but no one called the poster on it."...more than likely when they move out there will be damage"....

Except I can't remember a time when the law was not hugely in favour of the tenant. I suppose there are more tenants than landlords, so who cares if the legislators screw landlords, right?

The you are too young. Unions didnt come about because someone merely wanted more money, they came about because of abuse. The same holds true.

Im not saying the landlord is always the bad guy.

The tenant has one responsibility and that is to pay the rent. Nothing more. The landlord has many duties, including maintaining the heat, water hydro etc. When one of those services are lost to a tenant what recourse does he have? Yes he can file a complaint, but in the meantime he freezes, cant shower or has to light candles. His complaint must be reviewed and adjuducated in time. (Heat during winter is mandated and the City of TO has people who can respond quickly)

So the tenant has one option. In the meantime the landlord has his rent, the tenant does not have his fair use of the premises.

So he or she withholds rents, or if smart puts it in a trust account until deficiencies are corrected.

I suppose the same thing is true for landlords. If tenants did their due dilligence, they mostly would avoid troublesome situations. If this kind of mutual due diligence was all that was required, why bother protecting anyone with a Rental law?

If I had any idea where to look for a registry for bad landlords then I would concur. But to my knowledge there isnt.

However , a landlord can have a bank check done , can review credit agencies, can ask for letters of reference, can ask for prior landlord numbers to verify the veracity of said tenant.........

Again sweeping generalizations about landlords, don't you think? Some tenants will damage a property and disguise it so the landlord don't find out till much later. Works both ways.

How someone disguises something to fool a landlord is beyond me. It is his property and his inspections should be completed before the tenant is gone. He has the law on his side, just post a notice that he needs to inspect the property and he will then allow himself entry (lawfully I might add) and make note of any damage.

I can assure you that a landlord can make a house look fine when it isnt. It may be a personal anecdote, but it opened my eyes. Upon returning home from a holiday I entered the house , bungalow near Leaside, only to find the ceiling had collapsed ( about half of it) in the living dining room. Water leak in the roof. I noted the new gyproc and wondered why it fell. an inspection of the roofline from inside showed that he knew it was leaking but felt it cheaper and easier to take the chance.

He said he would fix it. And he did, but he did not let me know when. He sent over some kid who proceeded to rip everything from the cieling, coating every damn thing I own in that fine white powder, including all my electronics. Never thought for a moment that $1.50 of plastic would have kept it defined to one room. Now everything had to be sent out to be cleaned.

What was I to do? I sent it out, kept my reciepts and waited for the landlord to come calling for his rent. I welcomed him in and asked if he brought cash or a cheque because you owe me money. He was not amused. My last words to him as he exited were pay me now, or I pay you even less next month.

I agree with you. It is up to the landlord to make it a condition of the lease.

It is so easy, yet so hard for a landlord to understand. It gives him, or his insurance company the right of subrogation should damages need to be claimed. Yet many, at their own folly overlook this.

As someone opined , it is not in the act that allows a landlord to refuse a tenant for no insurance, but since it is not included, it is therefore not excluded. #1, it tells me the landlord that these people care about their own goods and furnishings.#2 it allows me subrogation rights.#3 it shows me that these people are on the up and up, and that buys peace of mind.

And since DD are not supposed to be withheld , they are plenty of times.

Landlords who are perenially before the board are probably one of two things. A dickhead landlord , or lousy manager of people.

Low income housing by its nature is fraught with hassles. You are dealing with people of limited incomes thus you know before you start that they are likely living paycheck to paycheck. Life throws a curve and voila, no rent money, or delayed rent money. It is not fair to the landlord, but he has a duty to himself to be prepared for that. Many low income housing units are substandard but the rent isnt. That creates animosity.

Landlords in TO throughout the 80s and 90s lived pretty damn good. The vacancy rate was down to IIRC about 0.04% (4 apts per 1000) . That created situations where landlords could dictate rent, regardless of conditions. That is the pendulum I was talking about earlier.

And with so many apts and landlords, the few problems I hear from landlords makes me think there really isnt a problem from their end. I recall someone who was a pr scammer, moves in , all cheques bounce and so on, and he was untouchable so it seemed. His notoriety was keeping him housed cince landlords did not want adverse PR. Now for that I have sympathy.

But for most low income non payors of rent there is a solution. While I cringed whilst being told about it, (landlord was my friend) he did get the desired results. He would find out why no rent was being paid. If it was due to job loss or family hardship, he had a heart. If he rented to a couple of guys who thought beer was more important, well he would just show up with a crew while the tenants was at work or out shopping and move everything out onto the lawn and change the locks.With all threats of legal , police etc, he never ever heard from any of them ever again. His thought was once they see what the legal bill would be, they would forget about it and move on.

M.Dancer · January 16, 2008

I rent. I've lived in the same place in forest hill for 18 years (different units though) My landlord should be inducted into the landlord hall of fame. Forget that he hasn't technically raised my rent in almost 10 years, he always responds quickly to problems repairs what needs repaired, replaces what needs replaced and he usually does the job himself. He came to Canada from Slovenia in the 70s, a plumber by trade who never smoked, drank or chased women. He bought his first place in the mid 80s and learned that good tenents are keepers. That's why he doesn't raise the rent of anyone who pays always on time and doesn't make a pain in the ass of themsleves.

On top of all that, he always gives our kids X-mas and birthday cards with bright pink bills inside.

Every now and then a real estate agent says I will find you a place the same size as your now and you will save money every month.....I say sure, this is what I pay...they say wow....in forest hill?

Good landlords are a blessing.....on the otherhand if he had been a prick I probably would have bought a house 10 years ago.

guyser · January 16, 2008

I rent. I've lived in the same place in forest hill for 18 years (different units though) My landlord should be inducted into the landlord hall of fame. Forget that he hasn't technically raised my rent in almost 10 years, he always responds quickly to problems repairs what needs repaired, replaces what needs replaced and he usually does the job himself. He came to Canada from Slovenia in the 70s, a plumber by trade who never smoked, drank or chased women. He bought his first place in the mid 80s and learned that good tenents are keepers. That's why he doesn't raise the rent of anyone who pays always on time and doesn't make a pain in the ass of themsleves.
....

Good landlords are a blessing.....on the otherhand if he had been a prick I probably would have bought a house 10 years ago.

And that gets to the gist of the matter. For most people, landlords and tenants, when the two are respectful courteous and timely, on both sides, then most everything works out.

I think for probably 90% or better , both sides work things out amicably, but those less than 10%'ers clusterf**k their way to the rent review boards or abitration, and most of them appearing are suspect regardless of which side they are on.

Sometimes I wonder if I should have stayed on Davisville in one of the Greenwins....3 bdrm $875 a month. With rental increases I might be up to a $1000 by now.....20 yrs later.

M.Dancer · January 16, 2008

Sometimes I wonder if I should have stayed on Davisville in one of the Greenwins....3 bdrm $875 a month. With rental increases I might be up to a $1000 by now.....20 yrs later.

I think you would be somewhat way over that. I can't remember what the legal limit is....2% but 2% compound over 20 years?

I lived in greenwin for 6 months....I moved because the roaches wouldn't pay their share of the rent.....I think the best kind of landlord is an owner operater. Ours owns two lowrises, where I'm at and on Roehampton. I can call him up and say, Janis, where are you and he will say..oh good golly I'm shovelling the walk becuase my super is in Cuba......

Renegade · January 16, 2008

The you are too young. Unions didnt come about because someone merely wanted more money, they came about because of abuse. The same holds true.

Perhaps you can be more specific. What period are you referring to in which the law gave the landords an advantage over tenants.

If I had any idea where to look for a registry for bad landlords then I would concur. But to my knowledge there isnt.
However , a landlord can have a bank check done , can review credit agencies, can ask for letters of reference, can ask for prior landlord numbers to verify the veracity of said tenant.........

If a registry for bad tenants exist, it is because landlords have organized one. That same opportunity is open to tenants. Tenants are free to ask for references from the landlord, or simply to ask the previous tenant or other tenants of the same landlord. It isn't hard. Dilligence works both ways.

How someone disguises something to fool a landlord is beyond me. It is his property and his inspections should be completed before the tenant is gone. He has the law on his side, just post a notice that he needs to inspect the property and he will then allow himself entry (lawfully I might add) and make note of any damage.

You are assumning it is easy to detect the damage. A furnace which is damaged may not be detected until the following winter. Homebuyers often miss serious issues even AFTER an inspection by qualified inspectors. You think it is hard for a landlord to miss non-obvious damage?

Low income housing by its nature is fraught with hassles. You are dealing with people of limited incomes thus you know before you start that they are likely living paycheck to paycheck. Life throws a curve and voila, no rent money, or delayed rent money. It is not fair to the landlord, but he has a duty to himself to be prepared for that. Many low income housing units are substandard but the rent isnt. That creates animosity.

Precisely no landlord with a lick of business sense would be managing low income housing.

Landlords in TO throughout the 80s and 90s lived pretty damn good. The vacancy rate was down to IIRC about 0.04% (4 apts per 1000) . That created situations where landlords could dictate rent, regardless of conditions. That is the pendulum I was talking about earlier.

Don't think so. If you look at the law at the time it is still heavily skewed toward the tenant and the onus is always on the landlord to prove the tenant wrong.

M.Dancer · January 16, 2008

.
Don't think so. If you look at the law at the time it is still heavily skewed toward the tenant and the onus is always on the landlord to prove the tenant wrong.

I have to agree with Guyser. Landlords at that time could afford to be very demanding and to bend the rules. I had one say their was a $50. application processing fee....illegal of course.

guyser · January 16, 2008

Perhaps you can be more specific. What period are you referring to in which the law gave the landords an advantage over tenants.

I cant.

There werent laws that dealt with it. Thus the laws came into effect because tenants were being abused. Dont think for a moment that these laws came about just because. There was a reason, and that reason lies with the landlords. If no problems existed then these laws would not have come about. Same for the unions. There were no laws, or laws with any teeth to combat poor working conditions, but in time there was.

If a registry for bad tenants exist, it is because landlords have organized one. That same opportunity is open to tenants. Tenants are free to ask for references from the landlord, or simply to ask the previous tenant or other tenants of the same landlord. It isn't hard. Dilligence works both ways.

AFAIK there is not registry for bad landlords. I should not have said that. But there is credit checks landlords can review, credit review agencies, VISA payments et al, that can give an accurate picture of what the prospective tenant is all about. A lnadlord in a multiple dwelling unit can find people who will say anything to anyone, they have absolutely no dog in the fight. It does not and cannot work the other way around.

The landlord calls another landlord and the brotherhood so to speak, will come into effect and the tenant is denied or approved.

You are assumning it is easy to detect the damage. A furnace which is damaged may not be detected until the following winter. Homebuyers often miss serious issues even AFTER an inspection by qualified inspectors. You think it is hard for a landlord to miss non-obvious damage?

Your example is lacking since when can a tenant damage a furnace? And if one should, vandalism charges can be laid should the damage be wilful.

Other damage would likely be of a wear and tear basis, and while a problem , that is considered normal.Anything beyond that is vandalism. They do not own those walls, thus should the wilfully damage them, they can and should be charged.

Precisely no landlord with a lick of business sense would be managing low income housing.

But they do, and I would bet that the majority of complaints recd , both ways, occur on low income housing. It is highly profitable to be an owner of low income housing. Very profitable,but not something I want to be in.

Don't think so. If you look at the law at the time it is still heavily skewed toward the tenant and the onus is always on the landlord to prove the tenant wrong.

The law? The very same law that landlords abused in the 80s until the home bust in the mid 90s? See it works both ways here too.

Landlords knew damn well that housing was in short supply here in this city. (4 per 1000 apts) So, as a landlord you have prosepctive tenants up the wazoo....who to choose?

The one that came up with the "key money" the quickest. My memory recalls it being $500 cash thank you since no record could ever be kept, for the apartment to be rented to you. That is over and above the rent.

Look, I am not saying it is a level playing field. It isnt, like all other things in this world. But whiney landlords , and tenants, are few and far between. The complaints from both sides are in the scale of nonexistent in comparison to the number of apartments / rental units in existence.

Renegade · January 16, 2008

There werent laws that dealt with it. Thus the laws came into effect because tenants were being abused. Dont think for a moment that these laws came about just because. There was a reason, and that reason lies with the landlords. If no problems existed then these laws would not have come about.

It is also possible that it is not about lanlords at all. It is about votes. When tenants hold more votes than landlords, it make for political expediency to cater to their whims regardless of any percieved trangression.

AFAIK there is not registry for bad landlords. I should not have said that. But there is credit checks landlords can review, credit review agencies, VISA payments et al, that can give an accurate picture of what the prospective tenant is all about. A lnadlord in a multiple dwelling unit can find people who will say anything to anyone, they have absolutely no dog in the fight. It does not and cannot work the other way around.
The landlord calls another landlord and the brotherhood so to speak, will come into effect and the tenant is denied or approved.

BS. Have you been a landlord? I have experience with landlords giving good references for a tenant simply because they want to get rid of them. I have first hand experience with tenant usiing their ftriends as "references" pretending that they were the applicant's previous landlord. You seem to think this kind of falsification can only be done by landlords. Pure BS.

Your example is lacking since when can a tenant damage a furnace? And if one should, vandalism charges can be laid should the damage be wilful.
Other damage would likely be of a wear and tear basis, and while a problem , that is considered normal.Anything beyond that is vandalism. They do not own those walls, thus should the wilfully damage them, they can and should be charged.

Absolutely a tenant can damage a furnace. One case I know of the furnace was damaged during a "moving out party" by one of the tenant's guests. The story only came out much later, long after the tenant had moved out. Beyond the damage deposit it is many times not cost effective to persue a former tenant for vandalism damages, thus they get away with it.

The law? The very same law that landlords abused in the 80s until the home bust in the mid 90s?

What do you pecisely mean by "abused"?

guyser · January 16, 2008

It is also possible that it is not about lanlords at all. It is about votes. When tenants hold more votes than landlords, it make for political expediency to cater to their whims regardless of any percieved trangression.

I would highly doubt that the Landlord and Tenant Act came about due to a pandering for votes. It just makes no sense to me at all.

BS. Have you been a landlord? I have experience with landlords giving good references for a tenant simply because they want to get rid of them. I have first hand experience with tenant usiing their ftriends as "references" pretending that they were the applicant's previous landlord. You seem to think this kind of falsification can only be done by landlords. Pure BS.

Your absolutism is a bit much. It is not BS. Should a landlord rely only on another landlord as his background check, then he may very well encounter bad tenants. However, as laid out, the landlord has the upper hand here.

Absolutely a tenant can damage a furnace. One case I know of the furnace was damaged during a "moving out party" by one of the tenant's guests. The story only came out much later, long after the tenant had moved out. Beyond the damage deposit it is many times not cost effective to persue a former tenant for vandalism damages, thus they get away with it.

No doubt it has and does occur. And when it does that sucks for the landlord but it is not that he is without options. Small claims court for one.

It is also a cost of doing business. It is a business and things, crappy negligent things happen. If one cannot handle the fact that it does, then they need to get out of the business.

What do you pecisely mean by "abused"?

There are plenty of abuses that landlords have commited.

Entry w/o cause or notice

Key money

shutting off services

failure to correct services in a timely manner.

And just as many on the other side of the ledger.

Boiled down, lousy landlords get lousy tenants for the most part.And again, most complaints are likely a small contingent of the overall satisfaction that landlords and tenants have.

Renegade · January 16, 2008

I would highly doubt that the Landlord and Tenant Act came about due to a pandering for votes. It just makes no sense to me at all.

I believe it is only part of the reason. I believe the major other reason was to alleviate the burden on the court system and provide a timely and cost-effective dispute resolution system for landlords and tenants which courts could not provide.

I have no issue with providing an alternate dispute resolution system. I do have an issue when the law is skewed in favour of the renter as it always has been to my knowledge. The landlord is a vendor of a product and should be entitled to the same rights as any other vendor. The same is true for a tenant as a consumer.

However, as laid out, the landlord has the upper hand here.

You claim he does, but show no evidence that the landlord has access to any better information on the tenant than the tenant does about the landlord.

No doubt it has and does occur. And when it does that sucks for the landlord but it is not that he is without options. Small claims court for one.

Just as court is an option for a tenant who has a greviance.

It is also a cost of doing business. It is a business and things, crappy negligent things happen. If one cannot handle the fact that it does, then they need to get out of the business.

It works both ways. If a tenant doesn't like what a landlord is doing, he can stop being a tenant and buy his own place, or he can find a landlord more to his liking.

There are plenty of abuses that landlords have commited.
Entry w/o cause or notice

Key money

shutting off services

failure to correct services in a timely manner.

And just as many on the other side of the ledger.

You finally acknowledged that the law was "abused" by both tenants and landlords alike. That was my point. Your original statement was that the law was "abused" by landlords in the 80s and 90s.

BTW, I don't consider "key money" abuse. They are a natural reaction to price intervention. The only reason for "key money" is when you get artificial restriction of the housing supply without allowing prices to rise to curtail demand. If you are unhappy with the existance of "key money", you can fault government legislation.

The other examples you cite are not "abuses" of the law. They are violations and there are penalties provided in the law, both now and then for those kind of violations.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Renegade

Community Advocate · January 16, 2008

> When one of those services are lost to a tenant what recourse does he have? Yes he can file a complaint, but in the meantime he freezes, cant shower or has to light candles.

That would warrant a breech of material terms, which would allow the tenant to make two calls to the landlord, and if no action ocurred, the tenant can make the repairs, and submit the receipts as part of their next rental payment. The landlord would then have to apply for arbitration to have the tenant's decision reversed if the arbitrator agreed with the landlord.

A breech of material terms is quite unique in that way.

guyser · January 16, 2008

You claim he does, but show no evidence that the landlord has access to any better information on the tenant than the tenant does about the landlord.

Oh come on. Thats absurd and you are stretching here.

The landlord has banks and credit agencies he can check. Bounced checks will show up, poor credit scores will indicate this as well.

On the other hand assuming the landlord signs the papers to allow a credit check, what will that tell the tenant about the landlord.

Just as court is an option for a tenant who has a greviance.

Small claims court for what? The hot water doesnt work?

You finally acknowledged that the law was "abused" by both tenants and landlords alike. That was my point. Your original statement was that the law was "abused" by landlords in the 80s and 90s.

Finally? I have not said that tenants havent abused things. Landlords did abuse tenants or respective tenants. No one should think otherwise. Lousy landlords get lousy tenants.

BTW, I don't consider "key money" abuse. They are a natural reaction to price intervention. The only reason for "key money" is when you get artificial restriction of the housing supply without allowing prices to rise to curtail demand. If you are unhappy with the existance of "key money", you can fault government legislation.
The other examples you cite are not "abuses" of the law. They are violations and there are penalties provided in the law, both now and then for those kind of violations.

You dont consider something that is against the Landlord Tenant Act to be abuse ? And you think it s a one way street favouring the landlord?

I dont rent and have not for over ten years, so pretty much all of these concerns are not mine. I just know the way landlords that I have dealt with have been. All my rentals, save for one, were for houses in the city. While I liked them for the most part, I would have to count my fingers after shaking hands.

Wait, my last landlord was amazing. He said when he bought the place.." I live right there (could see his house thru the trees) but I like privacy. If something needs fixing, order it, send them to me for payment if need be, or hold for reduction in rent.Want to fix anything, paint anything make improvements, go ahead and give me the bills later. "

When I moved out, he was going to tear the house down, take anything you want he said....anything.

I took a 4 month old stove that he bought, a 2 yr old fridge, and a washing machine that may have been 5+ yrs old but worked, and a over the stove rangehood.

I will bet he never has a complaint.

Community Advocate · January 16, 2008

I think you would be somewhat way over that. I can't remember what the legal limit is....2% but 2% compound over 20 years?

In BC the maximum increase rate is 4% per year.

Drea · January 17, 2008

Hubby and I were discussing starting a website for landlords in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. It would include information on bad tenants -- those who leave the place a dump, don't pay or party all the time. At least then a landlord would have some semblance of control over who he/she rents to and what their real rental history is.

We've had our tenant for almost 9 years but we are going to be renovating her place so we can move into it. We will then have to rent out this place* and we are so not looking forward to it. We are even thinking of going to a lease instead. At least then it's covered under contractual law rather than tenancy law. Tenancy law looks after only the tenant. Like the first poster said, a tenant can easily cost a landlord a ton of money.

We also buy Christmas gifts for our tenant and have not ever raised her rent. We are the nicest landlords ever -- she is also a very good, quiet tenant.

I feel for her though --she is in for a huge shock when she goes to find another place.

*we won't be offering her "our" side of the duplex as it is only a two bedroom and she has three kids now (when she moved in she was a 17 year old with a newborn).

DogOnPorch · January 17, 2008

Notice To End Tenancy
Far Too Double Claused to Work Effectively

I totally agree. You've described many of my nightmares. It's even worse if someone DIES in a rental unit. The coroner might not release the property for MONTHS depending on the cause of death.

-------------------------------------

Arrrrrrrrrrgh!!! I hate property management!

---DogOnPorch

M.Dancer · January 17, 2008

It's even worse if someone DIES in a rental unit. The coroner might not release the property for MONTHS depending on the cause of death.
-------------------------------------

Arrrrrrrrrrgh!!! I hate property management!

---DogOnPorch

Well if the rent ain't paid evicting should be easy.

DogOnPorch · January 17, 2008

Depends on how long they were dead before someone noticed...

Ewwwwww....lol

-----------------------------------

In films murders are always very clean. I show how difficult it is and what a messy thing it is to kill a man.

---Alfred Hitchcock

Richard · January 17, 2008

How someone disguises something to fool a landlord is beyond me. It is his property and his inspections should be completed before the tenant is gone.

If the cat, (or a child, I've had that) pisses on the carpet, or a beer is spilled on the carpet, the smell gets into the underlay. When the tenant moves out and has the carpet cleaned, the landlord most often will miss the smell. Two days later you will notice it but by then it is too late, you have already signed off on the out inspection.

Richard · January 17, 2008

Hubby and I were discussing starting a website for landlords in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. It would include information on bad tenants

The problem is that it becomes a matter of infringing on tenants rights. How do you verify the facts or are they hearsay from the landlord.

-- those who leave the place a dump, don't pay or party all the time. At least then a landlord would have some semblance of control over who he/she rents to and what their real rental history is.

We've had our tenant for almost 9 years but we are going to be renovating her place so we can move into it. We will then have to rent out this place* and we are so not looking forward to it. We are even thinking of going to a lease instead. At least then it's covered under contractual law rather than tenancy law. Tenancy law looks after only the tenant. Like the first poster said, a tenant can easily cost a landlord a ton of money.

We also buy Christmas gifts for our tenant and have not ever raised her rent. We are the nicest landlords ever -- she is also a very good, quiet tenant.

I feel for her though --she is in for a huge shock when she goes to find another place.

*we won't be offering her "our" side of the duplex as it is only a two bedroom and she has three kids now (when she moved in she was a 17 year old with a newborn).

Drea · January 17, 2008

Landlords need some way to protect themselves from bad tenants. If that means banding together on the internet, so be it.

I've known people that make such a disaster of places that they simply move on when the house gets too messy. Dirty diapers everywhere, holes in walls, dog feces on the carpet...ewwwwww!

Welfare picks up the tab for the new damage deposit and away they go to wreck someone else's place.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Drea