phat-dave

Most furnished rentals have a cleaning fee, the one I just moved out of had a $185 cleaning fee but I had a pretty good relationship with the owner and when I moved out yesterday he didn't bother charging me.

The place I've just moved into is again a furnished rental and it doesn't have a cleaning fee and they didn't even give me a receipt... hmm

I think they can just do whatever they like over here.... scary

paolosmythe

Mr Phat.

When compared to the UK, i find (theoretically) Canada has much more support for the tenant. London landlords seemed to act as if being property owners was license to print money. And very little existed outside of tghe small claim courts to dismiss this concept.

Here (in BC at least), any claim of cost or deposit deduction either has to be specified before moving in (eg. any moving out cleaning fee) or if not mutually agreed upon, any deductions have to be clarified by an 'independent' arbitrator.

For me, i am yet to hear what the arbitrator has to say on my particular matter (hence theoretical and 'independent') however, the common sensical expectation of moving in / moving out condition reports, along with the fact that such an arbitration service is readily available in the first place gives me some hope of 'justice'!

Almost Canadian

I don`t know if B.C. is totally different to Alberta but I find that tenants`rights are pretty poor here

hunsister

A couple of things...First, furnished "vacation or travel accommodation" is not governed by the Residential Tenancy Act so there is no protection in terms of return of a damage deposit. Second, because the Act doesn't apply, basic contract law does. It is important to review what was signed to ascertain if the terms under which a damage deposit would be returned are set out. If not, it is likely that Small Claims Court would use the "ordinary meaning' of those words, i.e., there is damage and the landlord has documented it to the satisfaction of the judge - my experience is that the judge would expect a business person to do an inspection or have photos etc. As to the cleaning fee, if it isn't in the contract it isn't recoverable. Sadly, commencing an action in Small Claims Court will cost money but once it's commenced, I would add a claim for misrepresentation both as to the 1 bed versus studio and the noise (although the landlord apparently didn't overtly represent that the place was quiet, a judge just might be disgusted enough to find in the tenants' favour). And quiet enjoyment is not related to noise at all. It refers to the right of a tenant to be able to enjoy the premises without the landlord or anyone who has inherited the landlord's rights claiming that the tenant has no right to be there or taking action which materially interferes with the tenant's right to enjoy his premises.

paolosmythe

News just in..... the Tenancy Board found in my favour.

My ex-landlord has to pay double the deposit, my fees and 800 bucks for undermining my 'quiet enjoyment' of the property.

Needless to say the landlord is appealing this decision, even though they have no basis other than sour grapes for doing so (it is their right) and have also made their own vexatious application for dispute resolution (even though they hadn't presented to me any dispute needing resolving in the first place, which wasn't covered by my initial hearing).

And so it continues.....

hunsister

I wouldn't count on the Tribunal's decision. Furnished short term "vacation and travel" rentals do not fall under the Act and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction - that is likely why the landlord is appealing. If you had signed a tenancy agreement for, say, a year, that would make a big difference even if the apartment were furnished. But if it was for only a month...the Act states that it doesn't apply (Google "BC statutes" and look at section 4(e) of the Residential Tenancy Act).

paolosmythe

apologies if i have confused this thread, but my circumstances perhaps differ to that of the original poster....

we had a fixed term tenancy agreement which falls under the Res Ten Act.

As the Res Ten Board are the authors of this act, presumably if my circumstances fell outside of their jurisdiction, they would not proceed with any application for arbitration in the first place (let alone set a hearing and render a decision)?

mattieuk

Well done so far! Good on you for fighting it - the double damage deposit and fees are par for the course, but the 800 bucks is a real result! I've not known many damage deposit based tribunals to end up going against the tenant myself. As for your landlord making an application now for a dispute resolution, I don't see what they could possibly be claiming, in light of the first decision at the tribunal?

paolosmythe

Sadly, i suspect that my landlord isn't the only person who has looked to exploit the ignorance of a tenant.

Indeed, it seems that most if not all of their previous tenants were foreign students, who no doubt paid their rent with someone else's money or simply weren't in Canada for long enough to go through the process of arbitration.

But for me, someone staying here until the end of days, the mere fact that a system exists to serve the tenant as much as the land lord (something lacking in the UK) is a wonderful thing!

Because my landlord is an opportunist, they really do not have any grounds for appeal and their subsequent application for a hearing was made on the day following the delivery of the initial hearing's decision!

This is convenient timing for me, because the Res Ten Board can officially deem an application to be entirely 'vexatious' and can dismiss any application without hearing because of it.

hunsister

My apologies for misunderstanding...Pleased that you persevered and recovered your deposit. Some landlords are just not nice people but fortunately there are far more who are wonderful.