A quick legal test
#1
A quick legal test
I am enduring a new battle in my ongoing landlord vs tenant war.
I know what seems common sensical to me, but i admit i may be labouring under some bias; Impartial opinions are appreciated regarding the following:
If someone produced a statement which could effectively cost you $4k, would you write on the statement to confirm that you had received a copy of it and then sign this acknowledgement?
If not, what would you do instead?
Thanks.
I know what seems common sensical to me, but i admit i may be labouring under some bias; Impartial opinions are appreciated regarding the following:
If someone produced a statement which could effectively cost you $4k, would you write on the statement to confirm that you had received a copy of it and then sign this acknowledgement?
If not, what would you do instead?
Thanks.
#3
Re: A quick legal test
I am enduring a new battle in my ongoing landlord vs tenant war.
I know what seems common sensical to me, but i admit i may be labouring under some bias; Impartial opinions are appreciated regarding the following:
If someone produced a statement which could effectively cost you $4k, would you write on the statement to confirm that you had received a copy of it and then sign this acknowledgement?
If not, what would you do instead?
Thanks.
I know what seems common sensical to me, but i admit i may be labouring under some bias; Impartial opinions are appreciated regarding the following:
If someone produced a statement which could effectively cost you $4k, would you write on the statement to confirm that you had received a copy of it and then sign this acknowledgement?
If not, what would you do instead?
Thanks.
I fail to see how simply acknowledging it could leave you liable for $4K unless it is something like a move out document that states you caused damage to a property.
In Alberta a landlord and the tenant must inspect the property within a specified period of time of the lease ending and both parties must sign it to confirm the damage/issues noted. Is it something like this that results in the landlord stating that you have caused $4K damage to the property?
#4
Re: A quick legal test
okay... so here's the deal....
our landlady was horrible. we had reason to complain and she refused to do anything. we persisted until she complained about our complaining! in the end, the landlady said we should move out, even if it were before the end of the fixed term. we didn't want to, but life was so unbearable, we did.
we got the landlady to sign an agreement to record that the date of leaving was acceptable and the reasons for it understood.
the nitty gritty: she didn't simply sign her name in the space we left for her but instead wrote the date and time she received the piece of paper to sign and then signed it at the bottom.
we moved out and then she took us to the dispute office to sue us for several months of lost rent. we present the precious piece of paper saying she agreed to us going. the arbitrator determines that this is evidence only of her having received our intent to leave, and was not evidence of her having agreed to it.
we were tricked. hook, line and sinker.
the only avenue of response i can muster, is that the suggestion that anyone would sign something they found to be disagreeable is lunacy, irrespective of the specific reason for signing.
our landlady was horrible. we had reason to complain and she refused to do anything. we persisted until she complained about our complaining! in the end, the landlady said we should move out, even if it were before the end of the fixed term. we didn't want to, but life was so unbearable, we did.
we got the landlady to sign an agreement to record that the date of leaving was acceptable and the reasons for it understood.
the nitty gritty: she didn't simply sign her name in the space we left for her but instead wrote the date and time she received the piece of paper to sign and then signed it at the bottom.
we moved out and then she took us to the dispute office to sue us for several months of lost rent. we present the precious piece of paper saying she agreed to us going. the arbitrator determines that this is evidence only of her having received our intent to leave, and was not evidence of her having agreed to it.
we were tricked. hook, line and sinker.
the only avenue of response i can muster, is that the suggestion that anyone would sign something they found to be disagreeable is lunacy, irrespective of the specific reason for signing.
#5
Re: A quick legal test
okay... so here's the deal....
our landlady was horrible. we had reason to complain and she refused to do anything. we persisted until she complained about our complaining! in the end, the landlady said we should move out, even if it were before the end of the fixed term. we didn't want to, but life was so unbearable, we did.
we got the landlady to sign an agreement to record that the date of leaving was acceptable and the reasons for it understood.
the nitty gritty: she didn't simply sign her name in the space we left for her but instead wrote the date and time she received the piece of paper to sign and then signed it at the bottom.
we moved out and then she took us to the dispute office to sue us for several months of lost rent. we present the precious piece of paper saying she agreed to us going. the arbitrator determines that this is evidence only of her having received our intent to leave, and was not evidence of her having agreed to it.
we were tricked. hook, line and sinker.
the only avenue of response i can muster, is that the suggestion that anyone would sign something they found to be disagreeable is lunacy, irrespective of the specific reason for signing.
our landlady was horrible. we had reason to complain and she refused to do anything. we persisted until she complained about our complaining! in the end, the landlady said we should move out, even if it were before the end of the fixed term. we didn't want to, but life was so unbearable, we did.
we got the landlady to sign an agreement to record that the date of leaving was acceptable and the reasons for it understood.
the nitty gritty: she didn't simply sign her name in the space we left for her but instead wrote the date and time she received the piece of paper to sign and then signed it at the bottom.
we moved out and then she took us to the dispute office to sue us for several months of lost rent. we present the precious piece of paper saying she agreed to us going. the arbitrator determines that this is evidence only of her having received our intent to leave, and was not evidence of her having agreed to it.
we were tricked. hook, line and sinker.
the only avenue of response i can muster, is that the suggestion that anyone would sign something they found to be disagreeable is lunacy, irrespective of the specific reason for signing.
#6
Re: A quick legal test
I take it that your landlady is disputing the oral agreement made? If so, in Court, it will be one party's word against the other. Odds will never be greater than 50%. Did you pay her by cheque every month? If so, did you always pay her on time? If you did, it adds credibility to your position that the lack of payment coincides with when you say the parties agreed the lease was to cease. Did you ever send her chasing letters asking for the document to be returned? Did you send the document to her by registered mail or other recordable method?
so when she said "they left 3 months early and therefore cost me rental income", i produced the document with her signature on it which states that she knew and accepted our leaving early.
to this, the judge said that the landlady had signed only to having received the document and NOT that she agreed with the content of it.
this is not the case at all, and the landlady knows this, but of course there is a conflict of interest to her admitting to as much. and so the judge has effectively given the landlady a 'loophole' by which she can claim several grand from us.
#7
Re: A quick legal test
the landlady is enforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement, whilst conveniently leaving out the fact that our leaving early was her idea!
so when she said "they left 3 months early and therefore cost me rental income", i produced the document with her signature on it which states that she knew and accepted our leaving early.
to this, the judge said that the landlady had signed only to having received the document and NOT that she agreed with the content of it.
this is not the case at all, and the landlady knows this, but of course there is a conflict of interest to her admitting to as much. and so the judge has effectively given the landlady a 'loophole' by which she can claim several grand from us.
so when she said "they left 3 months early and therefore cost me rental income", i produced the document with her signature on it which states that she knew and accepted our leaving early.
to this, the judge said that the landlady had signed only to having received the document and NOT that she agreed with the content of it.
this is not the case at all, and the landlady knows this, but of course there is a conflict of interest to her admitting to as much. and so the judge has effectively given the landlady a 'loophole' by which she can claim several grand from us.
I am a lawyer in Alberta, I have no idea what the procedure is in BC.
If you have gone before a Judge and s/he has made a decision, you are bound by that decision unless you appeal it.
If you have attended some form of mediation that is not legally binding, it would appear that your landlady will have to sue you for the arrears of rent but, at least now you know what her position is: that there was no agreement between the parties to vary the provision of the fixed term lease.
If there is a dispute on the facts, the Court will decide that issue on the credibility of the parties. So, as I outlined above, you need to obtain as much evidence as you can that supports your position and contradicts your landlady's position.
I wish you every success.