A landlord has been ordered to pay his former tenants $48,000 - after he kicked them out to supposedly house his parents from Richmond.
The Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) ordered the landlord to pay the former tenants the equivalent of 12 months’ rent because he sold the unit, instead of having his parents move in as promised.
The tenants, who were kicked out in 2021, had accused the landlord of selling and demolishing the unit immediately after kicking them out.
And, in a recent decision issued by the RTB, the adjudicator sided with the tenants and found the landlord was liable to compensate them.
The landlord had served the tenants a notice to terminate their tenancy in November 2020 and asked them to vacate the unit by the following February.
No written copy of the tenancy agreement was provided to the RTB, but the parties agreed that rent was $4,000 per month and the tenants had paid $2,000 and $1,000 for a security deposit and pet damage deposit respectively.
According to the landlord, he wanted his Richmond-based parents to “be closer so that he could see them every day and take them to required appointments.”
He claimed his parents decided against moving into the unit after seeing its “poorly maintained condition.” No documentary evidence was provided to the RTB, but the landlord claimed the unit was “smelly to say the least.”
He also told the RTB he obtained a demolition permit in December 2020 after seeing its poor condition from the outside and sold the unit in mid-2021.
The tenants, on the other hand, told the RTB the landlord tried to sell the unit in March 2020 and attempted to host open houses a few months later. According to them, the landlord did not mention deficiencies in the unit when they returned the keys in February 2021.
Despite alleging the unit was in poor condition, the landlord returned the deposits to the tenants in full, claiming it was because the tenants “may need these monies due to COVID.” He also did not fix the alleged problems prior to selling the unit.
The tenants also submitted text messages which showed the landlord never commented on the unit’s alleged condition.
Landlord not credible
In the RTB decision, the adjudicator concluded the unit was “clearly not occupied for the stated purpose” for six months after the tenants were kicked out.
The landlord is required to compensate the tenants if his parents did not live in the unit for at least six months unless there are extenuating circumstances.
While considering the parties’ submissions, the adjudicator questioned the landlord’s credibility and legitimacy.
Not only did the landlord not submit any documentary evidence to prove the unit was either not safe or habitable to live in, but his decision to return the deposits in full, despite the alleged damage to the property, is also “illogical and inconsistent with common sense and ordinary human experience,” wrote the adjudicator.
“I find that all these factors lead to a reasonable conclusion that the landlord was well aware of the condition of the rental unit prior to serving the notice, and that there were likely no damages caused by the tenants’ negligence,” wrote the adjudicator.
The landlord had failed to show any documentary evidence to show his parents were prepared to move into his unit by ending their own tenancy, said the adjudicator, and it was no coincidence that his parents ended up moving into a new rental around the same time as when the landlord sold his unit.
“I am satisfied that (the landlord’s) submissions were likely crafted after receipt of (the tenant’s) Notice of Hearing package in an attempt to portray a circumstance that did not exist,” reads the decision.
The tenants were awarded 12 months’ rent in compensation. The landlord will also have to cover their $100 RTB filing fee.
