A B.C. landlord says their tenant caused extensive damages to their rental unit, including some damage by their pet rat and its 16 babies.
The landlord applied for dispute resolution with the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) to get an order of possession based on a one-month notice to end the tenancy for cause under sections 47 and 55 of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA).
The tenant applied for cancellation of the landlord's notice.
The RTB noted it had received a package with the landlord's evidence but nothing from the tenant, according to dispute resolution documents.
The tenancy commenced on April 22, 2021, with a monthly rent of $375.00 and a security deposit of $187.50. The landlord served the tenant a one-month notice to end the tenancy for cause on May 17, 2024, but forgot to sign it and then served them another one on June 10, 2024. The landlord cited "extraordinary damage" to the unit, which the tenant disputed.
The landlord’s agent, identified in the proceeding's documents as "MT," said the tenant flooded the bathroom several times in 2022. In one incident, the investigation revealed the tenant allowed their pet rat to "urinate all over the room."
In October 2022, the tenant bred her rat and a total of 33 rats were living and reportedly "urinating all over the rental unit." The landlord provided breach letters and the invoices for repairs for the incidents.
The tenant refuted the allegations, stating that fires caused damages to the rental unit in 2022.
Landlord cites more damages in 2024
The landlord's agent said another leak occurred in January 2024 when the renter's bathtub overflowed, causing damage. On April 8, 2024, a maintenance worker visited the unit a few days before the flooding and found the bathtub filled with water due to a blocked drain. The tub was snaked but the "snake broke due to a solid blockage."
MT believed the blockage occurred because the renter was tiling the bathroom without the landlord's permission and the materials went down the drain. The plumber confirmed that "solid mortar or concrete substance has been poured down drain" and the snake broke in an attempt to unclog it. Photographs were supplied as evidence.
The tenant refuted these allegations, stating that the "only thing blocking the tub was a sock." They also believed the plumbers were "not real plumbers" and hadn't done any previous work in the unit.
In another incident on April 29, 2024, the landlord's agent said the tenant had removed the bathroom sink from the wall, creating a hole. An incident report was provided as evidence. The tenant said they smashed the sink into pieces to expedite repairs since it wasn't working.
The tenancy agreement required monthly inspections and the landlord's agent said the renter was uncooperative and changed their locks. Copies of breach letters were provided as evidence. The tenant refuted this claim, stating that they didn't change the locks and only ever denied one inspection because the landlord wasn't authorized to do it.
The tenant's counsel, identified in documents as "DD," said the 2022 allegations weren't relevant because they were from two years ago. They added that the missed inspections didn't apply to the proceedings because they didn't support why the landlord issued the one-month notice (extraordinary damages to the rental unit).
RTB believes the landlord's testimony about the tenant's damages
The RTB arbitrator ruled that the landlord had established sufficient ground to issue the one-month notice to end the tenancy for cause. They noted that the tenant's decision to smash the sink caused significant damage to the bathroom. Additionally, they accepted the landlord's testimony that the tenant caused damage to the tub by pouring concrete and mortar into the drain. These findings were also corroborated by the plumber in a report with photographs.
Consequently, the arbitrator did not find it possible that a sock plugged the drain as the tenant stated. They also said the tenant's claim that the plumbers didn't seem "real" was speculative.
The arbitrator did accept DD's argument that damages from two years ago caused by the rats should not form the basis for eviction. However, they noted that it supported a pattern of behaviour.
The RTB dismissed the tenant's application for cancellation of the notice and granted the landlord’s application for an order of possession based on the one month notice on Aug. 1, 2024.
