A Richmond tenant was granted more than $4,000 after bringing a dispute over utility payments to the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB).
The tenant filed a dispute resolution with the RTB in August 2023, claiming he was charged for utilities, which he paid, whereas they should have been covered with the rent, which was $2,346 per month. The tenant also asked for $800 back from a damage deposit worth $1,150.
The tenant said he wasn’t present when the agreement was signed — his father had signed it — and he didn’t know he wasn’t responsible for paying for utilities.
The tenant was seeking more than $6,000 back for electricity payments, but the RTB noted his bills were between $222 and $803 every two months for the two-bedroom and den apartment.
Because the tenant provided “little in terms of justification for what appears to be an extravagant amount of electricity used,” the RTB ruled that a reasonable bi-monthly amount would be $250.
Therefore, the tenant’s claim for reimbursement for $6,264 in hydro payments was reduced to $3,750.
The landlord, on the other hand, filed a dispute resolution against the tenant in September claiming he was owed unpaid utilities and compensation for damage to the rental unit.
The landlord claimed he was owed $2,636 in utilities. But he spoke only of them “generally and was unable to identify what they were for specifically,” the RTB said. The tenant’s father claimed these utilities were for water, sewage disposal and garbage collection, payable to the City of Richmond.
The RTB agreed with the tenant’s father, and found the landlord’s “credibility has been significantly diminished as a result of having submitted such a significant claim for compensation despite apparently making little effort to discern what these charges are for and whether they are included under the terms of the tenancy agreement.”
The landlord also claimed there were scratches on the floor, a toilet had been damaged and there was damage to the walls and paint. Furthermore, he claimed a fee for hanging drapes.
The landlord told the RTB he replaced the entire toilet for $450, but the tenant said there was just a small chip in the tank when he began living in the unit.
Because of the lack of a move-in inspection, the RTB dismissed the claims of the toilet replacement and floor damage, saying “there was no contemporaneous record" of either the state of the floor or the toilet when the tenancy began.
As for fixing the walls, the RTB stated its policy is that tenants will put up pictures in their unit. Tenants are only liable for fixing walls if there is “an excessive number of nail holes, or large holes,” the RTB stated.
“… I find that the landlord has not established that there were an excessive number of nail holes, or large holes,” the RTB stated in its decision.
As for the drape hanging, which the landlord wanted $150 in compensation, the RTB stated this was “exorbitant” and the fact they were left unhung by the tenant due to the landlord saying he was going to paint was “a reasonable course of action,” according to the RTB.
The tenant, however, was found to be liable for $535 for an unauthorized move that resulted in strata costs to the landlord.
A pet damage deposit was also allowed for the landlord in the amount of $350.
The RTB ordered the landlord to pay the former tenant $4,014.50 in total.
Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? Send us a letter or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected]. To stay updated on Richmond news, sign up for our daily headline newsletter. Words missing in article? Your adblocker might be preventing hyperlinked text from appearing.
