HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 4:35 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,979
If Landlords Renovate, Must You Vacate?



If Landlords Renovate, Must You Vacate?

Hundreds of renters booted using loophole in the Residential Tenancy Act. A Tyee special report.

Sandrine Simonnet's one-bedroom Vancouver apartment looks like it's in perfect condition. It has nice hardwood floors, a modern living room and no signs of damage. For $920 a month, it's considered a good deal in Kitsilano.

The only problem is that every time it rains, there's a leak in her bedroom. For the past three years, every time her landlord, Hollyburn Properties, increases the rent, Simonnet has asked them to fix the leak. But instead of making the repair, an executive from Hollyburn told her she should consider herself lucky she pays as little as she does.

Simonnet's "luck" ran out earlier this month when she got an eviction notice. On September 1st, Hollyburn sent out eviction notices to at least 13 tenants in the 39-unit Reid Manor complex so it could "re-plumb the domestic water supply in the building," and engage in an "extensive renovation" of suites that have not been previously renovated.

"They don't need to renovate my suite, they just need to fix the leak" says Simonnet. "They obviously don't care about the people who live in their building; they're just looking for more money."

Booted, then rents rise

It's not the first time Hollyburn has sent out a letter like this. Over the past seven years the West Vancouver-based company has done mass evictions in a number of its buildings for renovations. It is an issue that is affecting the entire city. With about 70 families threatened with eviction in a Marpole rental complex, there have been at least a dozen cases of renovation evictions across Metro Vancouver over the past four years.

After the suites are emptied and renovated, they are usually rented out to new tenants at a rate roughly 50 per cent higher. Last week Hollyburn was advertising online one-bedroom apartments in the Reid Manor for $1,400.

While landlord companies insist they are serving their tenants by repairing ageing buildings, housing advocates claim the companies are exploiting a loophole in the province's Residential Tenancy Act that allows landlords to evict tenants for minor renovations and then raise the rent. A growing number of tenants are now calling on the BC Liberal government to change the legislation before more companies renovate away affordable housing in the city.

Gut and demolish

In 2006, Hollyburn sent out eviction notices to about 50 tenants in the West End's Bay Tower. But when Bay Tower tenants fought the evictions all the way to the British Columbia Supreme Court, they raised awareness in Vancouver about the RTA's vulnerability.

The media attention and ensuing legal fight hasn't stopped Hollyburn from following a similar formula in other buildings. The company owns 43 residential buildings in the Vancouver region and another eight in Calgary and Toronto. It has now done the renovation evictions in at least six buildings -- five in the West End.

In each eviction notice, Hollyburn stresses how severe the renovations will be. Water will be shut off, walls may be removed, bathrooms "gutted" and kitchens "demolished." But evicted tenants have argued that Hollyburn is exaggerating the repairs and that the actual renovations, such as new kitchen cabinets, are "cosmetic" and don't require eviction.

"The renovations were totally unnecessary," says Sharon Isaak, a Bay Tower resident and member of Renters at Risk, a West End advocacy group formed from Hollyburn evictions. "There were some things that needed to be done to the roof, but everything in the suites worked fine."

However, Alan Wasel, senior property manager with Hollyburn, says many of the buildings the company has bought over the past decade, like Reid Manor and Bay Tower, are 40 to 50 years old and in desperate need of repair. Rents are then increased to recoup costs.

"We're not taking advantage of anybody," says Wasel. "Basically what we're doing is we're taking the opportunity as it's presented to us to renovate the building. We've been replenishing the rental stock for years now and we want to offer the best product that we can."

A niche market

Although the RTA is supposed to protect tenants from illegal evictions and extreme price hikes, housing advocates say landlords are finding way a around the law.

The RTA only allows landlords to increase rent every year by a maximum of two per cent plus inflation (currently 3.7 per cent). But Section 49(6)(b) states a landlord can end a tenancy if they have "all the necessary permits and approvals required by law, and intends in good faith to renovate or repair the rental unit in a manner that requires the rental unit to be vacant." Once the suite is empty, landlords can charge whatever they wish.

Tom Durning of TRAC (Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre) says Vancouver's housing market has made it ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous landlords. Priced out of owning a home, young middle-class workers are putting more pressure on the city's already stressed rental market. According to the latest Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report, Greater Vancouver's vacancy rate is a mere 0.44 per cent.

"Companies like Hollyburn are seeing a niche here," he says. "There are a lot of middle-class kids who want to live downtown. And the money they make in charging higher rent to them more than makes up the cost of renovations."

With the average one-bedroom apartment in the City of Vancouver now at $902 a month, Durning says the renovation loophole means low- and mid-income earners are getting pushed out of the city.

Canada Line victims

On the same day that tenants in Kitsilano's Reid Manor received eviction notices, seven tenants at the 70-unit Marine Gardens complex at Cambie and Southwest Marine Drive also received eviction notices because the landlord wants to tear out the central hot water heating system and replace it with an electric heating system.

A tight-knit and multi-cultural community with a number of low-income tenants, neighbours quickly rallied around the evicted tenants to see if there was a way to keep them from being forced out.

But when Marine Gardens tenant Gillian Skeet, who did not receive a notice, called the landlord's office, she says she was told eviction notices were going to be sent out in stages to the entire complex. Having endured two years of construction outside their building for the Canada Line, Skeet says she and her neighbours feel as though they are victims of the city's growth.

"For the longest time we had no access to Cambie between 49th and Marine Drive," says Skeet. "It's been a nightmare and it's made life difficult. But because we all value living here, we were all willing to put up with it. Now it's being used against us and we're about to lose our homes."

Skeet, who pays $1,024 a month for a three-bedroom apartment, says many of the older tenants pay low rent because the previous owners rarely gave rent increases. Marine Gardens tenants asked for a group meeting with Bob Nijjar, who bought the building last year, to try and negotiate a settlement, but their request was denied.

Multiple calls to Nijjar for an interview were not returned. The number the owner gave the tenants is the same for the Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel on Kingsway, formerly known as the Biltmore Hotel.

Skeet says many of the tenants are now in "total despair' and not sure whether they can afford to stay in Vancouver.

Supreme Court challenges

While renters in Vancouver feel vulnerable, two important British Columbia Supreme Court rulings suggest the courts are willing to step in where the provincial government will not.

Last year, in the case of Allman v. Amacon, the Court of Appeal ruled against Amacon Property Management Service after it attempted to evict half the tenants in the 240-unit Richmond Gardens complex for "minor" renovations and then raise rents as much as $590 more a month. The court ruled that evicting tenants for minor renovations would drastically diminish tenants' rights. All of the evictions were quashed.

The same year, the Supreme Court ruled that Hollyburn could not refuse Bay Tower residents an opportunity to return to their renovated suite at the same price.

In Berry and Kloet v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Act, Arbitrator), Justice Williamson ruled that, "It is irrational to think that s. 49(6) could be used by a landlord to evict tenants because a very brief period was required for a renovation in circumstances where the tenant agreed to vacate the premises for that period of time. It could not have been the intent of the legislature to provide such a 'loophole' for landlords."

The rulings may be changing the way landlords deal with tenants who challenge evictions. Just a year after the Berry ruling, Hollyburn sent out eviction notices to tenants in the 40-unit Glenmore building in the West End. But when 10 of the tenants took Hollyburn to court to fight the eviction, the company decided to mediate a settlement -- the first reported instance of Hollyburn negotiating. The two sides agreed to a $65-a-month across the board increase in rent and a moratorium on any renovations for at least three years.

A right of first refusal

The Supreme Court decisions, however, don't guarantee that tenants can avoid eviction. In order to create a clear ruling, housing activists are now pushing the provincial government to amend the RTA with a Right of First Refusal clause.

In 2006, Ontario added a Right of First Refusal section to its Residential Tenancies Act that states: "A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may... have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed." The tenant may reoccupy under the previous terms and at the same price.

Last April, NDP MLA and housing critic Diane Thorne introduced a private member's bill that would amend the RTA with a Right of First Refusal clause and force landlords to give four months notice and two free months of rent if they evict tenants because of renovations instead of the current two months notice and one free month.

"If the Right of Refusal was made law as it is now in Ontario, it would negate [renovation evictions] from happening," says Thorne. "Because why would Hollyburn, for instance, do this if the only reason is to be able to bring in new tenants or double or triple the rent."

Landlords 'entitled to feed their families'

Thorne's bill is now sitting as an order paper where it will likely remain -- private members bills rarely get passed, especially ones from the Opposition. Housing Minister Rich Coleman, who brought in the Residential Tenancy Act in 2004 as the then-solicitor-general, said he would review the act after the Amacon ruling, but has not made any indication that he plans to do so. Multiple requests for an interview with Coleman were not returned.

While Coleman has shown no support for a Right of First Refusal amendment, it is certainly not supported by the landlord industry. Al Kemp, CEO of Rental Owners and Managers Society of British Columbia, says the Right of First Refusal would punish ethical landlords who spend thousands of dollars to upgrade old buildings.

"To then say all the tenants have the right to move back in at the same rent, that's ridiculous," says Kemp. "Landlords are in business like anybody else, they're entitled to feed their families and they're entitled to get a return on their investment. So with the Right of Refusal, [for a tenant] to come back in at the same rent will simply cause a 60-year-old building to become a 70-year-old building."

Taking the rental road

Tenants at Marine Gardens have decided to fight the evictions and have a group hearing scheduled at the Residential Tenancy Branch for October 20th. According to the City of Vancouver's Enquiry Centre, the owner has not received any permits to do renovations to the complex, which may make the eviction notices illegal.

Evicted tenants at Reid Manor are less sure whether they can endure a long battle with Hollyburn -- although the Enquiry Centre's records state that Hollyburn didn't obtain the renovation permits for the complex until Sept. 4th, three days after it had sent out the eviction notices.

Corinna NcNeill, who has lived at Reid Manor for 15 years, says she went to look at an apartment and was shocked to find 50 people waiting in line to see a tiny one-bedroom apartment going for more than $850. Suffering from poor physical health and on disability, NcNeill now has to find a new place to live in a city that doesn't have a lot of rental housing to spare.

"All the people I know in Vancouver live in this building," says McNeill. "It's the people you rely on and know that they'll help you out in the middle of the night if you need them. I'm on disability and my income has gone down a lot and now Hollyburn is kicking me out. I'm going to have a really hard time finding a new place."

But more than anything, tenants from both the Reid Manor and Marine Gardens say they know that even if they do fight and win, there needs to be a legislative change to keep landlords from exploiting the loophole.

"We need a political solution, we need legislation and we need it now," says Skeet. "We already have a shortage of affordable housing and every month that goes by that we don't have that legislation the amount of affordable housing shrinks."

http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/09/25/Evictions/
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 4:57 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
I have no issue with Landlords being able to evict people to do renos. I know I'll get some flack for this but that's fine.
The fact is people are only upset because they know they can't get comparable accommodation for the same price. So they know they are paying below market value and are upset about having to start paying market rates somewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 5:02 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,979
yah but they are lying about the renovations

I agree its a free market and you charge what you can and want and can get away with

we are still better off than a lot of provinces with the rent control laws we have here in BC
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 5:03 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
They don't own the property, they're only renting yet they treat it as if it's their own condo. The property owner should be able to do whatever they want, but should obviously give the renters an eviction notice well ahead of time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 5:08 AM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Landlords rights are just as important (if not more so) as renters rights, seeing as how they actually OWN the thing. We do not need more laws to regulate it, because guess what, if you make it more difficult to rent out, smaller landlords (not the people who own the whole building) will be less willing to rent out their units, and just have them sit empty and earn money on property value. Then rents will increase even more.

But, as somebody who has several properties that I am renting out, I wouldn't engage in something so seemingly shady.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 5:15 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
They don't own the property, they're only renting yet they treat it as if it's their own condo. The property owner should be able to do whatever they want, but should obviously give the renters an eviction notice well ahead of time.
thats not whats going on here

the landlords are kicking people out from affordable rentals ie $900 a month doing some small changes and re-renting at $1400

It happenned in my friends old building

trust me when you move out of mom and daddys and have to fend for yourself you'll see things differently
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 5:20 AM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
It may not be a nice thing to do, but there should not be anything preventing them from doing it. There are still SOME decent people out there.

You could almost liken it to free speech, you may not like what the people say, or how they say it, but there should not be anything preventing them from saying it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 5:43 AM
clooless clooless is offline
Registered Luser
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 424
How on earth do you expect ecodensity to work if an ever increasing number of people cannot afford to own or rent in Vancouver? People aren't buying homes in the Valley because they love the 60 minute commute to work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 6:28 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,979
there are some pretty weird things when you rent too

a friend of a friend married a japanese girl from japan - they are currently living in the burbs with his parents

they looked at a number of apartments in vancouver - most were really expensive but they found some and one of them said if she rents it with him they would charge them an extra $200 on top of the advertised rent cause she is not a citizen - we were wondering how they could get away with that
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 7:18 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
they looked at a number of apartments in vancouver - most were really expensive but they found some and one of them said if she rents it with him they would charge them an extra $200 on top of the advertised rent cause she is not a citizen - we were wondering how they could get away with that
thats funny, i had the same issue with one potential landlord because i'm Irish and have a slight accent. i asked how that was legal, and he just said that it was written in the RTO and that he could charge me more for being a foreigner. when i contacted BC Housing, they told me that its not allowed and asked for that landlords name and number. i thought nothing of it until about 6 weeks later when a case worker called and informed me that they were placing a rental ban on that landlord.

at either rate, with this issue of being evicted due to renovations, i believe they do have to give you 90 days written notice first. this company could potentially be taken to BC Housing over this as well. i would encourage anyone who does rent with these people to do so if this happens to them.
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 7:54 AM
dreambrother808 dreambrother808 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,428
The article is about owners who LIE, not about owners who are rightfully renovating a property to a degree that requires the removal of the renter.
To relate this to free speech is... well... I don't know how to respond to that.
Is breaking the law in order to gouge people in whatever way one desires a form of free speech?
Or does this only matter when it is something that affects you personally?
Does the money that one earns somehow make the unfairness that others endure unimportant?
Do we not realize that society is set up in a way that not everyone will make enough money to afford to live under these kinds of conditions?
Where does heartlessness and personal impatience/ignorance end? Is it only about you and how much YOUR paycheque is?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 8:52 AM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
I only related it to free speech because the same people who are up in arms whenever the right to free speech is stifled in any way, are up in arms over property owners doing whatever they want within their rights to THEIR property. I did say I didn't think it was right, and it was kind of shady... but it is their property, and they should be able to do what they want with it. It makes them a mean person, but you don't have the right to get things how you want it all the time, nor the right to never be offended. To say no to either right is pretty much the same thing, whether you see it like that or not.

Unfortunately, dream as you may, Canada is not yet that much of a socialist state where the government should control who has what, and how much of it, and what they do with it, and then equally distribute it. As for me, I would not do this, I would not act so shady, but please don't get in to the argument about how much money people should have, and it being unfair other people don't. That is life, and fortunately there is this wonderful thing called taxes that make it so anybody making at least $1 million a year is paying more tax in a year than those making the average income in 10 - 20 years. See? They have big hearts... contributing more to social programs than most ever will Why should they go more out of their way beyond that to purposely lose money on their property investment, just because some people who arguably shouldn't live in the most expensive city in Canada, in one of the most expensive part (Kits is by no means cheap!), choose to do so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 2:46 PM
sacrifice333 sacrifice333 is offline
Vancouver User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by clooless View Post
How on earth do you expect ecodensity to work if an ever increasing number of people cannot afford to own or rent in Vancouver? People aren't buying homes in the Valley because they love the 60 minute commute to work.
The whole point of eco-density is to increase supply. Supply of accommodation in general. Some of that is bound to be owner-occupied and much of it tenant-occupied. If supply is increased it eases demand. If demand is eased prices should either remain steady or may decline. Thus, increasing affordability.
__________________
Check out TripStyler.com {locally focused travel blog} | My instagram {Travel Photos}
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 3:32 PM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yume-sama View Post
I only related it to free speech because the same people who are up in arms whenever the right to free speech is stifled in any way, are up in arms over property owners doing whatever they want within their rights to THEIR property. I did say I didn't think it was right, and it was kind of shady... but it is their property, and they should be able to do what they want with it. It makes them a mean person, but you don't have the right to get things how you want it all the time, nor the right to never be offended. To say no to either right is pretty much the same thing, whether you see it like that or not.
so essentially, what you're saying is that the property owner should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if it violates the regulations set in place to prevent them from doing what they've done, and the tenant should just suck it up, move on, and deal with it?
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 4:07 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
The Landlord can't do whatever they want they are still regulated by the RTA. But at the end of the day they still own the property and should be able to do with it as they please. If they want to renovate why shouldn't they be able to, even if all they want to do is install new carpet and throw on a new coat of paint. If by doing that I could rent out my place for an extra $400 then why wouldn't I?
By stating that I shouldn't be allowed to do that you are pretty well saying as a private citzen I should continue subsidized another private citzen to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month? I'm a nice person but I'm not in the charity business.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 4:08 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,536
Rental property is all supply and demand. It does seem a little underhanded of the landlord, but that's what the RTA is there for, and there are certainly provisions in there to sue the landlord if they are breaking the rules. And believe me the courts are happy to side with the renter.

Here's what I get from this article:

1. The Tyee - left wing rag
2. The landlord in this case is "big bad Hollyburn"
3. The tenant says "They don't need to renovate my suite, they just need to fix the leak". What?? Who the hell are you to judge what they need to do with their own property.

Now they are renting for $1400. If that is "too much" then they won't get rented, and the landlord will be forced to lower the rent to market levels. This isn't rocket science.

Part of the reason rents are so high is because real estate values have spiked beyond what is normal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 4:16 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,774
there has to be a balance between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant. The little old lady who rents out her basement for some extra money needs as much protection as the tenant, and i'm afraid to say that the landlord generally gets screwed whenever there is a dispute. in my humble opinion, the RTA is heavily favoured for the tenant. nevertheless, a good tenant is worth a couple hundred bucks a month in foregone rent. stability and the knowing that the tenant is not going to thrash your suite, disturb other renters, or not pay is very important.

but if your tenant or landlord is a total fucktard, there is no excuses for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post


The only problem is that every time it rains, there's a leak in her bedroom. For the past three years, every time her landlord, Hollyburn Properties, increases the rent, Simonnet has asked them to fix the leak. But instead of making the repair, an executive from Hollyburn told her she should consider herself lucky she pays as little as she does.

Simonnet's "luck" ran out earlier this month when she got an eviction notice. On September 1st, Hollyburn sent out eviction notices to at least 13 tenants in the 39-unit Reid Manor complex so it could "re-plumb the domestic water supply in the building," and engage in an "extensive renovation" of suites that have not been previously renovated.

"They don't need to renovate my suite, they just need to fix the leak" says Simonnet. "They obviously don't care about the people who live in their building; they're just looking for more money."
3 YEARS WITH A WATER LEAK IN VANCOUVER!!!!! do you know how much damage could be hidden behind those walls, or how much mold she could be breathing in? that could potentially turn into one long and costly reno.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2008, 4:53 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Actually, the damage mold can cause you does explain a lot of things about Vancouver, now that I think about it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2008, 8:23 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distill3d View Post
thats funny, i had the same issue with one potential landlord because i'm Irish and have a slight accent. i asked how that was legal, and he just said that it was written in the RTO and that he could charge me more for being a foreigner. when i contacted BC Housing, they told me that its not allowed and asked for that landlords name and number. i thought nothing of it until about 6 weeks later when a case worker called and informed me that they were placing a rental ban on that landlord.

at either rate, with this issue of being evicted due to renovations, i believe they do have to give you 90 days written notice first. this company could potentially be taken to BC Housing over this as well. i would encourage anyone who does rent with these people to do so if this happens to them.
good to know will pass that info along - he thought it was fishy too and wonder if the building manager was pocketing the extra cash
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2008, 8:30 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,979
wow so much anti-renter mentality in here

anyway

I'm just thinking of things I know my friend lived in a building a few years - it wasn't in the best shape a couple years after he moved out they evicted everyone - people he used to know were told to leave - they claimed they needed to do some work but didn't do much and if anything given the evidence - perhaps the affected units were fixed up but not all - anyway the rent was jacked up a lot and as it is the building now looks pretty emoty as no one can afford to rent there which is kinda funny considering people used to get on a waiting list to get into the building - it was a really old one that people gushed over when they walked past

I agree landlords should do what they can get away with and the market takes what it can and blah blah blah but its pretty unfair practice and a sneaky way to jack up rent in a pre-olympic city which is all they are doing in a lot of these cases
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.