Residential Tenancy Office raises rent 38%

[Greenhorn]

The market sets the rent.

Obviously it doesn't. Don't like the rules, don't play the game. The hypocrisy here is hilarious. Most 'eye of the tiger' types want consumer protection for their kid's food, the products they buy, medical treatments, workplace safety, gas prices, the list is long. But for tenants?! That's going too far! Wake up kids, the survivalist fantasies Reagan and his predecessors sold the public were lies designed to further personal goals. They're not real. Think for a minute about the layers on layers of regulation and restriction behind the computer monitor in front of you before starting on more 'jungle talk' about home rentals.

If the landlord is being greedy and charging an above market rent, the tenant should prove it by moving. The fact is that the rents are below market and the tenants damn well know it. If there are a plethora of better apartments available on the market at similar rents to what the tenants are paying, why don't they teach the landlord a lesson by moving? If the landlord is being greedy, the apartment will stay vacant and he will get what he deserves too, $0 revenue. These tenants want something for nothing. These communist, NDP types really aggravate me.

[Greenhorn]

Okay. I don't agree with this:

[Greenhorn]

Some angry tenants:

[Greenhorn]

This is what the landlord has to say:

[Greenhorn]

Oh boy. The NDP gets in on the act:

[islandlandlord]

Spencer Herbert is a twit.

[islandlandlord]

Some landlords are greedy pigs - what else do you call the attempt to raise the rent by 73%? How greedy some of them got you can see for yourself - check out the number of vacancies in the West End and the rental rates. FYI, they are down compared to last year. I remember very well the times when I was a renter. It was pathetic and disgraceful how some people - "business people" - treated renters. Not even to mention the bed bugs problem!!!!

Anyway, the greed has brought the world economy into this mess and economic collapse. So called business people now are cruying for bailouts, at the expence of ordinary tax payers.

And who are you to judge people for not buying but renting for 50 years?

Raising the rent by 73% was a proposal by the landlord based on what they thought was a fair market assessment; the arbitrator saw things differently. That is the whole point of aribtration, so that both sides can get a fair say. Have you ever done a real reno? Do you waht a kitchen or bath costs? Roofs? Exterior? People that claim these increases are a "loophole" are either too dumb themselves to understand it, or they are hoping the people that vote for them are dumb enough to believe it. Policticians are are playing to the crowd because they want the votes...talk about exploiting people. Im not sure if you know what the word "profit" or "ROI" means, but look it up and get back to me.

i don't agree with slumlords that have rat invested buildings, bed bugs etc or treat their tenants like crap. Just like I don't agree with tenants that want cheap rent, in a desirable area, just because they think its their "right" or because Carole James told them so (or that Herbert Renter dude). Three options:

1. Buy your own place in the area you want at a price point that you can afford
2. pack your sh*t up and find another location to rent at a price point/area that you can afford.
3. Pay the increase and keep your yap shut.

Whose judging? It seems that you're the one with blanket claims. I love 50 yr renters..if you're considering the island, let me know...i can do things for you .

BTW, you're combining all of the economic bailout/banking greed into this situation; Stick to the facts of the case.

PS. Rents/vacancy rates generally follow with the overall health of the real estate market...hence lower rents and higher vacancy today...stop reading from the weekly NDP news letter.

[DAB]

Some landlords are greedy pigs - what else do you call the attempt to raise the rent by 73%?

If the landlords were really greedy, they would want the market rent owed to them by the tenants retroactive from when they moved in 10,20 or even 30 years ago.

[Deana]

Wow, who would have thought my comment would trigger so many responses And it is funny how some of you try to justify greed, openly insult renters and even imply that I have anything to do with NDP . The landlord's intent was to increase the rent by 73% and if people did not fight back, the greedy landlord would have it their way. The rent these people were paying was not cheap to begin with, I think some one bedroom units were over a $1000.

I was a renter some time ago, I own now, and I know very well how much renovations cost. Or don't, when you don't do any, which is the case with most landlords. As far as I know, only Hollyburn renovates units completely and installs dishwashers, and their one bedrooms are now below $1200 in most buildings. There are well kept 1 bedroom condos (!) in the West End with parking, hardwood floors, balcony and insuite laundry rented out for $950 or $1000. On Barclay St.( block 1200) there is a completely renovated building and they were asking $1800 for brand new 2bedroom /2 bathroom with insuite laundry, balconies, parking.

To repeat myself from the first post, people in this building should have moved out, there are nicer and cheaper places to live in the West End. There is plenty of vacancies, it is just a matter of finding a better deal. (and be aware of bed bug infestation , check it out on http://bedbugregistry.com/search/)

[jesse1]

Rents/vacancy rates generally follow with the overall health of the real estate market...hence lower rents and higher vacancy today.

That's funny because after reading some of the posts on this forum I thought the market was doing pretty well...

These tenants want something for nothing. These communist, NDP types really aggravate me.

Yeah they use the "system" to "their own advantage". Bastards. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

[registered]

If the landlord is being greedy and charging an above market rent, the tenant should prove it by moving.

You shifted from the general case, to which I replied in disagreement, to the specific case, to which I've already responded I don't back these tenants. If these landlords don't like BC's rules and reg's, they should prove it by moving elsewhere. BTW, do they get tax write-offs for the renovations they'll afterward charge the tenants? These neo-fascist, corporatist, government teat-suckers really aggravate me.

[Deana]

The actual decision can be read here (pdf). The officer was extremely strict on what units were considered comparable. Most units offered by the landlords were rejected because of incomparable amenities. Two of the units had claims rejected because none of the "comparable" units offered were comparable in the view of the adjudicator. The other interesting thing to note is that any evidence offered by the tenants is irrelevant. All the landlords had to do was show there existed units with rents above the units' in question current rents. The details behind the rents of these cherry-picked units is not relevant, only that these units with higher rents exist.

The officer basically threw out all the tenants' arguments. That's the way the Act is written. I think it instructive for landlords and tenants to read this decision. If you're a landlord looking to increase rents above the 3.8% cap, know that you only need to show specific and comparable units with higher rents and you will likely have a ruling in your favour. Just be sure the units are truly comparable.

Almost forgot : Thank you for posting the link for arbitrators decision. It is educational. The arbitrator had to make decisions based on the Act and the evidence presented, and it seems quite fair, IMHO.

It is unfortunate the tenants were not on the alert and did not start collecting evidence as soon as the living conditions in the building begun to deteriorate . Those two people who made a video complaining about lack of heat should have taken the landlord to arbitration as soon as the heating problems started. When you are given a notice of rent increase you can't just go to arbitration and complain about lack of heat, rats infestation and what not, and expect a decision in your favour.

[islandlandlord]

.

The landlord's intent was to increase the rent by 73% and if people did not fight back, the greedy landlord would have it their way.

Wrong. Either way the landlord has to apply to the RTO for an increase outside the set rates. Again, you're confused about how the system works.

And as far as I know, bedbugs and the like are more associated with slum hotels. This instance was a different case.

[islandlandlord]

The actual decision can be read here (pdf). The officer was extremely strict on what units were considered comparable. Most units offered by the landlords were rejected because of incomparable amenities. Two of the units had claims rejected because none of the "comparable" units offered were comparable in the view of the adjudicator. The other interesting thing to note is that any evidence offered by the tenants is irrelevant. All the landlords had to do was show there existed units with rents above the units' in question current rents. The details behind the rents of these cherry-picked units is not relevant, only that these units with higher rents exist.

The officer basically threw out all the tenants' arguments. That's the way the Act is written. I think it instructive for landlords and tenants to read this decision. If you're a landlord looking to increase rents above the 3.8% cap, know that you only need to show specific and comparable units with higher rents and you will likely have a ruling in your favour. Just be sure the units are truly comparable.

Thanks for the link Jesse1.

Almost forgot : Thank you for posting the link for arbitrators decision. It is educational. The arbitrator had to make decisions based on the Act and the evidence presented, and it seems quite fair, IMHO.

It is unfortunate the tenants were not on the alert and did not start collecting evidence as soon as the living conditions in the building begun to deteriorate . Those two people who made a video complaining about lack of heat should have taken the landlord to arbitration as soon as the heating problems started. When you are given a notice of rent increase you can't just go to arbitration and complain about lack of heat, rats infestation and what not, and expect a decision in your favour.

I agree with you Deana, if the landlord was resorting to these type of tactics he/she should be held accountable. Im all for working within the laws; on both sides.

[Deana]

.

The landlord's intent was to increase the rent by 73% and if people did not fight back, the greedy landlord would have it their way.

Wrong. Either way the landlord has to apply to the RTO for an increase outside the set rates. Again, you're confused about how the system works.

And as far as I know, bedbugs and the like are more associated with slum hotels. This instance was a different case.

About bed bugs you are very, very mistaken. It is a real, very real and complex problem.

I don't think I am so confused about how the system works, at least I remember very well how it used to be: nine years ago my former landlord tried to increase the rent by 15%. They did not apply to RTO for an increase, but just handed the notices of rent increase to tenants. Some tenants moved. Some fought back - we took them to arbitration (Melville St., good ol' times ) and - we won.