BC landlord says renter smeared feces on wall, peed on carpet | Daily Hive

Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

A BC renter sued not one but two separate landlords, whom he claims wrongfully evicted him from the respective rentals, but one landlord had quite the story in his defence.

Rick Bennell took his claims against Marcel Oostenbroek and Charles Rasmussen to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.

Bennell claimed nearly $6,000 in damages between the two cases, including lost rent, damage and security deposits, and allegedly stolen items.

In Bennell’s claim against Oostenbroek, he sought damages of $4,300; in his claim against Rasmussen, he sought $1,300. Both respondents denied Bennell’s claims.

You might also like:

For Bennell’s claim against Oostenbroek, there was no written agreement in evidence, and it wasn’t clear when his rental began. What was undisputed was that Bennell paid $750 in rent and a $375 damage deposit.

Stunningly, the tribunal dispute says that the BC landlord claimed the renter breached a no-drinking policy, urinated on the bed and carpeted floor, and smeared feces on walls, a banister, and a door.

“Bennell does not dispute this, so I accept that it happened,” the tribunal stated and determined that Bennell breached the agreement between the two parties for failing to “maintain a reasonable level of cleanliness.”

The tribunal also found that Oostenbroek was entitled to evict Bennell without notice. That was enough to dismiss Bennell’s claim against Oostenbroek.

Turning to his claim against Rasmussen, the landlord said Bennell “posed a health and safety risk because he left hot dogs to burn on the hot plate he kept in his room after he went out one evening.”

Bennell denied the claim but had no evidence to support his denial. Rasmussen, on the other hand, had witness statements.

“Rasmussen also says Rick Bennell came into the house soaked in urine and feces, lost control of his bodily functions, and used the communal furniture and areas in this condition. Rick Bennell does not dispute this, so I accept it is true. I find this was a breach of the agreement’s cleanliness term.”

Because of these factors, the tribunal determined that Rasmussen didn’t need to provide notice to Bennell. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed all claims against the respondents, and Bennell won no damages.