B.C. landlord hit with legal fight for keeping deposit after renter changed her mind
A failed B.C. roommate rental agreement between a renter and acting landlord led to a Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute over the return of a security deposit.
The B.C. renter and applicant in the case paid a $600 deposit to rent a room in the respondent’s apartment. She told the tribunal that a few days after paying the deposit, she changed her mind about the rental. She claimed $600 in damages for the return of the deposit.
The respondent, and acting landlord in the failed rental agreement, told the B.C. tribunal that the applicant paid the deposit as confirmation she’d be moving in.
“The respondent says she could not show the room to any other potential renters, and so she was entitled to keep the deposit, even though the applicant never moved in,” the tribunal decision states.
According to the decision, the rental agreement was set to begin on Nov. 1, 2023. The applicant had first reached out about the rental in September of that year.
“The applicant says she paid the deposit on the understanding that the respondent would return it if the applicant did not decide to rent it. In other words, the applicant says the parties did not yet have an agreement in place that she would rent the room,” the tribunal said.
The applicant first mentioned she changed her mind on Oct. 5, 2023. She asked the respondent to return the deposit by the following day. Things escalated from there.
“The applicant followed up in an Oct. 10, 2023, text, stating she had asked three times for the deposit back and would next be contacting the police and the RTB. The respondent replied, asking for the applicant’s email address, which the applicant provided.”
The respondent didn’t reply, but instead, someone the tribunal refers to as J texted the applicant. J said that the applicant had to come in person to sign papers to terminate the contract before the deposit could be returned. The applicant declined to sign anything in person.
For several reasons, the tribunal determined that the applicant was owed the $600 back. For one, both parties hadn’t even agreed on what the monthly rent would be yet.
There was also a bathroom that needed repairs, and those repairs hadn’t yet been taken care of.
“Finally, I find that the parties had not even agreed on the move-in date. As I noted above, the applicant says she wanted to move in on Nov. 1, but the respondent texted the applicant about possibly moving in mid-month.”
In total, the respondent was ordered to pay $725, which included the deposit and tribunal fees.