A B.C. renter was forced to take matters into his own hands after his acting landlord kept a rental deposit even though the tenant never moved in.
According to a dispute decision from the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, the acting landlord of the roommate arrangement terminated the rental agreement before the tenant moved in.
The B.C. renter claimed $500 for the deposit, which also included 10 days’ worth of rent.
In response, the B.C. landlord agreed that she had terminated the agreement, but claimed they had already refunded $460 and that the renter wasn’t entitled to the remaining $40 due to a short drive she had given the tenant.
Both parties began messaging about a room in the landlord’s apartment in August 2023. On Aug. 8, the landlord picked the tenant up and drove him to the property. The landlord agreed to rent a room to the tenant for $800 per month. The tenant anticipated moving in on Aug. 23.
The tribunal decision states that initially, the deposit was going to be $400. On Aug. 9, the tenant transferred $500 instead. The landlord’s receipt said that the $500 was for the damage deposit and the remaining days in August.
On Aug. 17, the landlord messaged the tenant to say that she was going to move out and that her son and girlfriend would be taking over the apartment. The landlord agreed to refund the tenant $500, planning to do it in mid-September.
Over the next few weeks, the landlord gave the tenant numerous reasons why she couldn’t refund the tenant. She also said that she was taking $40 off the $500 because she drove the tenant to view the room.
The landlord tried to argue that there was no legally binding rental agreement.
“However, a formal written agreement is not required for a contract to be enforceable,” the tribunal said, adding that by agreeing to rent the room to the tenant and later renting it to someone else, the landlord breached the contract.
Turning to the landlord’s argument that she only owed $460, the tribunal said that the tenant did not agree to pay $40 for the drive. Instead, the tribunal noted that messages indicate that the landlord “gratuitously offered” to pick the tenant up, adding that it was only a five-minute drive. The tenant made it clear he would’ve been fine taking transit.
The landlord later alleged that her friend paid the tenant $460 on March 2, 2024. However, the tribunal said that the landlord wasn’t able to prove that this happened. She didn’t provide this alleged friend’s name or any evidence from them.
The tribunal pointed to other inconsistencies.
On Feb. 11, 2024, the landlord threatened to pursue criminal charges against the tenant for involving the police. The tribunal decision doesn’t go into specifics about what the police’s involvement was about, except to say that there was supposed to be a meeting on March 2 between the parties involving a police officer.
Based on all of these facts, the tribunal determined that the landlord had not proven that she paid the tenant anything.
Due to CRT fees, the landlord ended up owing the tenant $665.07, which was ordered to be paid within 30 days of the tribunal decision.