B.C. landlord forced to return deposit withheld over unclean dishes
A B.C. landlord who withheld a renter’s security deposit over unclean dishes and other nuisance-related issues was forced to pay it back after the tenant initiated a legal fight.
According to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, the tenant and applicant, AV, said that the respondent and landlord, RK, kept $300 when she moved out.
AV says that the security deposit was improperly withheld and claimed $300 in damages.
In response, RK said the contract’s addendum allowed her to keep the deposit because of the alleged nuisance claims.
The dispute decision states that on June 19, 2024, AV signed a two-month tenancy agreement for a room in a basement suite. Rent would be $750 per month with a $300 deposit. AV moved in on July 1.
In the tribunal decision, it is stated that the addendum said that if AV caused a nuisance, she would be asked to leave in three days and would not get back her deposit.
Alongside AV were four other tenants who lived in the basement suite, who shared the kitchen and bathroom. RK also lived in another room in the basement.
AV moved out on Aug. 30, and based on messages submitted as evidence, there were several disagreements during the tenancy. Some of the complaints came from AV, who said that there was a broken lock and that the tenants upstairs would drink and cause noise. RK complained that AV needed to clean the kitchen and bathroom and shared a photo of dishes in a sink with the tribunal.
AV told the tribunal she didn’t damage the room or suite and that RK had no valid reason to keep the deposit. RK told the tribunal that she told AV that if she didn’t start cleaning, she wouldn’t return the deposit. RK made some other claims, like AV hitting her door, harassing her and using abusive language.
While the tribunal accepted the fact that the contract entitled RK to keep the deposit if AV caused a nuisance, it failed to define what nuisance meant.
“At law, nuisance is defined as a substantial and unreasonable interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of property,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal added that the difficulty for RK was that she had no evidence that AV caused a nuisance other than one photo of unwashed dishes. RK couldn’t provide evidence that AV wasn’t cleaning up after herself.
The tribunal called that part “particularly problematic” since there were four other tenants in the basement. RK alleged that the four other tenants were also complaining about AV, but the tribunal said that if that were true, it would expect messages or a statement outlining those complaints.
Ultimately, the tribunal sided with AV and ordered the B.C. landlord to pay $300 within 30 days of the decision.