BC landlord tries to keep security deposit despite tenant never moving in | Daily Hive

BC landlord tries to keep security deposit despite renter never moving in

PeopleImages.com - Yuri A/Shutterstock

A BC renter needed to fight her landlord for a $1,000 security deposit despite never moving into the rental as a tenant, which became the subject of a BC tribunal dispute.

According to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Maria Oco requested an order that the landlord, Rajwinder Gandham, return her security deposit.

In defence, Gandham claimed Oco abruptly decided to move out and added that he paid to install various appliances for her, thereby not owing her anything.

The tribunal didn’t quite see it that way.

You might also like:

According to the tribunal decision, Oco’s circumstances were difficult and complicated.

Initially, Oco and her family rented a basement suite in Gandham’s home. In October 2022, Gandham was notified that they would move out on November 1. On October 10, 2022, the new home Oco would move into burned down.

“The applicant’s family needed somewhere else to live, so the applicant and the respondent verbally agreed that the applicant would rent space in the upstairs of the respondent’s home. The applicant paid a $1,000 security deposit, plus one month’s rent,” the tribunal decision states.

On October 29, 2022, shortly after Oco began moving things into the new space, there was a disagreement between the two parties.

“The parties say different things about what the disagreement was about. I find that for the purposes of this dispute, it does not matter what the disagreement was about, so I make no findings about that,” the tribunal said.

Still, on October 29, Oco texted Gandham to say they weren’t comfortable moving in. She asked for the security deposit and one month’s rent back. While Gandham did return one month’s rent, he did not return the security deposit.

Gandham’s reason for not returning the deposit is that he spent $1,000 getting the space ready for Oco, including plumbing, electrical work, and appliance installation.

“The respondent provided a receipt for $725.50 in plumbing expenses for installing a washer and dryer. However, I find the respondent still has the benefit of that work, as they still occupy the home, and the applicant did not get to keep the appliances. Also, there is no evidence the applicant specifically requested this work,” the tribunal concluded.

Within 30 days of the tribunal decision, Gandham was ordered to pay Oco $1,229.85, which included the security deposit and tribunal fees.