Tenant wins hundreds from landlord who got paint on his car in B.C. legal fight

A B.C. tenant took legal action against his former landlord, claiming that the landlord inadvertently painted over the tenant’s car while painting his house.

The tenant, Bahadur Thindh, said landlord Sukh Sing over-sprayed paint onto his car.

Thindh claimed $2,000 in damages, though he didn’t explain how he got to the amount.

In response, Singh claimed no vehicles were on the property while painting. He made additional claims, such as Thindh not paying him rent while he stayed in Singh’s basement suite. Singh didn’t file an official counterclaim, but the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal inferred that he was asking for the case to be dismissed.

You might also like:
• BC Hydro customer owes thousands in diverted electricity case
• Vancouver float home finally sold with potentially dirt-cheap mortgage
• Vancouver home sold for $6M in 2019 sees notable drop in value in new listing

According to the publicly posted decision, neither party provided significant background for the dispute. One thing both sides were in agreement on was that Thindh lived in Singh’s basement for several months in 2023.

During the summer months that year, Singh decided to paint the outside of the house white. Thindh says it happened sometime in May 2023.

Singh added that he was painting during the daytime while his family’s cars were at work. He claimed no other vehicles were in the driveway, and he was the only one there. He also claimed that Thindh didn’t own a car while staying in the basement and that even if Thindh did, he wouldn’t have allowed him to park in the driveway.

Thindh disagreed and said that he had his vehicle when he moved into the basement and that Singh told him to park it along the fence.

“I find it unlikely Mr. Thindh would be mistaken about when he purchased a new vehicle, and I accept he had it when he moved into the basement suite,” the tribunal said.

Thindh also provided photos of the vehicle parked along the fence, which Singh had no comment on.

“I find as Mr. Thindh’s landlord, Mr. Singh owed him a duty of care.”

The tribunal found that Singh did not take any steps to minimize overspray while painting. Thindh provided photos of the paint on his vehicle, which the tribunal said was consistent with the new colour of Singh’s house. The tribunal found that there was no other reasonable explanation for why there was paint on Thindh’s vehicle.

According to the tribunal’s examination of the photos, it was found that the paint splatters were small but that they covered a significant portion of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the tribunal found that $350 was a reasonable amount of compensation for the paint on Thindh’s vehicle.

With tribunal fees factored into the total amount, Singh was ordered to pay Thindh $417.50 within 30 days of the tribunal decision.