Landlord sues BC consulting group that gets paid to evict tenants
A BC consulting group that exists to help homeowners evict problematic tenants got sued by one landlord because they didn’t feel they got what they paid for.
In a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing, Jasmeet Aujla sued Anil Sharma for refusing to pay her.
Sharma then countersued Aujla for not getting what he paid for and demanding a refund.
Aujla claimed $2,209.79 for an unpaid invoice, while Sharma claimed $5,000 for a refund and a loss of rental income.
The tribunal dismissed the claims of both parties, and here’s why.
- You might also like:
- BC resident sues strata after her parking stall was rendered obsolete
- Stumped BC homeowner and strata take fight over a tree to court
- BC resident sued strata, claiming it passed rules to harass her
Sharma contacted Aujla’s company, Global Unity Consulting Corporation — which is based in BC — for assistance in getting an order to evict his tenants in March of 2022. Aujla said she initially told the landlord that their services would cost $650.
Texts submitted to the tribunal suggest that Sharma was distressed about how long it was taking for his tenants to be evicted.
The tribunal decision states he repeatedly complained that Aujla did “nothing” and he didn’t know what was going on. Eventually, it was over two months, and nothing had been done, according to Sharma. The tribunal doesn’t mention why he wanted to evict his tenants.
Sharma says that it wasn’t until July 2022 that any action was taken, which included a Supreme Court order. Sharma says that Aujla obtained said court order, she promised to evict the tenants personally but did not do so. Aujla said she hired a court-approved bailiff responsible for the eviction and claimed the Residential Tenancy Board (RTB) was “completely behind.”
The tribunal’s first issue was that neither party had a binding agreement. Aujla initially said the cost was $650 but later asked for $912.50 without explanation. Both parties disagreed on the timeliness of the work that was expected.
Another oddity, in this case, is that the letter demanding payment was from someone named Jasmeet Dhaliwal, and the tribunal said that “it appears from context that they may be the same person,” though this wasn’t proven.
Aujla claimed she did complete the services for Sharma but never listed the services or provided evidence of what she did. The tribunal dismissed Aujla’s claim for the unpaid invoice.
Regarding Sharma’s claims, while he said he paid $1,543.50 over the phone by Visa and did not receive a receipt, he didn’t provide the tribunal with his credit card statement.
Further documentation suggests that the bailiff involved in the case received $1,500 from Sharma, but since the bailiff is not Aujla, she was not on the hook to provide a refund. Sharma could also not offer any evidence about his loss of income claim. As a result, his claims were also dismissed.