Decision to move out a day after moving in backfires on B.C. renter
A legal rental dispute left a B.C. renter on the hook for a whole month’s rent when she moved out a day after moving in.
According to a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, the applicant in the case, DC, was roommates with the respondent, MS, for one night.
DC said that the respondent breached the agreement by failing to pay any rent after moving out the day after she moved in.
DC claimed $1,145 for one month’s rent and a late fee.
In response, MS said that she was justified in abandoning the rental because the applicant misrepresented it. She also claimed DC was able to re-rent the room and asked the tribunal to dismiss the claim.
DC rented a two-bedroom condo starting in April 2024. During the summer of the same year, she wanted to find a roommate and posted an ad on Facebook. DC and MS corresponded on Facebook and decided to become roommates.
“The parties both signed a new lease agreement with the landlord, which is dated August 16, 2024. The parties do not have a written agreement between them about their obligations to each other as co-tenants,” the tribunal decision states.
It is undisputed that MS agreed to pay $1,100 of the total $2,600 monthly rent.
MS began moving in on Aug. 28, 2024, spending the night in the room.
“The next evening, she texted the applicant that the room was not going to work out for her. The respondent said she had another place lined up. She stayed at a relative’s house that night, and removed her things the next day,” the tribunal decision says.
The tribunal determined that the respondent needed to give one month’s notice to state her intention to leave.
The respondent said that she was entitled to leave without notice because the room was misrepresented. She made two specific allegations. One, that the ad misled the size of the room, and two, that the room was furnished despite the ad saying it was unfurnished.
MS’s allegations went further, claiming that the applicant used a wide-angle lens to take photos of the room. The tribunal discovered two problems with the respondent’s allegations.
First, the tribunal discovered that the respondent virtually toured the condo on Aug. 11, 2024, and that there was no suggestion that a distorted lens was used to misrepresent the room. She believed she was going to be able to fit her queen bed.
“So, I find she had an accurate understanding of the size of the room even if the photo used a wide-angle lens,” the tribunal determined.
Second, the tribunal found that both parties discussed mattresses, and the applicant told the respondent that the bed in the room was a double and that it wouldn’t fit a queen. The respondent responded, “Okay, sounds good!”
The tribunal added that there was nothing in the discussion to suggest that the size of the room was misrepresented. Other details confirm that the respondent knew that the room was partially furnished, even though it was originally advertised as unfurnished.
Ultimately, the tribunal sided with the applicant in the B.C. moving dispute. In total, the respondent was on the hook for $1,285.54, which included the unpaid rent amount and tribunal fees.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for a late fee.