B.C. renter evicted after asking for heating fights for compensation | Daily Hive

Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

A B.C. renter decided to take her landlord to court after being evicted over unpaid debt, including a damage deposit, highlighting the importance of a joint inspection at the start and end of a tenancy.

Rhonda Day rented a room from Michelle Marquette in 2023.

Day claimed that Marquette evicted them before the end of the rental term. At the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, Day claimed a total of $679.65, which included a damage deposit, the remaining ten days of rent before the renter faced her eviction, and $200 for housesitting. Marquette denied owing anything and said that Day had damaged the unit, forfeiting the damage deposit.

You might also like:

According to the tribunal decision posted online, the tenancy agreement between both parties began on June 1 or 2, 2023. It was a verbal agreement.

Rent was $575 per month, and Day provided evidence of e-transfers she sent for June, July, August, and September 2023. However, Marquette asked Day to leave on Sept. 20 or Sept. 21, 2023.

Regarding the damage deposit, while Marquette did provide photos of damage in the unit, the images weren’t dated. So technically, there was no evidence to suggest the damage occurred during Day’s tenancy.

“The best practice, and the method required under the RTA, to prove tenant damage is to conduct a joint inspection at the beginning and end of the tenancy and agree on any damage observed or take photographs of damage during each inspection,” the tribunal member overseeing the case said.

The tribunal determined that Day was entitled to get her damage deposit back due to the lack of evidence that she caused damage.

Near the end of the tribunal’s decision, it reveals what actually led to the rift between the two parties: heating. Marquette disagreed.

“The applicant says the respondent asked them to leave because the applicant asked the respondent to turn on the heat. The respondent says the applicant did not follow agreed guidelines for housekeeping, including maintaining cleanliness in the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry room,” according to the tribunal’s decision.

The respondent added that there had been issues since June.

“In her submissions, the respondent acknowledges a dispute with the applicant on Sept. 21 about turning on the heat in the residence. The respondent says she asked the applicant to leave the residence immediately because she felt unsafe.”

Day called the police that day because she claimed that Marquette raised her voice.

“Despite the ongoing problems with the applicant’s cleanliness, and using the alarm system improperly, I find the respondent did not terminate the tenancy at any earlier period because of these issues. I find the specific incident that caused the eviction notice was the September incident and not the ongoing cleanliness or alarm issues,” the tribunal added.

In its final decision, the tribunal ordered Marquette to pay Day $639.08 within 30 days of the ruling. That included the damage deposit, the remaining rent, and tribunal fees. The tribunal dismissed the housekeeping claim.