B.C. landlord keeps renter's security deposit over 'stolen candy' | Daily Hive

B.C. landlord keeps portion of renter's security deposit over 'stolen candy'

MSPT/Shutterstock

A B.C. rental dispute made its way to the Civil Resolution Tribunal after the renter claimed they never received their full security deposit back from the landlord and “stolen candy” was to blame, among other reasons.

According to the dispute decision, RA claimed that RY didn’t give the deposit back once RA moved out, claiming $125.16 as an outstanding balance.

RY said that RA wasn’t entitled to the full deposit because they owed $125.16 for shared expenses, stolen candy and leaving the property dirty. RY said the deductions that were made to the deposit were proper and that RA wasn’t entitled to any more.

You might also like:

RA was renting a partitioned space in a basement living room on a month-to-month basis that belonged to RY. RA moved in on June 1, 2024, and the rent was $650 a month. RA also paid a $325 security deposit.

Text messages submitted as evidence suggested that the rental didn’t last very long, as RY asked RA to move out on July 31, 2024, “citing various reasons.”

RA said that because he moved in on the first of the month and paid rent for July, he would leave on Aug. 1, 2024.

The tribunal inferred that RY agreed with the date change, but both parties also acknowledged that a new tenant would be moving in on the same date. RY said RA agreed to leave the property in a “move-in ready” condition. RA didn’t deny RY’s claim.

“That said, even if he did not expressly agree to prepare the premises for the new tenant, I find it was an implied term of the parties’ tenancy agreement,” the tribunal said.

On Aug. 2, 2024, RY e-transferred $199.83 as a partial refund. She advised RA that the deductions included $18.66 for shared expenses, $6.50 for stolen candy he ate without permission, $5 for a magic eraser, plus a $95 cleaning fee.

RA tried to argue that tenancy laws did not permit RY to withhold any portion of the deposit.

“He also says she was required to give him two opportunities to conduct a move-out inspection and complete an inspection report. However, as I noted above, the RTA does not apply to roommate tenancies like this one,” the tribunal said.

RA said that deducting $6.50 for “a few chocolates” was laughable.

“Finally, he says his living space was very tiny and he left it reasonably clean, so she had no basis to charge him $100 for cleaning,” the tribunal noted.

RA didn’t deny eating some of RY’s sweets without permission, but called a deduction for it “trivial.”

“That might be true, but it does not mean it is improper,” the tribunal responded.

RA didn’t dispute that the parties didn’t share food, so the tribunal determined that he wasn’t entitled to the candy and found that RY was entitled to deduct $6.50 for candy and chocolates.

RY provided some photos of the space after RA moved out, and it showed an unvacuumed carpet, littered with debris like candy wrappers.

The tribunal found that RY was reasonable in her deductions and dismissed RA’s claims.