BC tenant claims two months’ rent in court after roommate abruptly leaves
The BC rental market is bleak, to say the least. It was especially bleak for Ali Hicks when she had to turn to court to claim back two months’ rent after her roommate failed to give sufficient notice of her move out.
Kathleen Hutchison moved out of her shared two-bedroom apartment with Hicks with just three days notice in August 2023, causing a ripple of monetary disputes between the pair, according to a recent decision by the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.
Hicks had rented a room to Hutchison in April 2023 as a tenant, and both parties signed a roommate agreement that stated that Hutchinson must give 60 days’ notice before moving out. Within this agreement, there was a clause that required Hutchinson to pay the equivalent of two months’ rent as damages if she failed to give the 6o days’ notice.
When Hutchinson failed to provide the agreed notice of her move out, she also didn’t keep to the agreement and did not pay the rent in damages.
That’s when Hicks turned to court to claim a total of $3,004, which she said included the two months’ rent, utilities, and other expenses.
- You might also like:
- BC strata toilet leak leads to bitter responsibility dispute in court
- BC man’s widow victorious in court against angry customer
- Faulty Peloton purchase takes BC seller from Craigslist to court
Hutchinson hit back at Hicks’ claim. She argued to the court that she “should not have to pay anything because the parties did not have a valid contract.” The decision detailed that while Hutchinson was not added to the tenancy lease alongside Hicks, their landlord was aware of her residing in the apartment.
When the argument that the agreement was not a legally binding contract failed, Hutchinson then tried to claim that 60 days’ notice was excessive and significantly more notice than tenants typically give their landlords. Again, the court decided against her, noting that she “freely” agreed to the notice clause.
Her next claim is where things took a slightly more sinister turn.
Hutchinson told the court that Hicks was intimidating her, and she had to move out for her safety. She claimed that the day before she moved out, Hicks returned from vacation and prevented her from closing her bedroom door and yelled at her.
The court once again did not side with Hutchinson. The decision noted that this singular incident was insufficient evidence to prove that she should fear for her safety. Additionally, Hicks had a different version of events with support from a friend who was “undisputedly present at the time,” where Hutchinson instead refused to say whether she was paying the two months’ rent and slammed the door in her face.
Hutchinson was ultimately ordered to reimburse Hicks for the abrupt move. She was ordered to pay Hicks $3,004 in debt, $154.48 in pre-judgment interest, and $175 in court fees.