Landlord ordered to pay former tenant nearly $1,400 after improper eviction notice
A B.C. renter issued a dispute against his former landlord after they didn’t give him adequate eviction notice and were short $0.46 on the security deposit.
According to a dispute decision from the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (BCCRT), the renter claimed $2,056.76. He wanted money for increased costs at his new tenancy, and because the landlords had entered his room without permission.
The BCCRT ordered that the landlord pay the renter $1,381.31.
The renter raised the dispute against two people, R.G. and M.G, but the BCCRT determined that only R.G. was his landlord and M.G. acted as an “agent” for him (since they collected rent and security deposits from the renter).
The tenant rented a room from the landlords from Aug. 15, 2023, to April 30, 2024, to continue on a month-to-month basis afterwards.
On March 26, 2024, the respondents gave the renter verbal notice to end the tenancy on April 20, 2024, and written notice on either March 28 or 29.
But under the Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord is required to give tenants two months’ notice if they want to end the tenancy for their own use.
The BCCRT agreed with the renter’s claim and ordered the landlord to pay him one month’s rent of $1,150.
There was also a dispute about the repayment of the security deposit. In their tenancy agreement, the renter was to pay a security deposit of $575 by July 29, 2023, which he e-transferred on that date.
The landlord claimed that it wasn’t “officially received until Aug. 13, 2023.”
When M.G. returned the security deposit to the renter, the amount was $584.46 — the $575 and an additional $9.46 interest calculated from Aug. 13, 2023, to April 30, 2024.
(Depending on the year, landlords may have to pay interest on security deposits. For example, in 2023, the interest rate was 1.95 per cent.)
But since the renter sent the security deposit on July 29, 2024, he provided a calculation that showed that he should have been paid $9.92 in interest.
“Because he paid $9.46, he underpaid by $0.46,” wrote the tribunal member in the dispute decision.
The renter claimed $575.46, based on the law that if the landlord doesn’t pay interest on the security deposit, they’re required to pay the tenant double the amount of the security deposit.
“I find that [the landlord] fulfilled the purpose of the agreement, and substantially complied with it. For this reason, I find [the renter] is not entitled to double the amount of the security deposit,” wrote the tribunal member.
“I find the appropriate remedy is for [the landlord] to pay [the renter] $0.46.”
Since the landlord has to pay pre-judgement interest on the $1,150 and on the $0.46, they have to pay another $78.74 to the renter.
Further damages
But the BCCRT didn’t agree with all of the renter’s claims. For example, he had claimed an additional $200 in damages because his new residence was available on April 27, 2024, so he had to pay $120 for three days of rent at the new home. His new home cost $50 more each month, so he claimed $100 for the increased rent.
The tribunal member dismissed both claims because there was no evidence that the landlord required him to vacate before the end of April. Nor was the landlord involved with the renter’s choice of new residence.
The renter had also requested $111.30 because M.G. had entered his room three times without permission or an emergency reason.
M.G. admitted to entering, saying it was to look for a water leak, to put a jacket in the room, and to make emergency repairs.
After the first entry, the renter installed a camera in his room. Footage shows the other occupant entering the room twice more.
Once, “[they] turned on the closet lights, looked inside the closet, looked out the window and at the desk, and left. She returned twice more with the jacket and appears to have tightened a screw on the doorknob.”
The second time, they took photos of the room and the closet.
While the BCCRT found that the respondents breached the tenancy agreement, it doesn’t allow the tenant to receive monetary compensation for it.
The renter had also asked for an order asking the respondents to permanently delete the photographs and explain why they were taking them, but the Civil Resolution Tribunal doesn’t have the authority to request that.
The renter also claimed $27.11 for registered mail to serve the respondents with the dispute, which they were granted.