Below is a letter that I am sending to my MLA the Honourable Selina Robinson, who was instrumental in bringing about the legislative changes to protect the Tenants' rights. I am requesting her to look into the rights of the small Landlords now. I urge all the small landlords of BC and all those who believe in our cause  that if the letter below to my MLA resonates with your concerns and beliefs as well, then please sign the petition:

 

My Letter to the MLA

___________________________________________________

Room 346 Parliament Buildings                                                         
Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4

Subject: Request for Legislative changes in the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA).

Dated: October 5th, 2023

Dear Honourable Selina Robinson,

I am one of your constituents residing in Meadowbrook, Coquitlam. I am writing today to request you to make Legislative changes in the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). In 2017, you helped bring about changes to the RTA to protect the rights of sincere tenants. Today I am asking you to do the same for the sincere, small, independent landlords, to ensure that there is a just balancing of rights between both parties, I have good reasons for that. Recent events, as a small landlord of a suite in my home, have led me to research the Act and Regulations. I discovered that especially small landlords are vulnerable under the law. Their legitimate rights are not protected. The law, as I understand it, should protect the legitimate rights of both the tenants and the at least the small landlords.

 It should be noted that despite legislative changes to ensure tenants are protected, the number of cases before the Dispute Resolution Proceedings have been continually increasing instead of decreasing. There is a whopping 21% increase in cases since 2018 as noted in the BC government News website.[1] Something is not working. And this increase in dispute has in turn increased the staffing contingency by 42%. Consequently, the RTB budget will increase by approximately $15.6 million in the next three years.[2] It is a sheer waste and loss of valuable resources. We are bandaging a problem but not curing it. If it is the landlords who are the ones violating tenants’ rights under the Act, then why are they doing that? A question we should ask.  I suggest three reasons:

(1)    The landlords are greedy or have malicious intent. But this assumption is logically irrational as the same could be true of the tenants. Or  

(2)    Many landlords wish to comply with the Act but find that its provisions are confusing and often seem internally contradictory. As a result, some landlords inadvertently find themselves outside of the Act’s provision. I have a Master’s Degree and am also well versed in real estate law having practiced for the past 18 years. I have also served as an adjudicator for five years under Provincial appointment for the Property Assessment Review Panel Board (PARP Tribunal). Despite being knowledgeable and educated, I too had difficulty with respect to the interpretation of the Act and, even after consulting with RTB staff, I made mistakes in my interpretation of the Act. Or

(3)    It is because the law does not protect the landlords as much as it does the tenants. Most public information and online guides are aimed at tenants, not landlords. Landlords are therefore left with no choice but to find ways to protect themselves and hence, the avoidance of the law.

For nearly 8 years, I lived as a tenant. I had humble beginnings after immigration, but through my hard work & dedication, today, I am also a landlord of a suite. I therefore understand the public policy issues behind the protection of tenants’ rights. I am a small independent landlord whose intention is to comply with the law. I, therefore, seek your help in making the law equitable for all. I trust that you are the one who can bring about this change because you have a history of successfully advocating for just and fair laws.

Please find Appendix A attached herewith the cover where I have outlined the sections of the Act that do not protect especially the small independent landlords. I have also put down my own recommendations beside them. There are many inequities in the Act that may directly or indirectly contribute to the current rental crises. So, unless the government makes changes through the legislation and policies, this crisis will remain ongoing.

Honourable Ms. Robinson, It is my hope that through this letter to you, you will consider changes that will protect both sincere and law-abiding landlords and tenants. I look forward to hearing from you and to meeting with you to further discuss this matter.

I thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter.

 

With gratitude, 

___________________________________________Humera Ahsanullah. 

 

P.S: hard copies have also been mailed. I have also started an online petition today with this letter for legislative changes. The link to which is: https://chng.it/r67zJKrkNM

_______________________________________________________

                                                 APPENDIX - A

APPENDIX A

BELOW ARE SELECTIVE INEQUITABLE SECTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT THAT I SUGGEST REQUIRE REFORM.

Please also find my recommendation after each point. Although I am not a lawyer, I hope that my suggestions will provide the basis for consideration of reform:

OVERHOLDING TENANT

1.       If a tenant becomes an overholding tenant, he/she may also not pay any payment or rent and keep enjoying the property and its facilities until decision is made. A landlord cannot do anything about it. Landlords “may” claim compensation but no guarantee that they will get it.
[RTA, s. 57 (3)].

Recommendation: This section protects the tenant only, not the landlord. If this section continued to cover the rights of landlords as well, the compensation would be 1.5 to 2 times the monthly rental for the overholding tenants. This would be more equitable. It could also deter the tenants from abusing this provision to prolong their stay. I understand that these sections were introduced to protect good faith tenants, but they are being abused by bad faith tenants as well.

2.       A landlord cannot discontinue any necessary utility services even if the overholding tenant don’t pay anything to the landlord [RTA, s. 27 (1-a)]. But he/she can discontinue unnecessary service, however, first, a 30-day disconnection notice must be provided to the tenant [RTA, s. 27 (2-a)]. This means that the overholding tenant can keep enjoying even the unnecessary services for one more month free.

Recommendation: This section also protects the tenant but not the landlords. I can understand why the necessary services must not be discontinued but to discontinue unnecessary services requires a 30-day notice is too long a period to be fair and is a cause of financial hardship to the landlord. It should instead, be 3 days only after which a landlord has the discretion to discontinue the unnecessary services. And it should not require going through a hearing process, because the service is deemed unnecessary.

3.       If a judgment is passed in favour of a landlord for possession, and yet the overholding tenant does not leave, landlord has to file again with the RTB. This filing is for eviction, and which prolongs the tenant’s stay even further until decision is made. In addition, the landlord is responsible to pay the bailiff out of his/her own pocket, the cost of which could reach $5000. Although, landlords can eventually recoup the amount from the tenant but first they have to file again with the RTB and await the decision. By then the tenant has gone, or vanished and there is no means to recoup that amount.

Note: When I googled eviction procedures, the advice suggested that the most effective way is to give tenants money in order to avoid wasting time and effort on the long legal process. An online search on landlords’ rights in BC, came back with only the rights of tenants, nothing for the landlords. Even the online Supreme Court information regarding Judicial Review has language and information that is geared toward the tenants only.

Recommendation: There is too much bureaucratic red tape. For each rightful action a landlord needs to take, one has to file at the RTB and wait to hear again and again. This in turns increases the anguish and frustration of landlords.  Expedited measures should be provided. For example, once the landlord has received the judgment of possession, simply engage the police, and let them sort out any further action that needs to be taken. How could it be equitable for the landlord with a judgment of possession, to undergo long arduous efforts to enforce that judgment for possession immediately? Also, since it would be difficult to recoup the costs of eviction from the tenant, some measures should be there to recoup the amount. I suggest one option is forfeiture of the deposit. Another can be a garnishing order to deducting an amount on a monthly basis from the tenant's job paycheck until the cost is fully recouped.

ADMINIDTRATIVE PENALTIES

4.       The amount of administrative penalty cannot exceed over $5000. [RTA, s. 87.4 (1)].

If the person fails to pay the administrative penalty, the director files a certificate in a court and that’s about it! [RTA, s. 87.9 (2)]. Although, the Lieutenant Governor in Council can establish consequences for nonpayment like imposing additional penalties [RTA, s. 97 (2)(p.1-vii)], how to recover the amount is the million-dollar question. It is easy to recover from a landlord because he/she has a permanent place of residence, but the tenant does not. What measures could be there then to ensure recovering the money from a tenant?

Recommendation: If there were publicly accessible information about landlords and tenants, who do not comply with the law, that it remained in their record for a certain period, this could help deter both tenants and landlords from taking the law for granted. They may have difficulty in securing loans, rentals, and major purchases, enough for them to think twice before abusing the system. Additionally, if provision is given to payback in instalment could make it easier on both the landlord and the tenant. They could be more willing to pay it up.

VACATE CALUSES

5.       If the landlord must give the RTB-32 notice, for example, first they have to have a few specific causes [RTA, s. 49 (3,4,5)] and second, they must pay the tenant one-month extra rent [RTA, s.  51 (1)] for landlord use. Third, they cannot rent it out for the next 6 months [RTA, s. 51 (2 -b)].
 If Landlord does not accomplish any of those specific causes for which he/she gave the RTB-32 notice, or rents out within the 6 months period, they will have to pay a whopping 12 times the rent amount plus the one-month extra rent. So, a total of 13 times the rent! [RTA, s. 51 (2)].

Recommendation: These sections only protect the tenants and also generously compensate them but provide no protection for the landlords, and no compensation. This section could be made fairer if it included similar penalties for the tenants, should they choose to violate or be non-compliant. For example, to pay 1.5 times the rent for each month they wrongfully overheld the property and also forfeiture of the deposit by the landlord. Nevertheless, to impose on landlords 12 months rent penalty for not accomplishing the stated purpose to end tenancy and, to not allow to rent for the next 6 months, is not only harsh and exorbitant but tantamount to extortion. In fact, all of the RTA, s. 51.2 serves a disservice to the healthy growth of both the tenants/landlord relationship and to the society as a whole: Because,

a) A sincere landlord who worked hard to be in a position to have his/her home and business, should be able to take back his rightful property when they want it and not when they need it.  There should be no restriction on re-renting the property if they so choose. I understand that the government imposed these sections of the Act to curb rent increases and, to regulate it (please also see point 7 below). That is a just and reasonable public policy objective however it should not be to the extent that it serves as a detriment to a landlord’s legitimate business upon which one relies for their sustenance.

Business is mainly for profit and, the government does not impose on any ‘for profit business’ a restriction in their profit earning, why should there be then such harsh penalties and restriction imposed on a landlord’s business ways of earning profit? Especially when they are exercising their rights within the law and in a reasonable manner. The one-month extra rent under RTA, s. 51(1) of the Act should suffice, there should not be anymore compensations or restriction.

b) When the landlord is restricted from re-renting his/her property for the next 6 month under the RTB-32 notice, it is essentially depriving other new tenants from a rental opportunity and depriving a landlord from earning its rightful income and sustenance.

c) RTA, s. 51.2 of the Act can be detrimental to the wellbeing of the whole society. For example, under the imposition of this section, a sincere landlord can be forced to avoid the law and become insincere, inconsiderate. Similarly, an insincere or sincere tenant is encouraged to continually abuse the law because of receiving generous compensation and protection. There are no checks and balances here.

6.       When a landlord gives notice to vacate for landlord use, it takes a minimum of 2 months or more depending on 2 monthly rentals to be effective [RTA, s. 49 (2) (a-i)] but if a tenant gives a notice it takes only one month, [RTA, s. 45 (2)(a)].

Recommendation: It is my understanding that the notice period is longer for the tenant because tenants will be looking for a new place to rent. But as it is as difficult for a tenant to seek a new rental so is to a landlord to find a new tenant. The notice period, therefore, should be the same for both.

RENT INCREASE

7.       Unless, both tenant and landlord agree to an amount of rent increase [RTA, s. 43 (1-C)], the landlord cannot increase more than what is prescribed for that year. For example, in 2023 only a 2% rent increase is allowable.

Recommendation: This increase is even lower than the Bank of Canada inflation rate. When the price of everything is rising, at the least the rent increase should match the inflation rate. Another issue that arises from this small percentage allowable increase is that those landlords who did not raise their rents out of consideration for their tenant’s income, have their rents already sitting way below the market rent. They cannot even increase to at least match the market rent except by 2% (e.g., of 2023). They can match it only if they let go the old tenant. But then they are penalized by not being able to re-rent for 6 months (as stated above under point 7). This seriously affects a landlord who depends for his sustenance on rental income.

Therefore, the allowable rent increase should at least match Bank of Canada rate. But those landlords whose rents are already below the average market rent should be allowed to match their rents to at least the market average and not just 2% raise. If the existing tenant is unable to sustain that increase, the government should help such tenants with a subsidy. If the tenant cannot pay the landlord his/her rightful rent, they maybe allowed to break the lease without penalty and seek rental that they can afford. The only way law can be fair and just if both tenants and landlord’s interests and rights are protected.

APPLICATION AND PROCESSING FEES PROHIBITION

8.       A landlord must not charge any fee from any prospective tenants for application or any processing like background check etc (RTA, s. 15).

 Recommendation: I understand the reason behind this section. It is so that the tenants may not keep paying fees over and over to many different landlords in search of their rental and so that the landlord may not charge unreasonable fee.  As a landlord, I have spent my time and energy in selecting a tenant only to find that they went somewhere else to rent. This has resulted in losing other prospective tenants who had initially shown interest in my rental, hence delaying renting my property and suffering the loss of my income. There should be some seriousness from both the parties. If the government can regulate a fee to charge, landlords cannot charge unreasonable amounts. That fee should also eventually becomes a part of the first month’s rental, if rented. Similarly, the tenant will know that they have something to lose to waste a landlord’s time if they are not serious to begin with.

SECURITY DEPOSIT

9.       A landlord cannot charge more than one security deposit [RTA, s. 20 (B)]. And even the security deposit must be only ½ of the rent [RTA, s. 19 (1)]. If a landlord has reasons to forfeit the security deposit or its portion, unless tenant “agrees” [RTA, s. 38 (4)(a)], he/she has to file first with the RTB otherwise pay the tenant double the amount of the security deposit for not returning the deposit on time [RTA, s. 38 (6)(b)]. If landlord’s claim is found to be “frivolous or an abuse” of the system, or “whether or not the landlord may have a valid monetary claim”[3], a landlord remains on the hook of returning double the amount of Security Deposit under the will of the arbitrator.

Recommendation: First, the landlords should be able to charge the same amount as the monthly rent, not half the rent, as half the rent cannot cover a major damage to the property. Second, the landlord should be able to ask for more than one security deposit under mutual agreement especially in certain situations: For example, a situation where if tenant falls short on the screening criteria or does not have a solid income stream, or the tenant fails to pay the rent or damage the property and disappears, the landlord has some security through a double deposit. Third, if a landlord is penalized to return double the amount of the deposit, a tenant should be equally penalized if they are discovered to have done something in violation of the Act or if they fail to establish their case through claim or simply abuse the system. Fourth, the Policy Guideline 17, s. C (3) point 5, makes no sense where the arbitrator can order returning double the security deposit despite a landlord’s claim validity. This is inequitable and preposterous.

INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT

An overarching concern is the interpretation of the Act which is vague and unclear at times. Landlords and tenants are not lawyers or RTB staff officers and arbitrators who are adept in statutory interpretation. They are simple common people who may, in their ignorance or due to a misunderstanding make innocent mistakes. the danger is that they may be viewed as acting in bad faith. I have some knowledge and education yet; I made an innocent mistake in the interpretation of the law even after consulting with the RTB staff officers. 

For example, s. 44(1) (b) of the Act states: A tenancy ends only if one or more of the following applies: (b) The tenancy agreement is a fixed term tenancy that, in circumstances prescribed under section 97(2) (a.1), requires the tenant to vacate the rental unit at the end of the term.  It does not clearly separates vacate clauses, nor put limits to the use of vacate clauses. In addition, it is dependent on another section 97(2) (a.1) which in turns depends on the Regulations but does not point towards it in any language. I had difficulty in following through them, let alone a simple person.

Another example is the Policy Guideline 30. Fixed Term Tenancies section D states- A landlord and tenant may agree to renew a fixed term tenancy with or without changes, for another fixed term. If a tenancy does not end at the end of the fixed term, and if the parties do not enter into a new tenancy agreement the tenancy automatically continues as a month-to-month tenancy on the same term.  Here again, this section does not separate the vacate clauses, in fact confuses it when it says one can renew a fixed term tenancy with or without changes. There is no indication or clarity that if one uses a vacate clause then this does not apply.

BACKLOG OF CASES

Due to long delays at the board levels many tenants and landlords are suffering. In the case of a landlord a classic example is of Raj Salwan in Ontario. As per CBC[4]:  <Salwan filed a complaint in April 2022, and received his first hearing date in February 2023. But the tribunal ran out of time that day and his case was adjourned. He received his next hearing in August 2023, but his case was thrown out due to a mistake made in the filing. Now he's starting the process all over.> All the while, the tenant is enjoying free rental for over a year and a half but at the expense and agony of the landlord.

Recommendation:  I have no recommendation on this. It is evident that the system is failing both the tenants and the landlords. But to a greater degree, it is a financial hardship and duress on especially the independent, small landlords who are simply trying to make ends meet.

________________________________________

BRIEFLY ABOUT MYSELF:

I came to BC, Canada about 30 years ago. Currently, I live in Coquitlam with my husband and two older children. When I came to Canada, I had nothing. My husband had moved from Quebec, so he was new too in BC and had nothing.  I was very poor, but I had determination that I will not accept this situation of mine. I have had my share of ordeals, micro aggressions, and racism too, but nothing made me break. I also never went on social assistance even during my abject state of living because for me to work and earn was more honourable.  I took student loan to complete my education and that too I paid back in full.  Today where I am standing, has been only possible through my dedication and hard work and through the opportunities that this my new country Canada provided me. I am proud of myself, and I am proud of Canada & I look upon it to protect my rights.

[1] https://tinyurl.com/4wkxwu4f  (under the heading: Facts about the Residential Tenancy Branch)
[2] https://tinyurl.com/4wkxwu4f  (under the heading: Facts about the Residential Tenancy Branch)
[3] Policy Guideline 17, Security Deposit and Set off, s. C(3) (points 3 and 5)
[4] https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6963498