So this is Christmas

[seewood]

The NDP just made eviction at the end of a fixed term lease null and void. It now automatically converts to a month to month tenancy. The provision for immediate family occupation btw is three months, not two months.The NDP have created a nightmare here that IMO, will only restrict any new supply of rental housing which will just ultimately compound the problem of affordable housing. How can you try to adress a problem with things like allowing carriage homes as a measure to increase housing supply and then tell the carriage home owner that you can't kick the people out if they pay rent or move into it themselves?????

Two months: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/hous ... nth-notice:
I'm with you in this new legislation can be onerous for landlords in getting a tenant to move on. However the president of the landlord association agreed with this legislation because of the unscrupulous landlords that were using the loop hole to line their pockets.
In the case of the Naramata center, I suspect they could very well have an issue in getting this low income family to move on. I really don't know the RTB rules regarding an institution wanting to evict a tenant for the return of the unit for the Centers exclusive use is. The Center never was in the long term rental business. As I mentioned they did open up a couple of dwellings for two, maybe one, Syrian refugee families for 1 year, originally it was 6 months.
Perhaps Mynaramata will follow the story and see where it goes over the coming months.
If it becomes onerous for the center to get the family to move on, I suspect they will never do this again.

[southy]

The Center never was in the long term rental business. As I mentioned they did open up a couple of dwellings for two, maybe one, Syrian refugee families for 1 year, originally it was 6 months.
Perhaps Mynaramata will follow the story and see where it goes over the coming months.
If it becomes onerous for the center to get the family to move on, I suspect they will never do this again.

I'm not sure about your comment that the Centre has never been in long term rental business. I understand from a close friend that the Centre has long term rentals in some of their other houses for at least 2-3-4-5 years. Suppose it depends on your definition of long term. The Syrian refugee rental situation - in my opinion a nice gesture but nothing more than trying to create a photo op. These people will do anything and say anything to make themselves look good. Shameful - utterly shameful they are. You mention Mynaramata - have you read any articles on this site? Nothing more than a community hugfest site, not sure who the editor is, but either doesn't know anything about hard news reporting or is being muzzled by whoever runs this site. I doubt very much you''' see a negative comment about Naramata Centre on there. You suspect they will never do this again? Sorry Seewood they will do anything to make a buck. Anything.

[twobits]

I'm not sure about your comment that the Centre has never been in long term rental business. I understand from a close friend that the Centre has long term rentals in some of their other houses for at least 2-3-4-5 years. Suppose it depends on your definition of long term.

All of this is moot now. What you all are talking about is the old rules. THe new rules state that the end of a fixed term lease are no longer grounds for eviction. Even the Naramata Center will have to abide by those rules.

http://tenants.bc.ca/hotels/

[fluffy]

I notice at the link you provided twobits, that eviction of current tenants is allowed if the property owner wishes to "convert the unit for use by a manager, caretaker, or superintendent of the property", as long as all the required permits are in place.

[W105]

you are correct Fluffy..twobits apparently believes that once a Landlord takes on a Tenant they must keep that Tenant forever...

the new rules about fixed term leases is about stopping rent gouging..good Tenants have been forced ( and yes forced because the vacancy rate is so low) to check off that box in the lease agreement that when the yr is up a brand new lease starts...and with that brand new lease comes a rent increase well above (in some cases 50% more) the allowable yrly amount..which is unfair when the rental market is literally zero making renters at the mercy of a Landlord..

it now has to go mth to mth after the lease is up...the Landlord can still charge a yrly allowable rent increase, can still evict for just cause or for the property owners use...

as someone else said..even the BC Landlord Association agreed this was unfair and needed to be stopped..

[twobits]

you are correct Fluffy..twobits apparently believes that once a Landlord takes on a Tenant they must keep that Tenant forever...

the new rules about fixed term leases is about stopping rent gouging..good Tenants have been forced ( and yes forced because the vacancy rate is so low) to check off that box in the lease agreement that when the yr is up a brand new lease starts...and with that brand new lease comes a rent increase well above (in some cases 50% more) the allowable yrly amount..which is unfair when the rental market is literally zero making renters at the mercy of a Landlord..

it now has to go mth to mth after the lease is up...the Landlord can still charge a yrly allowable rent increase, can still evict for just cause or for the property owners use...

as someone else said..even the BC Landlord Association agreed this was unfair and needed to be stopped..

You obviously don't rent property. And please do tell me where in the OP that it says the woman is being evicted for "managers residence". It is one of the few reasons to evict as is owner use. But given the Naramata Center's facilities, they have plenty of housing for a manager that does not displace this woman. And if they don't use her current residence as a managers residence, they can be sued. Besides that, they entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the woman that they could have specified was a manager suite to begin with on a temp basis and they would have been clear to terminate even under the old rules. They didn't.
So sorry to burst your perception, but under the new rules....as if it wasn't hard enough under the old rules, if the tenant pays the rent on time and doesn't trash the place or conduct illegal activity.....it's pretty much impossible or very very expensive to get someone to move even without a lease!!
Good luck to what these new rules will do to rental availability. I know people with carriage that are rethinking if it's worth the hassle because the tenancy act covers these people as well.

[fluffy]

“Impossible” is hardly accurate, as the new rules do give a number of allowable reasons to end a tenancy. The OP doesn't give any reason why the owners of the property want the current tenants out, so it's hardly fair to make a judgement at this point. I thought, that since it is mentioned that they want to open the facility for business that a caretaker or manager might be one possible reason they need the house. I was concerned in the beginning that the landowners would be restricted from their freedom to use the property in this way, I see now that those fears were unfounded. The new laws are not as restrictive as was presented.

[southy]

“Impossible” is hardly accurate, as the new rules do give a number of allowable reasons to end a tenancy. The OP doesn't give any reason why the owners of the property want the current tenants out, so it's hardly fair to make a judgement at this point. I thought, that since it is mentioned that they want to open the facility for business that a caretaker or manager might be one possible reason they need the house. I was concerned in the beginning that the landowners would be restricted from their freedom to use the property in this way, I see now that those fears were unfounded. The new laws are not as restrictive as was presented.

This organization is shameful .. Very shameful. Not to be trusted. My opinion is that this house sits on property they are trying to sell. Besides from all reports I have this place like many other out at Naramata centre are pretty well beyond repair. So one can make all kind of assumptions. Really surprised that not a single friend of Naramata centre or the untied church has come on here to spin their tales. They are very good at it - ask those 30 or so CUPE workers who were let go.

[twobits]

“Impossible” is hardly accurate, as the new rules do give a number of allowable reasons to end a tenancy.

I said pretty much. Look, what you people don't understand because most of you don't rent property is that Tenant's rights are viewed as more important than the owners rights. While they pay the rent and don't conduct illegal activity they are safe from all but a few things such as owner use. Trash the place? Well now that becomes an argument of what is considered normal wear and tear. And I will guarantee you there are savvy people renting that know every gdam tenancy act loophole and make an owner jump thru them at great expense.
Someone I know very well hooked up with a gal and they were living in his rented house while her house was rented out. They got notice of eviction because the property was going to be torn down and redeveloped. All good and a reasonable eviction notice. They give notice to the tenants of his spouses house for their own intended use and thetenants do not move out when required. Then starts the RTA dance with notices that are disputed by the tenant. Burden of proof always seems to land upon the owner. 8 months after their original notice to the tenants to move, (and the tenanants have stopped paying rent btw because of the dispute), they finally get an eviction notice judgment from the RTB and it is served. They still don't move out. Now they have to hire a lawyer to get a court order to enforce the eviction notice. They get one at a cost of 1500 bucks in lawyer and court fee's. It doesn't end there however cuz the tenants still don't pack up and leave. So now they have to pay the sheriffs to enforce and forcibly evict the tenants. Another 1500 bucks. It's not over yet either. The tenants are now foricbly evicted but the owner is now obligated to inventory and keep in safety the tenants belongings in storage or be liable for it's value for 12 months cuz all the Sheriffs do is remove the occupants. Still not over cuz the final insult is the owner has to go in and clean up the house to be able to move into it right down to food in the fridge.
This happened just this yr btw and they were forced to put all of their furniture into storage and stay with family and couch surf with an 8 yr old child for the duration.

So please don't any of you pretend to have a clue as to what really goes on and what the laws are with regard to tenancy.

[twobits]

My opinion is that this house sits on property they are trying to sell.

The sale of the property is not a valid reason for eviction under Residential Tenancy Act regulations. The tenancy would continue under the new ownership. The new ownership would then after completion and possession have to exercise their own reason for eviction. Notice cannot be given in advance of title and possession.

[southy]

Thanks Twobits .. You have given us all some really valuable info. My original post though was more about the antics of a supposed credible religious organization. First they play the look how caring we are card. Then it's the get the hell out of here card. I watched and read with great interest when this organization played out a very well scripted agenda to rid themselves of CUPE. I can't say I am a pro unionist but I can say I do care about people's rights. I coin a Donald phrase one more time. Shameful - these people are shameful plain and simple. Can't trust them.

[Symbonite]

nothing can stop a renovict! Just get your aunt to move into the place....kick the poeple out...a month later...put it back on the market

[twobits]

nothing can stop a renovict! Just get your aunt to move into the place....kick the poeple out...a month later...put it back on the market

An aunt does not qualify. It must be owner, their parent, their child or sibling. And fyi, a renovict must be by RTA standards, a major reno. Replacing cabinets, carpets, patching and painting do not qualify as reno's. They are considered regular maintenance. The tenant can also agree to the disturbance of the stated work and co operate with it's execution. If the evicted tenant found out you evicted them without meeting the RTA definition, you could find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for unlawful eviction and pay all moving costs and any increased difference in rent they had to pay. Plus costs of course. And the land owner would lose.
Like I said, most of you have no idea or understanding of how the laws were already slanted toward tenant rights. Now the NDP have made it even worse while they pretend to be addressing a housing shortage. Anyone in the business of providing rental housing knows what a farce this is.

[twobits]

Thanks Twobits .. You have given us all some really valuable info. My original post though was more about the antics of a supposed credible religious organization. First they play the look how caring we are card. Then it's the get the hell out of here card. I watched and read with great interest when this organization played out a very well scripted agenda to rid themselves of CUPE. I can't say I am a pro unionist but I can say I do care about people's rights. I coin a Donald phrase one more time. Shameful - these people are shameful plain and simple. Can't trust them.

Southy, you can't isolate and define a religious group as having to meet a higher standard of the laws that are in place for everyone. They might for philanthropic reasons but are not required by law to do so. What has happened here is the Center entered into a Residential Tenancy Agreement via a lease and thought they were good to terminate at the end of the lease if they chose to do so. The NDP changed the law that pertained to fixed lease term lease tenancies and made eviction null and void at the end of the lease term even if the tenant checked the box (and there is a box to check) that the lease ended and the tenant would have to move out unless another agreement was reached. It now reverts to a month to month regardless. The Center has now been caught in something they could not have anticipated 12 months ago when they signed the lease. Like I said, it sucks to be a provider of housing and even more so now with an NDP gov't that reacts with knee jerk intelligence to placate and secure their vote base in the hot market of the lower Mainland. Some simple thought, which the NDP seem incapable of, would be to allow every current lease to run it's course as intended with the "meeting of minds" of owner/tenant lease contract in the past, and legislate that any new lease from this date forward will be subject to the new regulations.
So IMO, the only thing shameful about the Center is that they are trying to evict under old laws when they should be aware of the new laws and stressing out someone with enough stress already in their life. New laws I happen to disagree with and work to my own disadvantage as a landlord but I have to acknowledge and present as the new current reality. To not do so would make me biased. I am just trying to tell the lady that under the new laws and given the info provided in the OP link is complete and accurate, she does not have to move and is only subject to a month to month tenancy agreement with a 4% rent increase for the next year.

[southy]

Twobits .. Thanks, I fully understand what you are saying. The reason I started this thread was because I have seen this organization abuse staff. A little harsh perhaps but in my opinion true. I followed their drawn out - blame the union we now must close forever - poor us dramatics with real interest as I have friends who were unionized workers at the centre. I'm extremely happy that the woman and her two children will get to stay in their home. I'm even more happy that Naramata centre got caught on this one. They deserve everything they get!