No standards for maintenance and occupancy

[Libelle]

The RDCO has the bylaw 0183, but kelowna does not. No one that I have spoken to knows why either. How can the city not have such a bylaw in place?

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/media/1 ... aw0183.pdf

[cv23]

Maybe because Kelowna is within the RDCO it would be redundant??

[gardengirl]

That was my first thought as well, but if you read the document, it specifically exempts the City of Kelowna. Odd.

[dreamon]

A municipality, in this case Kelowna and Peachland, is exempted as it has it's own set of by-laws.

Municipalities are an island within a given regional district.

[cv23]

A municipality, in this case Kelowna and Peachland, is exempted as it has it's own set of by-laws.

Municipalities are an island within a given regional district.

Yet West Kelowna is included, that is if this RDCO bylaw hasn't been ammended.

[gambler]

The RDCO has the bylaw 0183, but kelowna does not. No one that I have spoken to knows why either. How can the city not have such a bylaw in place?

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/media/1 ... aw0183.pdf

That by-law was written in 1979 so I would suspect it's at least been updated if not repealed. Have you phoned the City (is that one of the ones you've spoken to?)

I'm not sure from your question, what kind of info you're after Libelle, whether you're looking for something like the RRAP program or whether you had other concerns. A couple years ago, my father looked for help updating his bathroom. He eventually did find some government program willing to give assistance. I don't think it was the RRAP program (it doesn't sound familiar to me at any rate) but some grant program that was run out of Penticton I believe. I'm really not too sure of the details but if you can be clear on what you're looking for, I will ask my father how it all worked for him and get back to you.

[Libelle]

It concerns housing/occupancy standards for rental units, health and safety as set out in the RTA. I did call the city and there are no such bylaws for Kelowna...not one. Why? They do not know. I spoke to a chief bylaw officer who informed me of this. I contacted interior health about health regulations of rentals to which I was referred to the RTA. Then I contacted a building inspector with the city with regard to building regulations. As long as the building complied with the standards at the time of erection then all is good. So a building built in 1950 that (as an example) has a roof caving in, mould there is no bylaw which states that the building must be up to code, as there is no code. How can someone renting in Kelowna cite the RTA section 32 landlord and tenant to repair and maintain? Must comply with health and safety standards required by law. So where is this law no one seems to know.

[Libelle]

One thing I did find out is that all rental units must have a business licence to operate. Cases have been thrown out by an arbitrator when a landlord is seeking damages against a tenant. Good thing that there is legislation for this but no standards of living tenant or not. I will be writing to the city to address this little oversight.

[Libelle]

Gambler: I stumped the bylaw officer at the RDCO. It has not been repealed still as is since 1979. She did not know of its existence. Ask about a barking dog and they recite the act from memory, but housing standards stump them. Guess at least they have them.

[gambler]

Oh ok. RDCO By-law 183 regards the RRAP program so I don't think it has any relevance here.

So what you're questioning is the Residential Tenancy Act, section 32 (a) that states:

Landlord and tenant obligations to repair and maintain
32 (1) A landlord must provide and maintain residential property in a state of decoration and repair that

(a) complies with the health, safety and housing standards required by law,

Like you, I would assume it means the laws of the municipality the rental house is in. But you say the City of Kelowna and Interior Health have no bylaws regarding housing standards? That does sound odd. Have you contacted the RTA people and if so, what did they say?

[gambler]

Now that I think about it, a relative once rented a house from the City of Kelowna. Two weeks into the rental agreement, they discovered mould (in the crawl space I think). The City, as the landlord, admitted it was used as a prior grow-op but refused to fix the issue. They did however, offer them another City owned rental house. The City's reason for not fixing the problem was because they had purchased the house to rip down in a few years because they were going to widen a road. Since they aren't really in the housing rental business, they did not want to put taxpayer money into it only to rip it down a year or two later. That makes sense to me but they shouldn't have been renting it out in the first place. I guess the City really doesn't have a by-law regarding standards or they surely would be putting money into their rental properties to comply with their own bylaws.

Interesting question you've presented here Libelle.

[Libelle]

Thank you gambler, leave it to me to find a question that seems to have no answers. I have spoken to the RTO and they told me to contact the city. Round and around I go. It just makes no sense. It leaves that section of the RTA wide open for anyone's interpretation. The city was wrong in this case. Before I proved my point I would need in writing that it was a grow op and the lenght of the grow op. There are bylaws regarding housing with former grow shows I found with all my looking into this matter. No grow show no bylaw. Nice hey? Welcome to the projects. Without standards that is where things will end up.

[Libelle]

Even if the city fixed it, would it be done properly or look like I drywalled and painted the place? How did the city qualify for insurance? That would be interesting to know that.

[gambler]

How did the city qualify for insurance? That would be interesting to know that.

That would be interesting to know. Maybe they don't carrry anything more than liability insurance since if it was to burn down or fall apart, they have no interest in rebuilding. It would actually save taxpayers money on demolition costs if it fell down. But that doesn't make it "socially"correct which in the case of the City, I think should have some bearing.

It still leaves the question though, of who, if anyone, is responsible for governing the maintenance of privately owned rentals.

[johnhenry]

Now that I think about it, a relative once rented a house from the City of Kelowna. Two weeks into the rental agreement, they discovered mould (in the crawl space I think). The City, as the landlord, admitted it was used as a prior grow-op but refused to fix the issue. They did however, offer them another City owned rental house. The City's reason for not fixing the problem was because they had purchased the house to rip down in a few years because they were going to widen a road. Since they aren't really in the housing rental business, they did not want to put taxpayer money into it only to rip it down a year or two later. That makes sense to me but they shouldn't have been renting it out in the first place. I guess the City really doesn't have a by-law regarding standards or they surely would be putting money into their rental properties to comply with their own bylaws.

Interesting question you've presented here Libelle.

Does anyone know of a link out there somewhere that shows City Real Estate purchases and sales for the last decade?