So this is Christmas

[southy]

Again ... something tells me we are missing the rest of the story. I watched and read with interest as this organization played out a very detailed plan to rid themselves of staff who were CUPE members. The longer the strike went on the more clearly one could see what was really happening. This is no different. Sorry, I have 0 amount of respect for this organization. 0

[twobits]

The new legislation was created to stop landlords from raising rent more than allowed amount after end of lease. Renters were being told either sign new lease and agree to rent hike or move. This family is not being asked to leave for that reason. The story doesn't say why the Centre is not wanting to renew their lease with that family.

You all need to read the new legislation. Yes they created it to stop landlords from raising rents to market rates upon expiry but what it also says is that the expiry of a fixed term lease is no longer valid even, if the option box for "fixed term lease" VS "converts to a month to month tenancy" (this option was required by law BTW) was checked and initialed , and the tenancy will continue on a month to month basis unless there are other causes for eviction such as late payment of rent, abuse of property, or for family occupation.
The NDP really changed the rent landscape here in a huge manner. It is absolutely horrible for landlords and in the longer run will do nothing....even be detrimental to rental supply going forward....but bottom line is I can see no legal reason why the Naramata Center can evict this woman if she has paid her rent on time and I think that management are hoping she does not realize these significant changes that became law just a few weeks ago and dispute her eviction notice.

[seewood]

Naramata center in the past has used some of their housing for staff. They also offered a unit or two for a couple of Syrian refugees for a one year term while the center was trying to figure out a new operating model. I believe the refugees have since moved on.
In this case there is a lease by the looks of it and the center is not renewing. They never have been in the market rental business and have used the houses in the past for customers or staff.
The tenants have had a good run in this location but perhaps the center could offer something else until the school year is done. That should be plenty of time( 6 months) for the tenants to source another residence. Going to be tough to do in Naramata or anywhere affordable with their income in the South or North Okanagan. Clinton, 100 Mile house? Rock Creek? Midway?

[southy]

perhaps the center could offer something else until the school year is done.

Yea ... like let them stay where they are!

[twobits]

Yea ... like let them stay where they are!

What is it that you folks don't understand? They can't evict her now just because her lease expired. It converts to a month to month tenancy now and as long as she pays her rent on time, all the Naramata Center can do is raise her rent by the legal max which is currently 4%.
If they want or need her to leave so badly cuz they need the space for summer staff, they are going to have to pay her enough to entice her to move of her own free wlll.
All she has to do right now is file a dispute of the eviction notice with the Residential Tenancy Branch and the Naramata Center's eviction notice will be null and void. Doesn't cost her anything to do it either except 15 minutes of her time.
If no one tells this woman this, she might cave not knowing her rights. And if she is aware or her rights and still gets evicted then there is more to her sad story than she is letting on.... ie been chronically late in paying rent or has damaged the property handing the Naramata Center full legal reason and justification for eviction..

[southy]

Come on Twobits - I love going after a bully and that they are. I'm sure this woman is fully aware of her rights and will proceed as necessary. Thanks for the info though. I and I'm sure others weren't aware of the rental changes.

[fluffy]

So if I have a property that I decide to rent out for a time, I’m not allowed to change my mind down the road somewhere?

I can see a suitable notice being required, but should the tenants have a legal claim to stay there indefinitely just because they’ve been there for a while? Isn’t there some ethical thin ice in telling someone what they can do with their own property in a case like this?

[twobits]

So if I have a property that I decide to rent out for a time, I’m not allowed to change my mind down the road somewhere?

I can see a suitable notice being required, but should the tenants have a legal claim to stay there indefinitely just because they’ve been there for a while? Isn’t there some ethical thin ice in telling someone what they can do with their own property in a case like this?

No. You really need to read the Residential Tenancy Act.....especially the new NDP version. You can literally not evict anyone who pays their rent on time, does not damage the property, or unduly disturb neighbors. The only cause for eviction if those conditions are met is for personal or family use (you or immediate family want to move in....and they better or the tenant can sue) or for major renovation needs (and you better do major reno's or the tenant can sue).
So now you, as a landlord and owner of an asset, are limited to a 4% return regardless of market value of the asset. The Tenancy Act even goes as far as saying if you want to sell the property, the new owner is also bound by those conditions. So if you want to buy say a house that is currently rented and move into yourself, you cannot get the tenants out without a min three months notice. And since the Act requires notice before the end of the month, you could find yourself waiting up to four months to move into a home you have purchased. How do you plan for that and your furniture if you have sold the home you occupy to someone else. The system is f'ed.

[fluffy]

You know, I can see the need for this sort of legislation, there has been a lot of money made in real estate over the past two or three decades and money has a way of twisting some people’s moral compass away from true north. It’s too bad that well intentioned folk should have their choices restricted in order to keep the unscrupulous in line. I wonder what constitutes “major” renovations?

[twobits]

You know, I can see the need for this sort of legislation, there has been a lot of money made in real estate over the past two or three decades and money has a way of twisting some people’s moral compass away from true north. It’s too bad that well intentioned folk should have their choices restricted in order to keep the unscrupulous in line. I wonder what constitutes “major” renovations?

The unscrupulous were in the Vancouver market. These controls affect the other 97% of the Province as well. They could have targeted "hot markets" if they chose to.

Interesting too, how you went from "So if I have a property that I decide to rent out for a time, I’m not allowed to change my mind down the road somewhere?"in your last post to now seeing the light and some need for extreme socialist policies. And I know you didn't read the Act in the time between posts.

[fluffy]

Interesting too, how you went from "So if I have a property that I decide to rent out for a time, I’m not allowed to change my mind down the road somewhere?"in one post to now seeing the light and some need for extreme socialist policies.

You’re not getting my point. There is no shortage of unscrupulous landlords in Penticton. I’ve watched the scenario play out over and over right across my back fence in a duplex converted to four rental units where the landlord regularly turfs tenants for “renovations” and has the property back on the market in a week with nothing more than fresh paint. You want me to believe the cost of owning has risen two or three hundred percent in a decade on a building that was purchased twenty years ago?

I just don’t care for having my choices restricted because of greedy opportunists. To me it's a case of making the many paying for the crimes of a few.

The place in Naramata has been all about reducing their costs. So what if they can cut a deal with a caretaker that involves subsidized housing? Suddenly that’s not an option for them even though they own a suitable residence. Is that right?

[twobits]

I just don’t care for having my choices restricted because of greedy opportunists. To me it's a case of making the many paying for the crimes of a few.

Then why was a more targeted approach used rather than a blanket law for the entire province. It was done for foreign buyers in certain markets. I would also point out that the Act is quite clear in that "slapping a new coat of paint on" does not meet the threshold of major renovation and reason for eviction. Case law proves this. So, in your example, we either have tenants that don't realize they can sue for the cost of their move and increased rent they may have to pay elsewhere or they were tossed for lack of rent payment and the owner just repainted after the less than ideal tenants that were there were kicked out because of what they did to the walls. Perhaps you just assumed the paint job was for eviction or do you know for a fact the reason for eviction was for renovation? Did these folks across the fence actually tell you they were being evicted for major reno's?

The place in Naramata has been all about reducing their costs. So what if they can cut a deal with a caretaker that involves subsidized housing? Suddenly that’s not an option for them even though they own a suitable residence. Is that right?[/quote]

What does Caretaker suite have to do with the OP? Did I miss something in this discussion that the woman renting this housing space provided some service to the owners of Naramata Center in return for a lower rent? My understanding is it was the Center that decided to rent housing with a lease to do so. If they did, they are then subject to Residential Tenancy Act rules and not a labor contract with a housing suite included. That is an employment contract, not a housing contract.
You worked in the oil patch with housing provided so I am sure you know the difference.

And Merry Christmas btw Fluff. We all enjoy your posts and well reasoned opinions.

[seewood]

Perhaps the Center can, has or will contact the RTB for a ruling as to what they can do. The Center was not set up or designated a long term rental business although they have done so on occasion.
On an issue previously mentioned regarding landlord evicting for self or family, two months notice and the said owner or family has to be there for at least 6 months before it can be rented out again. ( my situation) It can stay empty for those 6 months ( what I have done and continue to do) as well.
Going to be an interesting time for the Center. If they cannot have this tenant to move on, very unlikely they will ever rent another unit out long term to anyone in need.
The Center usually is not busy till summer anyway so as mentioned let them stay until end of June.

[twobits]

On an issue previously mentioned regarding landlord evicting for self or family, two months notice and the said owner or family has to be there for at least 6 months before it can be rented out again. ( my situation) It can stay empty for those 6 months ( what I have done and continue to do) as well.
Going to be an interesting time for the Center. If they cannot have this tenant to move on, very unlikely they will ever rent another unit out long term to anyone in need.
The Center usually is not busy till summer anyway so as mentioned let them stay until end of June.

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?????

[fluffy]

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?????

In a broad sense, we're past due for some manner of control against rapacious rent increases, but at the same time market pressures will drive up the cost of new rental properties. This will have the effect of increasing the supply of sub-standard housing, we're already seeing this in Penticton as well.

But there are going to be cases where the sort of property owners this legislation is not targeting have unfair restrictions placed on them, such as an inability to move a property away from the traditional landlord/tenant configuration to a say, rent-for-services arrangement. Some sort of appeal system has to be in place.