BC Family Awarded 33000 For Wrongfull Eviction

[JLives]

Many will actually. Especially those who value community over self interest.

Ppl that think that way are in for sime big surprises coming up . The renting for retirment fund is coming to a end . Ppl need homes more than they need greedy ppl who use loopholes to cheat other people. Citizens are waking up to the so called lil cheats and they will pay a price .

I hope interest rates rise so high they bankrupt the crap out of these bloodsuckers. And we get back to a sustainable housing market.

[69cutlass]

Buyer can request in writing that seller issue eviction for owners use on buyers behalf. It just cannot be a condition of the sale. Basically it's an ask that the property be vacant at closing. That is most likely what happened in the article.

That is true. But it's still unclear to me, what is the purpose of such a request, and the seller serving a 2-months notice (usually effective past the possession), when neither the seller, nor the tenant have any motivations to follow up on that. Seller is gone (deal closed) and the buyer is stuck with an eviction notice, which is often not worth the paper it is written on, and most likely having to resort to arbitration hassle.

Again, the safest way for buyers is, ... DO NOT buy a tenanted property. And for sellers, ... EVICT FIRST for personal use, wait 6 months if necessary, and then put it on the market as vacant.

When buyer asks seller to evict. Possession date is always for after eviction date. Seller is on the hook and is in breach is tenant doesn't move out on time.

[Even Steven]

.... yet virtually all products and services are priced to cover costs and profit. But rental can't be. Lol

[69cutlass]

So if being a landlord isn't a job what is a property manager.

[JLives]

So if being a landlord isn't a job what is a property manager.

Not a landlord.

[JLives]

.... yet virtually all products and services are priced to cover costs and profit. But rental can't be. Lol

It never has been. The big pay off comes when you sell and the rent helps reduce carrying costs. It's only been recently that people became entitled to cover all the costs plus profit. Lazy *bleep*.

[Patron]

.... yet virtually all products and services are priced to cover costs and profit. But rental can't be. Lol

It never has been. The big pay off comes when you sell and the rent helps reduce carrying costs. It's only been recently that people became entitled to cover all the costs plus profit. Lazy *bleep*.

[Even Steven]

.... yet virtually all products and services are priced to cover costs and profit. But rental can't be. Lol

It never has been.

What do you mean it never has been?

Rentals are a product and services just like anything else.

All products and services are priced to cover all expenses + profit (unless you choose to be a non-profit).

Hence all rentals are priced to cover expenses and profit.

[rustled]

.... yet virtually all products and services are priced to cover costs and profit. But rental can't be. Lol

It never has been. The big pay off comes when you sell and the rent helps reduce carrying costs. It's only been recently that people became entitled to cover all the costs plus profit. Lazy *bleep*.

It seems unlikely the notion it's only recently that rent covered costs while providing profit is based in reality. It seems highly unlikely. It's more likely any property owner who had invested their own downpayment for a rental property, or left the equity in a property they'd once lived in when they moved and rented that property out, has more likely always wanted the rent to cover their cost while providing a profit at the time of sale.

It seems more likely it's only been recently that so many people have proclaimed all renters in every market are entitled to housing deemed "affordable" by our social engineers, that any rent over the socially engineered "affordability" line is "greed", that any landlord charging market rate is "lazy" and "greedy".

[69cutlass]

So if being a landlord isn't a job what is a property manager.

Not a landlord.

Most landlords are their own property managers.

[Silverstarqueen]

So glad I no longer rent out a home. Selling it was the best thing I ever did. too bad because the renter was getting a deal and took advantage.

[JLives]

It never has been. The big pay off comes when you sell and the rent helps reduce carrying costs. It's only been recently that people became entitled to cover all the costs plus profit. Lazy *bleep*.

It seems unlikely the notion it's only recently that rent covered costs while providing profit is based in reality. It seems highly unlikely. It's more likely any property owner who had invested their own downpayment for a rental property, or left the equity in a property they'd once lived in when they moved and rented that property out, has more likely always wanted the rent to cover their cost while providing a profit at the time of sale.

It seems more likely it's only been recently that so many people have proclaimed all renters in every market are entitled to housing deemed "affordable" by our social engineers, that any rent over the socially engineered "affordability" line is "greed", that any landlord charging market rate is "lazy" and "greedy".

What are you talking about? Have you been alive for the last 20 years? I'm talking about reality here. "It seems to me" lmao. We've actually seen it.

[Patron]

It never has been. The big pay off comes when you sell and the rent helps reduce carrying costs. It's only been recently that people became entitled to cover all the costs plus profit. Lazy *bleep*.

It seems unlikely the notion it's only recently that rent covered costs while providing profit is based in reality. It seems highly unlikely. It's more likely any property owner who had invested their own downpayment for a rental property, or left the equity in a property they'd once lived in when they moved and rented that property out, has more likely always wanted the rent to cover their cost while providing a profit at the time of sale.

It seems more likely it's only been recently that so many people have proclaimed all renters in every market are entitled to housing deemed "affordable" by our social engineers, that any rent over the socially engineered "affordability" line is "greed", that any landlord charging market rate is "lazy" and "greedy".

"market rate" that's funny when the Market is over inflated and dismissing the need for rentals that people can actually afford is only increasing the Homeless Rate

[BC Landlord]

"market rate" that's funny when the Market is over inflated and dismissing the need for rentals that people can actually afford is only increasing the Homeless Rate

You make it sound as if the market is some living entity capable of conspiring against renters, and not being compassionate enough.

[BC Landlord]

It's only been recently that people became entitled to cover all the costs plus profit.

And who do you think "entitled" them to that?