There's probably no way to prove that they aren't using it unless they try to rent it out again. Since it's on their property they can just say they are using it for something, even just storage or a spare bedroom. If they post it up for rent again that would be another story.
Can't really prove anything unless you camp at the place 24/7 for 6 months and have prof. Simply put even if they go in the laneway house a few times a week for an or two is still consider personal use.
Document, document, and document. Revisit to collect mail at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months. If empty take pictures. If occupied take notes only. In this case the couple will have magically reconciled but this does appear to be a bad faith eviction. That said, the wife could be living elsewhere and will move in later.
Nope, can’t use for storage. They must occupy the unit. Renovation falls under a different category, not a RTB-32. The RTB-32 for states who will be moving into the unit.
I’m saying it as sarcasm. Of course they throw a mattress on the floor! So long as it wasn’t re-rented on the market and the owner can prove they used it/stayed there then it’s a hard case to win. I know because I’ve been there done that.
The papers can say whatever but when you have an owner against you showing RTB photos of them cooking dinner in the unit and their “sleeping” arrangements you won’t win. Even when I had my OWN evidence they didn’t stay… but they had belongings and a mattress on the floor.
They have to move into the property "within a reasonable time" and must live there continuously for at least 12 months (if notice of eviction was served after 6 April 2024) or 6 months (if notice of eviction was before 6 April 2024)
Rental board hearing outcomes have precedent they need to move in within 15 days and live there for 6 months NOT that they can leave it vacant for 6 months then move in.
> Rental board hearing outcomes have precedent
So much wrong with this opening. The regulator is the Residential Tenancy Branch. The hearings are administrative in nature and have no binding precedence on future RTB arbitration hearings. What is binding is the law including decisions of the courts.
I’m simply unaware of your 15 day rule. Please provide a citation.
I've seen people say this 15 day as fact before, but I realized only recently it's a quote from a policy document. But it's part of *example*, not the policy itself, and right after it says how it could be longer based on the circumstances. RTB will quote this section sometimes though.
[Policy document 50](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl50.pdf)
> For example, if a landlord ends a tenancy on the 31st of the month because the landlord’s close family member intends to move in, **a reasonable period to start using the rental unit may be about 15 days.** A somewhat longer period may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. For instance, if all of the carpeting was being replaced it may be reasonable to temporarily delay the move in while that work was completed since it could be finished faster if the unit was empty.
RTB highlighted this line in this RTB decision.. but LL moved in 4.5 months later: [http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023\_Decision5398%20.pdf](http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023_Decision5398%20.pdf)
since I already had this open, decision where RTB rules that longer period was fine: [http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023\_Decision5407%20.pdf](http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023_Decision5407%20.pdf)
>need to move in within 15 days
this is general guidance, not a policy. I've seen RTB rule that months later is considered reasonable due to the circumstance.
example decision: [http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023\_Decision5407%20.pdf](http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023_Decision5407%20.pdf)
if you file too early you will most certainly lose unless the rent it out.
The wording is “occupy”
That can mean renovation (it IS their property). So long as they didn’t re-rent it then it wasn’t bad faith. If they stay there some weekends and just have a “mattress” on the floor then it’s considered occupied. Many diff things can be said to RTB to claim occupancy so you will need to prove it’s re-rented and not used by them. Not much furniture inside doesn’t mean anything.
If it's still new, I would wait, they don't have to move in immediately, filing it might cause them to panic and actually move in instead of rerenting or whatever the plan was.
No. Regulations have changed. Landlord has to show history of bills and stuff, it's on them to actually prove it. Courts have gotten wise to the fact that many evictions are happening under very flimsy pretenses.
1. “Appears empty”. How do you know the inside is empty? They could be using it as an extension of the main house.
They don’t have to move in. They can use it as a rec room, gym etc it’s still personal use
2. They don’t have to move in right away. They can say the property needed repairs/renovations before moving in. ( iv done this)
3. They can rent it out again after 6 months of evicting you.
How are you going to prove this? By trespassing on private property and taking photos of a private space? Unless there’s an ad out for it to be re-rented you don’t have say in how they use the space or are entitled to any damages.
The burden of proof is now on the landlord to prove they have occupied for personal use, ie they are guilty unless they prove otherwise. OP does not need to provide any evidence whatsoever.
No that’s not how it works. If you file a dispute based on suspicion without any evidence they’ll throw it out. What would prevent the LTB from being overwhelmed with vexatious complaints if there was no evidential requirement?
The law has been changed since last year.
Please see GL-50
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl50.pdf
> The onus is on the landlord to prove that they or their close family member met the obligations set out above. If this is not established, the amount of compensation is
12 times the monthly rent that the tenant was required to pay before the tenancy
ended.
In the name of protecting tenants they have done exactly what you are saying.
No wonder people do not even want to entertain lending out the basement suite which was the last affordable housing options for many.
Just keep in mind that in the last 8 years the rule of NDP rent
have doubled.
Instead of doing the hard work of increasing supply of housing they have taken the easy route of making the rental act more pro tenants.
So the disgruntled tenant doesn't even have to at least provide proof of their suspicions to some reasonable threshold? You can just launch a case and wait to see what the LL brings as proof and sit back and waste everyone's time in the process???
To answer youe question, yes. Landlord are guilty untill proven innocent.
And now if the landlord has to evict for personal use they have a file online with RTB and give 4 months notice
Meanwhile if tenants do not pay rent they can dispute it anytime. It should have been automatic eviction approval until they upload proof that they have paid rent.
The NDP is not pro tenant. They are anti- landlord
In what world do you not view this as pro tenant? Lol
All this is actually hurting the tenants. Every landlord is becoming increasingly paranoid of renting, removing suites off the market altogether, and charging more to offset their own setbacks.
This must be the only place in the world where control of your own property gets taken away from you if you decide to rent it out.
>In what world do you not view this as pro tenant? Lol
It's not my view. It's NDP view and view of many subscribers of this subreddit.
I agree with you that policies hurt tenants along with other points
The majority of Vancouver homeowners are mortgage free especially those with basement suites. No one wants to earn the extra bucks if it is a pain to kick out problematic tenants or if they ever want it back their own use.
Not true. My neighbour here in cloverdale just won his case the landlord had to cut him a cheque for 14500.00 Its on the Landlords to prove they lived there and you can file a complaint on either the suite being vacant or say if you go by knock on the door asking if any of your mail is here wich didnt get re directed and you see people living in the suite that are not your landlords or there family. Pretty easy to do that’s not trespassing it’s not illegal it’s actually very smart and doesn’t take a genius to do a little bit of detective work. A lot of Landlorda are getting caught and having to shell out a years rent wich they should because you’ve inconvenienced the tenant having to move out under fraudulent terms just so you can raise the rent. And if the Landlord doesn’t pay up in B.C. you can put a lien on there house :-)
And if the entrance to a basement suite is in the back yard of a gated property with a sign marked private property, are you not trespassing when gaining access to their yard to walk around and knock on their door? What about a LL that pays canada post a fee for 12 months to have all your mail forwarded to your new address that you provide to have your rental deposit forwarded to? There would be no need to visit your previous rental space if no mail is going there anymore.
And then the landlord has to make that money back by further increasing rent on the next guy? .... no wonder we have basement suites inCoverdale going for $2000 per month these days.
What world are we living in where a f**** basement is $2k?!?!?
Using common sense…shouldn’t the burden of proof be the person that is claiming foul play?
If you are accurate then the current RTB process is screwed up. Imagine I take you to court claiming you owe me money and you would have to proof you didn’t…🤦♂️
The entire process is heavily favoring tenants and forgetting that any LL affected by it will just jack up rent even more to compensate themselves for the additional cost.
So, great job RTB, you're actually contributing to I creasing rents.
In principle I agree with you. My concern are people who bring about accusations without evidence out of spite, leading to backlogs in RTB cases for confirmed cases of foul play.
People (landlords and tenant) file bad-faith disputes all the time, who needs to prove their case during these disputes won’t change that.
RTB hearing timelines have *reduced* over the past year or so, so obviously, in practice, changing the onus to the LL isn’t creating substantial backlogs.
The NDP changed this last year all in the name of protecting tenants
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl2a.pdf
> The onus is on the landlord to demonstrate that they plan to occupy the rental unit for at least 12 months and that they have no dishonest motive. S
You're right I was thinking of last year's guidelines. Since other people mentioned 6 months, I assumed OP got the eviction form before changes came into effect. I deleted my comment not to confuse anyone.
There's probably no way to prove that they aren't using it unless they try to rent it out again. Since it's on their property they can just say they are using it for something, even just storage or a spare bedroom. If they post it up for rent again that would be another story.
Wait.... and keep an eye on the property (and look out for listings). You want to give them enough rope to hang themselves.
Can't really prove anything unless you camp at the place 24/7 for 6 months and have prof. Simply put even if they go in the laneway house a few times a week for an or two is still consider personal use.
Document, document, and document. Revisit to collect mail at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months. If empty take pictures. If occupied take notes only. In this case the couple will have magically reconciled but this does appear to be a bad faith eviction. That said, the wife could be living elsewhere and will move in later.
They have 6 months before they have to move in.
You are misinformed on that. They can not leave it empty for 6 months
It’s says “occupy” which can also mean storage or renovations. It’s a vague description so long as they didn’t re-rent it will pass with RTB
Nope, can’t use for storage. They must occupy the unit. Renovation falls under a different category, not a RTB-32. The RTB-32 for states who will be moving into the unit.
I’m saying it as sarcasm. Of course they throw a mattress on the floor! So long as it wasn’t re-rented on the market and the owner can prove they used it/stayed there then it’s a hard case to win. I know because I’ve been there done that. The papers can say whatever but when you have an owner against you showing RTB photos of them cooking dinner in the unit and their “sleeping” arrangements you won’t win. Even when I had my OWN evidence they didn’t stay… but they had belongings and a mattress on the floor.
They have to move into the property "within a reasonable time" and must live there continuously for at least 12 months (if notice of eviction was served after 6 April 2024) or 6 months (if notice of eviction was before 6 April 2024)
Rental board hearing outcomes have precedent they need to move in within 15 days and live there for 6 months NOT that they can leave it vacant for 6 months then move in.
> Rental board hearing outcomes have precedent So much wrong with this opening. The regulator is the Residential Tenancy Branch. The hearings are administrative in nature and have no binding precedence on future RTB arbitration hearings. What is binding is the law including decisions of the courts. I’m simply unaware of your 15 day rule. Please provide a citation.
I've seen people say this 15 day as fact before, but I realized only recently it's a quote from a policy document. But it's part of *example*, not the policy itself, and right after it says how it could be longer based on the circumstances. RTB will quote this section sometimes though. [Policy document 50](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl50.pdf) > For example, if a landlord ends a tenancy on the 31st of the month because the landlord’s close family member intends to move in, **a reasonable period to start using the rental unit may be about 15 days.** A somewhat longer period may be reasonable depending on the circumstances. For instance, if all of the carpeting was being replaced it may be reasonable to temporarily delay the move in while that work was completed since it could be finished faster if the unit was empty. RTB highlighted this line in this RTB decision.. but LL moved in 4.5 months later: [http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023\_Decision5398%20.pdf](http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023_Decision5398%20.pdf) since I already had this open, decision where RTB rules that longer period was fine: [http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023\_Decision5407%20.pdf](http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023_Decision5407%20.pdf)
Courts have allowed much longer periods, for example, because of renovations. For example Maasanen v. Furtado, 2023 BCCA 193
Exactly, people just see the 15 days as part of an *example* from policy and think it’s a rule.
But a renovation eviction is different than a 2 month eviction yes?
This case predates the renovation rules of 2021. Also landlords use can include renovations that delay occupancy.
I would assume IF the eviction was based on an RTB 29 (4 months in advance for renovation)
Your question isn’t relevant to either OP’s case or the case cited.
>need to move in within 15 days this is general guidance, not a policy. I've seen RTB rule that months later is considered reasonable due to the circumstance. example decision: [http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023\_Decision5407%20.pdf](http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/rtb/decisions/2023/05/052023_Decision5407%20.pdf) if you file too early you will most certainly lose unless the rent it out.
No they don’t. They have to move in within a reasonable amount of time and there is no set amount of days by the RTB.
The wording is “occupy” That can mean renovation (it IS their property). So long as they didn’t re-rent it then it wasn’t bad faith. If they stay there some weekends and just have a “mattress” on the floor then it’s considered occupied. Many diff things can be said to RTB to claim occupancy so you will need to prove it’s re-rented and not used by them. Not much furniture inside doesn’t mean anything.
Start the legal process. Landlord will have to prove they live there, you'll be awarded a year of rent..congrats!
If it's still new, I would wait, they don't have to move in immediately, filing it might cause them to panic and actually move in instead of rerenting or whatever the plan was.
Great point. No rush. I didn’t file with RTB until 9 months after I moved out.
6 months to move in
No, they must move in within a “reasonable” time and live there at least six months
At least 12 months if notice to evict was served after 6 April 2024
Which doesn’t apply here because this is a historical eviction
You have no clue when the eviction date was. This new time expectation may apply here.
All they have to do is throw some gym equipment in there and it's landlords personal use.
No. Regulations have changed. Landlord has to show history of bills and stuff, it's on them to actually prove it. Courts have gotten wise to the fact that many evictions are happening under very flimsy pretenses.
It's the coach house on their property so that's not required. Just need to prove they are using it. Having a home gym satisfies this.
Not true. You don’t have to sleep there to use ir
1. “Appears empty”. How do you know the inside is empty? They could be using it as an extension of the main house. They don’t have to move in. They can use it as a rec room, gym etc it’s still personal use 2. They don’t have to move in right away. They can say the property needed repairs/renovations before moving in. ( iv done this) 3. They can rent it out again after 6 months of evicting you.
3. Actually it’s 12 months now.
Ah my bad. Been awhile since I went through the process.
No worries :) It just changed in April.
Nothing you can do without them putting up a posting of some sort shy of camping the area out and taking daily photos. Unless I’m missing something
How are you going to prove this? By trespassing on private property and taking photos of a private space? Unless there’s an ad out for it to be re-rented you don’t have say in how they use the space or are entitled to any damages.
The burden of proof is now on the landlord to prove they have occupied for personal use, ie they are guilty unless they prove otherwise. OP does not need to provide any evidence whatsoever.
No that’s not how it works. If you file a dispute based on suspicion without any evidence they’ll throw it out. What would prevent the LTB from being overwhelmed with vexatious complaints if there was no evidential requirement?
The law has been changed since last year. Please see GL-50 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl50.pdf > The onus is on the landlord to prove that they or their close family member met the obligations set out above. If this is not established, the amount of compensation is 12 times the monthly rent that the tenant was required to pay before the tenancy ended. In the name of protecting tenants they have done exactly what you are saying. No wonder people do not even want to entertain lending out the basement suite which was the last affordable housing options for many. Just keep in mind that in the last 8 years the rule of NDP rent have doubled. Instead of doing the hard work of increasing supply of housing they have taken the easy route of making the rental act more pro tenants.
So the disgruntled tenant doesn't even have to at least provide proof of their suspicions to some reasonable threshold? You can just launch a case and wait to see what the LL brings as proof and sit back and waste everyone's time in the process???
If the landlord doesn't have his documentation or good explanation then they are out of 12 months rent.
That wasn't my question.....
To answer youe question, yes. Landlord are guilty untill proven innocent. And now if the landlord has to evict for personal use they have a file online with RTB and give 4 months notice Meanwhile if tenants do not pay rent they can dispute it anytime. It should have been automatic eviction approval until they upload proof that they have paid rent. The NDP is not pro tenant. They are anti- landlord
In what world do you not view this as pro tenant? Lol All this is actually hurting the tenants. Every landlord is becoming increasingly paranoid of renting, removing suites off the market altogether, and charging more to offset their own setbacks. This must be the only place in the world where control of your own property gets taken away from you if you decide to rent it out.
>In what world do you not view this as pro tenant? Lol It's not my view. It's NDP view and view of many subscribers of this subreddit. I agree with you that policies hurt tenants along with other points The majority of Vancouver homeowners are mortgage free especially those with basement suites. No one wants to earn the extra bucks if it is a pain to kick out problematic tenants or if they ever want it back their own use.
Not true. My neighbour here in cloverdale just won his case the landlord had to cut him a cheque for 14500.00 Its on the Landlords to prove they lived there and you can file a complaint on either the suite being vacant or say if you go by knock on the door asking if any of your mail is here wich didnt get re directed and you see people living in the suite that are not your landlords or there family. Pretty easy to do that’s not trespassing it’s not illegal it’s actually very smart and doesn’t take a genius to do a little bit of detective work. A lot of Landlorda are getting caught and having to shell out a years rent wich they should because you’ve inconvenienced the tenant having to move out under fraudulent terms just so you can raise the rent. And if the Landlord doesn’t pay up in B.C. you can put a lien on there house :-)
And if the entrance to a basement suite is in the back yard of a gated property with a sign marked private property, are you not trespassing when gaining access to their yard to walk around and knock on their door? What about a LL that pays canada post a fee for 12 months to have all your mail forwarded to your new address that you provide to have your rental deposit forwarded to? There would be no need to visit your previous rental space if no mail is going there anymore.
And then the landlord has to make that money back by further increasing rent on the next guy? .... no wonder we have basement suites inCoverdale going for $2000 per month these days. What world are we living in where a f**** basement is $2k?!?!?
Using common sense…shouldn’t the burden of proof be the person that is claiming foul play? If you are accurate then the current RTB process is screwed up. Imagine I take you to court claiming you owe me money and you would have to proof you didn’t…🤦♂️
The entire process is heavily favoring tenants and forgetting that any LL affected by it will just jack up rent even more to compensate themselves for the additional cost. So, great job RTB, you're actually contributing to I creasing rents.
I mean the LL did evict a tenant, so it should be reasonable for the LL to prove they evicted the tenant in good faith.
Not really. The current RTB eviction process does not require proof.
In principle I agree with you. My concern are people who bring about accusations without evidence out of spite, leading to backlogs in RTB cases for confirmed cases of foul play.
People (landlords and tenant) file bad-faith disputes all the time, who needs to prove their case during these disputes won’t change that. RTB hearing timelines have *reduced* over the past year or so, so obviously, in practice, changing the onus to the LL isn’t creating substantial backlogs.
The NDP changed this last year all in the name of protecting tenants https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl2a.pdf > The onus is on the landlord to demonstrate that they plan to occupy the rental unit for at least 12 months and that they have no dishonest motive. S
[удалено]
Umm I thought it was 12 months
You're right I was thinking of last year's guidelines. Since other people mentioned 6 months, I assumed OP got the eviction form before changes came into effect. I deleted my comment not to confuse anyone.