PENTICTON & DISTRICT MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 22020, Penticton, BC V2A 8L1
Click on the words below to go to that specific
page within the website.
Click on the button below to get the newest FREE Adobe Reader DC download. Please untick any Optional third party Offers you see listed, for example McAfee, before starting the download .
More Victories Page 4
BEFORE GOING FURTHER PLEASE READ THE DISCLAIMER PAGE
TWO OK MHP TENANTS v OKMHP
Another Dispute Resolution has been won by two tenants in the OK Mobile Home Park in Keremeos.
Firstly the dispute was centered on a One Month Notice to End Tenancy for Cause which the Landlord had served on the Tenants. The adjudicator found that the Notice contained fatal errors in the dates, was not supported by the evidence, and therefore had no force and effect. It was ordered that the Notice be cancelled. Due to foul odors emitting from their plumbing, and their sinks and toilets plugging up, the tenants on numerous occasions had requested the Landlord repair the sewer and septic, the problem remained. The Landlord rebutted that a plumber had fixed the septic tank, cleaned and cleared the sewer line, but that the problem was the cat hair in the line. The tenants stated that their septic tank was cleaned once, but not the main tank. Because the Landlord had breached Section 26 of the Act, which required him to maintain the Manufactured Home Park in a reasonable state of repairs and which complies with health, safety and housing standards required by law, the Landlord was ordered to do the following:
a. Immediately clean, repair or replace the septic tank and sewer line so as to ensure the plumbing in the Tenants' home meets health and safety standards.
Secondly, everything else followed from the cancellation of the eviction notice. Since the Tenants could not be evicted with cause, then rent batement became the focus. The Tenants testified that they had been served 5 notices of rent increase since the tenancy began in June 2009, the first 3 were on scraps of paper. The current increase is from the original rent of $246.70 to $255.84 beginning in February 2010, less than a year after the tenancy began. The Tenants were initially given approval to have cats and other pets when they first moved in provided they met certain conditions. The Landlord then tried to verbally change that policy.
The RTB Dispute Resolution Officer ordered that:
1. Because the Landlord has breached Section 35 of the Act regarding Notices of Rent Increases, it was found that the original and subsequent increases are invalid, and therefore it was ordered that the monthly rent for the site be returned to the same as it was at the beginning of the tenancy, $246.70, contingent on any future increases in compliance with the Act.
2. It was then ordered that the Landlord repay the Tenants all rent paid in excess of $246.70 per month since the rent was increased to that amount in February 2010, and the difference be deducted from the reduced rent as set out in the order.
3. The Landlord was further ordered to compensate the Tenants in the amount of $25 per month retroactively since June 2009, in the amount of $425 to be satisfied as set out in the order. So it was found that the Tenants had established a total monetary claim of $507.26 comprised of an amount for rent paid in execess and another amount for retroactive rent abatement. The end result of the order is that they have no rent to pay for November and December 2010 and a reduced rent to pay in January 2011.
4. It was further ordered that the monthly rent be reduced beginning in January 2011 to $221.70 for continuing rent abatement of $25 per month until such time as the Landlord completes the above ordered repairs, files and pays for an Application of Dispute Resolution, proves the above work has been completed in a good and workmanlike manner, and receives an order from a Dispute Resolution Officer that the rent may return to $246.70 per month.
TWO WHITEWATER MHP TENANTS v WHITEWATER MHP
The Park Rep for Whitewater MHP reports a victory of sorts in that the last 5 sales in the park were able to get the consent of the park owner for the Assignment of Tenancy Agreement. So that the new tenants then took ownership at the same rent as the previous owner.
YOU WILL FIND MORE VICTORIES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES.