P.O. Box 22020, Penticton, BC  V2A 8L1

If you have concerns or questions in your park,

please contact one of the following Phone Numbers.

Please call between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. only.

Penticton/Summerland Ray N. 250.493.9106
Oliver/Osoyoos Hugh 250.498.0145
Keremeos Dianne 250.499.2665
Olalla/Princeton Rick 250.499.9034

Click on the words below to go to that specific page within the website.

Meeting Dates
MHP Locations

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 .



We have some on-going issues that we hope will be soon resolved successfully and some that are now considered victories.

In 2013 there was a victory in one of the parks regarding the removal of trees. The arbitration is outlined below.

Introduction:  This matter dealt with an application by the Tenants for the Landlord to comply with the Act, Regulations or the tenancy agreement, to make repairs for health and safety reasons and to recover the filing fee.

The Tenant said she served the Landlords with the Application and Notice of Hearing (the "hearing package") by registered mail on April 16, 2013.  Based on the evidence of the Tenant, I find that the Landlord was served with the Tenants' hearing package as required by s. 89 of the Act and the hearing proceeded with both parties in attendance.

Issue(s) to be decided

  1. Are there repairs to the unit, site or property to be made?

  2. Has the Landlord complied with the Act, Regulations and tenancy agreement?

Background and Evidence

This tenancy started in April, 2007 as a month to month tenancy.  Rent is $285.00 per month payable in advance of the 1st day of each month.

The Tenant said they are requesting that the Landlord bring in a Certified Arborist into the Park to examine and to prune or remove trees that are adjacent to their mobile home if required to.  The Tenant said they are making this request because the trees appear to be in poor condition and are dropping branches on their mobile home and in their yard.  The Tenant said she is concerned for her safety as some of the branches falling are as large in diameter as her leg.  The Tenant said they have talked to the Landlord, but the Landlord refuses to do anything about the trees.  The Tenant said the Landlord told her to apply to the Residential Tenancy Branch if they wanted to get a decision about the trees.

The Tenant also said they have requested to recover their filing fee of $50.00, but have not asked for any other compensation at this point.  The Tenant said they just want the trees to be looked at and pruned or removed if the trees are unsafe.

The Landlord said the Park does not have the money to prune or remove the trees so the Park is not going to call in an Arborist and the Park is not going to do any work on the trees.  The Landlord said if the Tenant wants to pay for the trees to be pruned or removed the Tenant can go ahead and do it.

The Tenant said they do not want to do the work because the trees are the Landlord's responsibility and the Landlord is also responsible to make sure the Park is safe.  The Tenant said the trees are the responsibility of the Landlord.

The Landlord said the trees may be he responsibility, but there is no money to do any tree work so she is not going to do any work on the trees.


Section 26 of the Act says a Landlord must provide and maintain the manufactured home park in a reasonable state of repairs and comply with housing and health and safety standards required by law.

Therefore the Landlord is obligated to repair items included in the tenancy agreement and the manufactured home park.  The Tenant and the Landlord both agree that the trees are part of the manufactured home park; therefore the trees are the Landlord's responsibility.  Whether the Landlord says they can or cannot afford to maintain the manufactured home park it is still the Landlord's obligation to provide a manufactured home park that is safe.  Consequently, I Order the Landlord to hire a certified Arborist to examine the trees to determine if there is a safety issue, how to correct any safety issues and how much it would cost to make the trees safe.  I Order the Landlord to complete the inspection no later than May 31, 2013.

Further I Order the Landlord to complete any pruning or tree removal that the Arborist recommends to correct the tree safety issue no later than June 30, 2013.

As well I Order the Landlord to give the Tenant 24 hour Notice as to when the Arborist is coming to do the tree inspection and the Landlord will include the Tenant in the meeting with the Arborist.

In addition if the Landlord does not comply with these Orders, I give leave to the Tenant to apply the monetary compensation and a rent reduction, due to the Landlord's non compliance of these Orders and for any inconveniences or loss of quiet enjoyment that the Tenants have suffered.

As the Tenant has successful in this matter I Order the Tenant to recover the $50.00 filing fee from the Landlord by reducing the June, 2013 rent by $50.00.  The Tenants are Ordered to reduce the June, 2013 rent from $285.00 to $235.00.


The Landlord is Ordered to hire an Arborist to access the condition of the trees and the Landlord is Ordered to comply with the Arborist's recommendation as to how to resolve any safety issues associated with the trees.

All safety issues with the trees are to be resolved by June 30, 2013.

This decision is made on authority delegated tome by the Director of the Residential Tenancy branch under Section 9.1(1) of the Residential Tenancy Act.

Dated: May 13, 2013.



9 Tenants in the Cherrywood Estates MHP are successful with their Dispute Resolution in 2012.

In this Dispute Resolution the 9 tenants claims were heard separately.  In 8 of the 9 claims the landlord had imposed rent increases exceeding the allowable rental increase for the years in question and had not included in his notices evidence for the allowable proportional amount relating to increased property taxes or utilities.  In the claim of the 9th tenant, the landlord had served his rent increase notice in the form of a typewritten note, which was deemed not to be the approved form as required under Section 35 of the Act.  Neither did the typewritten notice provide any information regarding the recourse they may have taken to dispute the increase.
If a landlord imposes a rent increase that is non-compliant with the requirements under the Act and all subsequent rent increases are based on the amount of rent determined, in part, by that original non-compliant rent increase are invalid, rendering the amount of rent to be the amount paid prior to the 1st non-compliant rent increase.
It was found that the tenants had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the value of their individual claims for compensation for the non-compliant rent increases and they were granted the amount claimed on each file.  In addition and based on the findings and the undisputed rental data provided by the tenants  it was found the amounts of rent, effective from the date of the decision to be in the amounts ranging from $200 to $270.
In conclusion:  the individual tenants were entitled to monetary compensation pursuant to Section 67 for the loss of quiet enjoyment.  The total amounts were comprised of the amounts claimed by each tenant for rent only and ranged from $45.48 to $1,608.36.  And monetary orders were granted based on those amounts.  The orders were to be served on the landlord by each tenant.  If the landlord failed to comply with any order the subject tenant was to file the order in the Provincial Court (Small Claims) and they would be enforced as an order of the Court.

To read the recent April 18th, 2012 victory at Tradewinds click on the arbitration document here.

A Lease Assignment story, with a happy ending.

A Tenant of Pleasant Valley M.H.P. listed her home for sale with a Realtor, and subsequently accepted an offer of $96,000.   The Tenant's Realtor did everything right and presented the Park Manager with a "Request for Consent to Assign a Manufactured Home Site Tenancy Agreement", as stated in section 5 of the Contract to Purchase and Sale of a Manufactured Home on a Rental Pad.  This contract states that if the Park Owner does not provide consent, the sales contract will become null and void, and any deposits to be returned.  This was not expected to be a problem, as the purchaser met the criteria in the Manufactured Home Tenancy Regulations for acceptance.

The selling Tenant subsequently rented an Apartment and moved her belongings into it. The Park Manager has 10 days to either accept or reject the assignment, in writing in the section of the Assignment form designated for his response. Instead, on the 10th day he verbally rejected the request, and the reason given did not comply with the Regulations. When this happened, the offer to purchase was withdrawn.

The Tenant felt intimidated by the Park Management, and turned to our Association for help. We explained that the reason given to refuse the assignment was not legal, and in any event, as the Landlord had not responded within 10 days, on the designated form, the assignment should have been conclusively deemed to have been given, as stated on page one of the Request to Assign form.

We referred the Tenant to a legal Advocate for advice, and as a result, she started a legal action against the Park Owner to recover her expenses (rent, moving cost, etc.)

The Park Owner contacted the Tenant, with a representative of our Association, and the Landlord's responsibilities on assignment within the Tenancy Act were explained. The actions of the Park Manager, Stanmar Manufactured Home Services, had exposed the Park Owners to potential liability and they were eager to try and rectify the situation.

An attempt was made to contact the original purchaser, but when this didn't work out, the Park Owners offered to purchase the Home themselves.  They had an inspection done and as a result they low balled the offer by $5,000.  The frustrated Tenant accepted the offer, and the purchase was completed.

It should be noted that these Park Owners are new to the business, and are not yet aware of all the rules that govern Manufactured Home Parks. This is why they employ an experienced manager, Stanmar Services, who in this case let them down.

The Tenant was disturbed that the illegal actions of Stanmar Services had caused her to lose $5,000 on the sale of her home. She filed suit to recover the $5,000 from Stanmar Services and Stanmar eventually settled out of court for $2,500.

This story has a happy ending, but that is not always the case in these Landlord Tenant disputes. Although feeling intimidated this courageous lady sought our help saying,

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to stand for it".


Progress at Whitewater Manufactured Home Park.

We have had success this year in having a notice of rent increase rescinded!

On October 28, 2010 owners of manufactured homes in Whitewater MHP had delivered to their door a large white envelope containing 93 pages.  In the package was a Notice of Rent increase that consisted of a 2011 rent increase of 2.3% and a proportional amount increase (based on the increase of utility and tax bills) of $111.61 per unit per year.  The remainder of the contents of the envelope were copies of the supporting documentation (the bills).  The mound of information was confusing and unordered, the Notice of Rent Increase poorly filled out and included numerous obvious mistakes.

I immediately called our Property management for clarification on some of the information provided.  I was unable to talk to the manager and left a message for a return call.  After almost a week of messages and emails I was still unable to talk to the management about my concerns.

As Whitewater's park representative to the Penticton and District MHOA I distributed a letter to every Home in the park letting them know of my concern and asking them to attend a meeting to discuss the options open to the owners in the park, I invited the park manager.  The attendance was low but those that did attend brought some very good suggestions and ideas, the manager did not attend.

I delivered a letter requesting additional information and addressing some of the questions that arose from the meeting to the management office on November 5th and booked an appointment to see the manager personally.  After reviewing the information provided and rules that govern the proportional amount increase I realized that the person responsible had made a serious calculation error when determining the increase.  The treasurer of the PDMHOA reviewed the calculations and confirmed my findings that instead of an increase of over $10,000.00 in utilities there was actually a decrease in costs.   He set up the calculations on a spreadsheet so it was easy to read and understand.

The meeting with park management was set and delayed and finally occurred on November 16th.  I attended this meeting along with another owner in the park.  I had expected that the questions brought up in my letter and the issues concerning the increases would be addressed at the meeting, however the manager was not interested in hearing our concerns, he passed us off to his secretary who said she would get back to us within a week.  I followed up this meeting with an email of our concerns, and sent a copy of our calculation to the management office and the Park owner in Vancouver.  I distributed a copy to every owner in the park.

Again, by the beginning of December after numerous phone calls and email I still had no answers to the initial questions submitted November 5th or the issues brought up at the meeting.  I contacted the Residential Tenancy Branch, and on November 16 was asked to fax them the information because they felt they could intervene on behalf of the entire park with the management before a dispute was put through.  I was contacted January 7th by the Residential Tenancy Branch letting me know that they had found numerous problems with the increase package and advising me to file for resolution dispute.

On Tuesday January 11th I filed the dispute.

On Friday January 14th a letter was received by mail from the property management informing all owners in the park that the increase dated October 28th had been completely rescinded.

I withdrew the dispute.



Modified  01/20/2016

Property of  P&DMHOA 2016

Contact  Webmaster for website issues only at