Seafield Apartments

New Owners, New Evictions...or Not?

Seafielders were advised by media today that Gordon Nelson Inc has sold the heritage apartment building to new owners.

The sale is reported on the landlord’s website, where they also state that they have been denied the right to invest.

They have been denied the right to evict tenants for the sole purpose of increasing rents – there is nothing about the decision that denies them the ability to renovate, and to work with the tenants to complete renovations.

Their assertion is simply not true.

At this time Seafielders are fully prepared to enter into a new chapter with their new landlords, one which they anticipate will be as fair and fulfilling for all parties as it was with the ownership prior to Gordon Nelson’s purchase of the building in 2008.

Residents are dismayed at the deliberate neglect that GNI has willfully inflicted on the building.

Our response to Gordon Nelson was the same that any community would have to a new landlord who announces their intentions to evict for cosmetic renovations or demand a 73 percent rent increase.

Gordon Nelson purchased the building based on the assumption they could casually mass evict people from their homes in the name of profit, as they have in every single other building they have bought.

We stood our ground, and will continue to stand our ground in the face of any future injustice.

Seafield Residents Victorious in Renoviction Case Against Landlord Gordon Nelson Inc.

Seafield victory a big win in the fight against renovictions – but it comes at a high price for residents.

The Residential Tenancy Branch found this week that Gordon Nelson Inc. did not meet the test of good faith in their application to mass evict tenants at 1436 Pendrell St for “renovations”.

The dispute resolution officer stated that Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson of GNI had ulterior motives behind the eviction notices they issued:

“In consideration of the Landlord’s submissions with regard to good faith intent, I find, on a balance of probabilities, their claim is undermined by their ulterior, primary motive of obtaining a substantial rent increase. Therefore I find that the landlord is attempting to end these tenancies in bad faith.”

In late November, 2010, Gordon Nelson Inc. issued eviction notices for renovations en masse to residents of the Seafield Apartments, including 84-year-old Rolland McFall and Dana Crudo, a pregnant woman.

The eviction notices came just 10 days after Gordon Nelson Inc. lost their application for an up-to 73% rent increase at the Seafield, which they had been pursuing since February 2009. When that avenue of substantially increasing rent at the Seafield was closed to them, Gordon Nelson turned around and issued mass eviction notices for renovations.

Gordon Nelson are appealing their loss of an up-to 73% rent increase while, at the same time, arguing that the building is unsafe and in need of renovations that require mass eviction.

Tenants worked around the clock (and around their full time jobs) for two months to prepare a case defending their homes.

Their evidence consisted of:
·      Letters from several contractors outlining that it is possible to complete the renovations with tenants in place
·      Letters from residents stating their willingness to accommodate the renovations using whatever means necessary
·      Letters/emails from the landlords documenting their attempt to obtain more money from residents using the threat of evictions renovations

Graphic Generously Donated by T. Pentlad

The dispute resolution officer found that the landlord’s overriding motivation was to achieve significant rent increases through mass evictions, not to extend the useful life of the building and conduct renovations, and stated:

“In the circumstances before me I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the Landlord was not acting in good faith when they served the Tenants with the Notices to End Tenancy. Rather, I find that it is likely that the Notices to End Tenancy were served because the Landlord was unsuccessful in their attempt to achieve significantly higher rates of rent for the rental units in question.”

Further, the DRO concludes: “…by the Landlord’s own admissions, they stated they were willing to postpone renovations for years in exchange for the Tenants paying higher rents. I find by their own words, the Landlord weighed the benefits of receiving higher rents over the need or desire to renovate a building which they claimed was unsafe and required renovations.”

While residents are overjoyed with the decision, this victory is not indicative of a working system. Tenants at the Seafield have devoted the past 2.5 years of their lives to fighting this cause for all renters in B.C. – a fight few are either willing or able to take on.

“There are no penalties for landlords who abuse the law. It basically costs them nothing to try,” says tenant Melissa Mewdell. “Despite the fact that we have demonstrated that this company has ulterior motives for eviction, there is nothing stopping Gordon Nelson from doing this again to us, or to anyone.”

“The law gives them carte blanche to make the lives of tenants a living hell, and they’ve been doing it for years,” she said.

Seafielders have put in hundreds of hours of work and have been to the Supreme Court of B. C. once, and to the Residential Tenancy Office for eight separate cases since Gordon Nelson bought the building two years ago.

The 2 1/2 year on-going battle has cost the Seafield’s close community dearly, with the departure of one couple due to health issues brought on by the continuing stress; the only successful targeted eviction of a family for a  “resident manager”; and a third resident who left out of frustration and fatigue in February due to this fight.

Seafielders applaud the RTB for this landmark decision. However, when tenants must sacrifice huge amounts of their lives to defend their rights to live in peace, changes to the Residential Tenancy Act are clearly needed.

Seafielders will be speaking with the media about this decision at 9 a.m. in front of the building (1436 Pendrell Street).

Seafield Media Contact: Doug King from the Pivot Legal Society (778) 898-6349

Photo by Ian Smith

It’s rare that Seafielders post articles that appear in the media on their homepage – but this is an article that was contributed to the Vancouver Sun today by the West End’s MLA, Spencer Chandra Herbert. Spencer has been a big supporter of all of us at the Seafield since day one – and has done his best to help residents in the West End defend their community against landlords like Gordon Nelson Inc. Thank you for the strong words and ongoing support, Spencer!

By Spencer Chandra Herbert
Special to the Vancouver Sun

Imagine you live in an apartment building where your landlords believe you should pay 73 per cent more in rent. The landlords say your building is the same as ones with swimming pools, fitness centres, large decks and ocean views. They argue that your building is in the class of luxury apartments, is undervalued, and you should pay what others in similar great buildings pay, even if it means paying thousands more.

Now imagine you live in an apartment building that the landlords claim is falling apart. They say it has reached the end of its life, poses a fire hazard, and that the power blows out all the time. They want to evict you because the building is in such bad shape, and needs to be renovated as soon as possible or it could be finished.

Both scenarios are real, and if you live in the Seafield apartment building in the West End, you are living both of them at the same time. The Seafield is a structurally sound building that was well-maintained by the previous landlord, with whom the tenants worked on several occasions to complete major upgrades. However, since July 2008, when the building was purchased by the current owners, the residents of the Seafield have gone to the Residential Tenancy Branch 13 separate times to challenge unfair practices and to fight to stay in their homes.

It’s as if the landlords are playing the villains in a bad movie with a gun to the building, saying: “Pay 73 per cent more, or the building gets it!”

How is this possible? How can someone be told in one year that they should pay 73 per cent more in rent because their building is so luxurious, and then the next that they must be evicted from the same building because the landlords now claim it is crumbling, and requires a building-wide overhaul.

It’s possible because in 2004 the B.C. Liberals made significant changes to the Residential Tenancy Act, throwing it out of balance, in favour of a few large landlord corporations, and at a loss to renters.

Now let’s think about another example in the West End. In the Emerald Terrace apartment building, 41 tenants received letters telling them they would be evicted because, according to the landlord, the renovations would be so disruptive that “by law” the residents must move out.

Some longtime residents took the landlord’s word and unhappily moved out of the neighbourhood they knew and loved. Other residents stayed, thinking an official eviction notice was on the way. It never came. The landlord’s crew came in, did the renovations with minimal disruption to the tenants, and left. There was no reason any of the tenants had to leave. The tenants who stayed called the landlord’s bluff and still have their homes, with the renovations complete. The ones who left had to pay higher rent in their new homes.

Most landlords want long-term tenants who treat their homes with respect, pay their rent on time and care for their community. A good tenant saves apartment owners money in the long run, and most building owners do whatever they can to keep long-term tenants. Many landlords in the West End do renovations with the tenants’ cooperation, or when they move out as about one in three choose to do every year. Unfortunately, a few unscrupulous landlords continue to use legislation which was meant to provide security of tenure, and a balance of rights and responsibilities between renters and landlords, to do just the opposite — force people out, and jack up rents over and above what they would legally be allowed to do in normal circumstances.

The Residential Tenancy Act as we know it is badly in need of reform. In B.C., it is far too easy for unscrupulous landlords to use this piece of legislation to force people out or seek huge rent increases. The fact is that this doesn’t happen in other provinces like Ontario, where there exists a more balanced tenancy act. The solutions are out there; the B.C. Liberal government just needs to act.

To go back to where this began. Where can you live in a building that is both supposedly worth 73 per cent more than you are paying because it is so luxurious, yet also crumbling and unfit for habitation?

Only in British Columbia with a Residential Tenancy Act badly in need of real renovation.

Spencer Chandra Herbert is the New Democrat MLA for Vancouver-West End.

Photo: Illustration of a Typical Seafield Tenant Trying to Understand the Logic

‘Tis the season to be greedy.

Seafield residents learned that Gordon Nelson Inc. has applied for a Judicial Review of the recent RTO decision denying them an up-to 73% rent increase at the Seafield Apartments.

GNI intends to have the case reviewed at the Supreme Court in hopes that the decision, which found that they did not prove their case that residents pay “below average” rent for their apartments, will be overturned.

They make this application while attempting to mass evict all the residents for what they claim are “needed” renovations to “repair a crumbling building”.

It’s hard to follow the logic, but humour us for a moment:  it seems that Gordon Nelson think that Seafielders should be paying up to 73% more in rent to reside in a building that they say is falling apart.

Are you as confused as we are? If so – tell us all about it!

Seafield tenants learned yesterday that Gordon Nelson Inc. (GNI) are withdrawing their offer to “end tenancies amicably” for their upcoming renovations by way of an email sent to their group email address.

GNI are reneging on the offer, which mainly consisted of what they would be required to do by law, two days after residents went public with the landlord’s plans to mass evict tenants in the building for renovations.

Originally, tenants had until December 10, 2010, to accept the deal.

The “offer” included extra compensation of one additional month’s rent and moving costs of $1,000.

Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson also offered a backhanded threat: the forgiving of retroactive rent increases that they intend to win at a Judicial Review of the recent RTO decision dismissing outright their up-to 73% rent increase (note that, at this point, Gordon Nelson have not applied for a judicial review of the case).

Adding insult to injury, tenants who agreed to sign their rights away would be given good reference letters for their new landlords.

This is not the first time Gordon Nelson have attempted to “punish” residents at the Seafield for exercising free speech.

Brian Broster, a vocal opponent of mass evictions in the neighbourhood and above annual rent increases, received an eviction notice in 2009 for speaking to the media, participating in renters’ rights rallies, speaking about the Seafield at city hall, and proposing the protection of renters from “renovictions” through the City’s Zoning Bylaw.

Gordon Nelson Inc. lost their case against Brian.

Residents will file for a dispute resolution hearing to fight their renovictions.

Rollie McFall Talks to Mayor Gregor Robertson About Gordon Nelson's Latest Tactic

Mass renovictions are latest in string of tactics to remove Seafield tenants from their homes.

Seafield residents, including an 84-year-old man battling cancer and a pregnant woman, learned last week that they are now all being targeted for eviction for renovations by landlord Gordon Nelson Inc. under section 49(6)(b) of the Residential Tenancy Act, despite Seafielders having maintained since 2008 that they are willing to accommodate all renovations.

Gordon Nelson are determined to use every tactic imaginable to evict tenants and raise rents, and have been relentless over more than two years to end existing tenancy agreements at the Seafield.

Such tactics have included: targeted evictions against 4 units, an attempt to raise rents by up to 73% (which the majority of tenants could not afford), and, most recently, targeting a vocal family in order to put a caretaker in their suite.

In fact, the “renoviction” notices came just ten days after the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) denied Gordon Nelson’s up-to-73% area rent increase after a rehearing of the case.

Now that this avenue to circumvent the legally allowed annual rent increases is closed, Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson of GNI are returning to their original tactic purporting that the building—which was well maintained prior to their 2008 purchase, and received a positive inspection in 2009—is suddenly in dire need of renovations, requiring mass eviction.

Gordon Nelson are offering residents mostly what they are required to provide by law, as well as good reference letters, in exchange for signing their rights away.

Seafield residents will speak to the media about Gordon Nelson’s latest abuses of the law on Sunday, December 5, 2010, at 11 a.m.

For further background, please visit http://seafieldapartments.com/, or contact Seafield residents by email.

Residents of the Seafield Apartments, at 1436 Pendrell Street in Vancouver, have received news that landlord Gordon Nelson Inc’s application for a 73% rent increase has been dismissed at the Residential Tenancy Office (RTO).

Residents endured a two-year legal battle that involved collecting extensive evidence demonstrating that their rents were in line with other similar apartments in the West End, pursuing a Supreme Court case to overturn the original, “patently unreasonable” decision, and participating in a second hearing at the RTO last October.

The latest ruling has been issued and is summarized as follows:

“Conclusion:

The landlords’ application for an additional rent increase in respect to all the subject units is dismissed.  The landlord is at liberty to issue rent increases in accordance with and as permitted by the Regulation.”

The ruling in favour of the tenants marks the conclusion of a lengthy and very time consuming process.

What the ruling means is that—following examination of comprehensive evidence submitted by both parties—the Residential Tenancy Branch agrees that the rents being paid by the tenants are not “significantly lower than the rent payable for other rental units that are similar to, and in the same geographic area as, the rental unit(s).”

While Seafielders are obviously pleased and relieved to receive this decision, they are concerned that the system works only for those who have the support and considerable time required to fight the pro-landlord 2004 amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act, which include the Area Geographic Rent increase option.

They are also deeply indebted to the legal expertise of CLAS, without whose assistance a successful and fair outcome would also likely not have been attainable.

Seafielders also cannot under-emphasize the degree of vulnerability experienced by tenants who speak out in their own defence, as evidenced by a series of attempted evictions for cause, including the successful eviction of a Seafield family who were vocal in this struggle.

For more information, or to obtain a copy of the decision, please email Seafield residents.

Christine and Mark will Always be Seafielders, No Matter Where they Live

DRO Bryant did not dispute that a vocal Seafield couple was a target of Gordon Nelson’s, but still granted the landlords the right to evict them less than 10 days after the decision was made.

Seafield residents received sad news today when they learned that the RTO granted permission to Gordon Nelson Inc to evict long-time Seafield residents Christine Brandt and Mark Moore (along with their young son, Miles Moore) on November 1, 2010.

Gordon Nelson issued an eviction notice to the couple on August 27, 2010, under 496(d) of the Residential Tenancy Act, which allows landlords to evict tenants for the purpose of putting a resident manager in the suite.

Christine and Mark, who lived in the building for more than 11 years, were active and vocal opponents of Gordon Nelson’s business model of evicting tenants for “renovations” and drastically raising rents. They were instrumental in Seafielders’ ongoing fight to remain in their homes and often acted as the spokespeople of the building, and as a point of contact between Gordon Nelson and the rest of the tenants.

Residents worked together around the clock for more than a month to help prepare Christine and Mark’s case, which outlined the history of Gordon Nelson’s vexatious behaviour toward the tenants (and Christine and Mark in particular) designed to force them from their homes.

Christine and Mark disputed their eviction at the RTO on October 18, citing bad faith on the part of the landlords for the eviction. They argued that Gordon Nelson targeted them specifically because of their vocal opposition to their business practices, and that there was a comparable vacant apartment available in the building.

Gordon Nelson claimed this unit was under renovation, but residents (many of whom work from home) had never seen or heard any construction work happening in the unit, or seen any appliances removed out.

Gordon Nelson’s evidence showed photos of a pile of carpet that had been removed from the common hallways several days prior to the hearing as proof of their renovations in the unit.

While Dispute Resolution Officer Bryant found that there was evidence that suggested GNI were targeting Christine and Mark, he did not find that this was their “primary motivation” for the eviction.

DRO Bryant accepted everything the landlord and their employees asserted – especially surrounding their caretaker’s personal circumstances limiting her from living in the vacant apartment – without requiring supporting documentation. He also would not allow Christine and Mark to call any of their witnesses, and went so far as to consult Gordon Nelson as to whether those witnesses would be relevant.

Christine remarked, “I was stunned by the proceeding. The outward display of favouritism towards the landlords from the DRO, who is supposed to be fair and balanced, was shocking. Every time we tried to effectively and thoroughly make our case to show Gordon Nelson were acting in bad faith, Bryant would shut us down, and claim it wasn’t relevant. It’s impossible to prove bad faith if you can’t show the history of Gordon Nelson’s actions.”

Although Christine and Mark requested two months notice from the date of DRO Bryant’s ruling to vacate their Seafield home, they and their 7-year old son were given less than 10 days notice to leave by the DRO.

This is legal for the Residential Tenancy Office to do, despite the obvious issue of putting tenants (who have a legal right to dispute evictions) in the situation of having to choose to fight, or choose to pack.

Christine said: “We aren’t appealing because it would be very costly, as we would have to hire a lawyer, and the best outcome we could obtain is that the decision be set aside and the matter sent back to the RTO for a re-hearing. And what is the chance that the re-hearing would be fair and balanced? It just seems too risky, costly and stressful considering what we would have to face and what we could potentially gain.”

Seafielders are deeply saddened and disappointed by the RTO’s ruling, and consider this a great loss to their community.

Mark and Christine are the first of the building’s original tenants to be legally removed from the Seafield since Gordon Nelson purchased the building nearly two and a half years ago, despite their numerous attempts at targeted evictions.

Christine Brandt, Mark Moore and their son, Miles, are Gordon Nelson's latest targets.

Seafield Landlord Mirrors Hollyburn by Choosing to Evict Tenants Despite Having a Vacant Apartment Available

Gordon Nelson Investments is moving to evict a family of three from the Seafield after numerous previous attempts to evict other residents to raise rents have been ruled unlawful, or have been withdrawn.

This is the fifth suite, out of 14, targeted for eviction since Gordon Nelson purchased the building two years ago.

“Chris Nelson and Jason Gordon were very open in sharing their business plan behind renovictions – namely to end tenancies and double rents,” said targeted tenant Christine Brandt.  ”They’ve tried to pick us off one by one.  It hasn’t worked.”

When serving the eviction, Jason Gordon advised Brandt, “This should come as no surprise–we’ve been at war for two years.”

Gordon Nelson Investments has broken nearly all tenancies in the 4 other buildings they’ve purchased.  In total, people living in some 121 GNI-owned West End suites have been evicted or ‘encouraged’ to move, after which the landlord then quickly moves to drastically increase rents.  They also applied to raise the rents in the Seafield by up to 73% but this request was recently overturned in the Supreme Court.

GNI seeks to evict the family from a two bedroom suite when an almost identical two bedroom suite is currently vacant and available.

A one-bedroom apartment was also recently available.  This action echoes the tactics employed by Hollyburn Properties earlier this summer at Emerald Terrace.

Gordon Nelson claim they need to install a manager at the building to oversee maintenance and safety concerns, despite previously having no concerns with having no resident manager onsite for two years.

The landlord claims they can’t put their manager in the vacant downstairs suite because the manager who would reside there “needs significant space and the security of a non-ground floor suite.”

Curiously the vacant suite was deemed completely safe to rent to a single mom and her three young children previously, and has been left empty by the landlords now for 7 months.

Seafielders will contest this latest unjust eviction order as they have all previous orders, not only on behalf of the family targeted, but on behalf of all tenants in British Columbia who are victims of intimidation and misuse of the Residential Tenancy Act by landlords solely as a means to raise rents.

Workers Say Seafield Shrubs’ New Home is the Nearest Landfill

Gordon Nelson Investments Inc arrived at the Seafield today to rip up mature shrubs and plants, loading them into a truck.

Tenants learned from the workers, who were instructed not to speak to residents, that most of the shrubs would be taken to the dump.

Ripping up plants and taking them to the dump is, in our opinion, an odd move for a company that prides itself on being environmentally friendly.

Seafield Shrubs Uprooted from their Homes in Front of 1436 Pendrell Street

Seafield Shrubs Packed for the Move to Their New Home: the Landfill

Photo: Money Laundering?

Gordon Nelson puts Seafielders through the wringer (again) with outrageous laundry cost increases.

Tenants were surprised to learn that landlords Gordon Nelson Investments raised the cost of doing laundry at the Seafield to $4 per wash and $4 per dry sometime during the past week.

Residents were not notified of the 45% increase in cost to doing laundry at the building. The increase means that the cost to the average Seafield family to do two loads of laundry a week will rise from an already expensive $286 a year to $416 a year.

In fact, Gordon Nelson have raised laundry costs by 220 percent in the last 20 months.

When Chris Nelson and Jason Gordon bought the building, laundry cost $1.25 per wash and $1.25 per dry. They removed the machines without informing residents on December 30, 2008 (meaning that some clothes from residents were actually taken in the process).

They returned laundry service at the buiding for more than double the price ($2.75 per wash and $2.75 per dry) in 2009.

Seafielders investigated the other options available to them and learned that the average cost for similar services at the nearest laundromat was then (and still is today) $1.75 per wash and between $1.50 and $2 per dry.

Residents wonder if this is simply another tactic by Gordon Nelson to remove laundry services at the Seafield – making them so expensive that they are basically inaccessible – in an attempt to justify turning the laundry room into a 300 square foot microsuite to rent when residents don’t use the machines.

Chris Nelson stated to all tenants in September 2008 (when he met with residents at the building to discuss their plans) that the Laundry facilities would be removed and converted to a rentable suite.

No offer of compensation was made or suggested.

Photo of Nails Protruding from the Floor at 1436 Pendrell Street

Work started at the Seafield on August 24, 2010 late in the afternoon, when a contractor, who refused to give his name or identify himself, arrived and ripped carpet off the first floor of the hallway.

He piled the carpet in the hall, and left nails sticking up (sharp side up) from the floor close to the walls and in entrance ways of first floor apartments at 1436 Pendrell Street.

A tenant notified Gordon Nelson Investments of the nails and the pile of carpet in the hallway, but no timeline has been given on when the matter will be resolved.

***************************

Update: as of 3:30 p.m. on August 27, after residents were forced to call City Hall about safety concerns, a contractor has began removing the protruding nails from the floor. We hope that basic safety standards are maintained in the future as work continues on the building.

Discarded Carpet Stored Inside 1436 Pendrell Street

Carpet was Removed from Around the Stack of Newspapers Gordon Nelson Refuse to Remove

We’re not sure what Gordon Nelson are securing with this fence, but we’re taking suggestions if anyone has any.

Yellow fencing arrived at the Seafield today and was placed in unexpected areas: about four feet in the front of the building, and around the side against a retaining wall blocking access to a tenant’s garden on the neighbouring church’s property).

No plants were harmed in the placing of this fence, but watering the garden (which is admired by tenants and passers by alike) is more difficult than before.

Fence Blocking Plants at the Seafield

Of course, it’s entirely possible the fence may be intended to ward off guerilla gardeners, who may be tempted to cut the grass and weed the front flower beds, which have received no attention since summer 2009.

 Interestingly, the fence is not being used to protect the dumpster behind the building (which is so far being used only by the general populace for trash, not by Gordon Nelson and friends for construction materials and debris).

 Residents of 1436 Pendrell Street came to an agreement with Seafield owners Gordon Nelson Investments at the residential tenancy office at the end of May 2010 to temporarily give up parking and storage lockers for compensation in order for renovations to commence at the building.

 So far, no actual construction has started at the Seafield.

Update: Seafielders did find a use for the fence after all. Happy Canada Day!

Festive Yellow Fence at the Seafield

In the immortal words of Bette Davis: "What a Dump!"

Day one of construction at the Seafield consisted of Gordon Nelson Investments placing a large dumpster behind the building and installing a new lock on the doorway used to access the storage lockers.

Seafield residents agreed to vacate the parking at the rear of the building as well as their storage lockers in preparation for Gordon Nelson Investments to start construction at the building.

Gordon Nelson said that they intended to renovate the roof, common spaces and unit 2 (which is currently vacant).

According to the agreement which was reached near the end of May at the Residential Tenancy Office, Seafielders must get their parking spaces and storage lockers back no later than October 1, 2010. Gordon Nelson is compensating residents for the loss of the services.