Seafield Apartments

Seafielders learned that an up to 38% rent increase has been granted to their landlords by the Residential Tenancy Office after the tenants’ evidence “wasn’t considered” by the Dispute Resolution Officer.

The rent increase will affect nine units out of 14 at the Seafield. Two bedroom units are the most affected, with rents soaring up to $1833 next year. Two one-bedroom units are also affected by the increase.

The tenants who will see the highest rent increase of 38% are Roland McFall, 82, and his sister, Mary McFall, 93, despite having paid regular rent increases for the length of their tenancy (about 48 years).

Residents are not happy with the decision and are seeking legal advice and considering a petition for a judicial review of the decision.

Seafielders can’t comment further about the decision, but ask the media to review it, found in PDF format below.

Background:
The Residential Tenancy Act’s Guidelines, in the case for an above normal rent increase, say:

The Area Rent Increase allows landlords to apply for an increase over and above the annual allowable amount if they feel that the rents being paid are significantly below the rents payable for similar units.

“Similar units” means rental units of comparable size, age (of unit and building),
construction, interior and exterior ambiance (including view), and sense of community.

The “same geographic area” means the area located within a reasonable kilometer radius of the subject rental unit with similar physical and intrinsic characteristics.

The Seafield is a 1931-built, three storey, brick walk-up building. Apartments do not have amenities such as dishwashers, balconies, stainless steel appliances, views, granite counter tops, or en suite laundry etc. The building does not have a pool, sauna, rooftop patio, elevator or other such amenity.

For the March 11 hearing disputing Gordon Nelson Investments‘ application for the rent increase, Seafield tenants compiled:
• A scientific survey that showed rents paid by residents at the building were in line with rents paid at other similar buildings in the West End.
• A custom analysis conducted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of their own Rental Market Survey, that shows Seafielders pay similar rents for their apartments as other renters in their neighbourhood.
• Photos and letters from other West End residents who live in nine other character buildings, showing that rents paid by Seafielders are similar to rents paid by others in similar (and in some cases, identical) apartments.

Gordon Nelson Investments provided more than 100 Craigslist ads of all types of apartments in the West End, most of which were renovated, in high-rise buildings, short term rentals and with amenities that the Seafield does not have (en-suite laundry, balconies, views, rooftop terraces, gyms, pools, secured parking etc.).

Image courtesy of Renters Fight Back, a campaign to get renters out to vote in the provincial election.

In 2004, the BC Liberals changed the residential tenancy act, allowing landlords to evict tenants for renovations.

On October 26, 2008, Seafielders (along with some folks at Renters at Risk) met with Provincial Housing Minister Rich Coleman to discuss the loopholes in the residential tenancy act, and to ask him to do something about it. At the time, Mr. Coleman insisted that the problem was really with a few landlords who were “bad apples”, and his solution was to talk to them about it instead of changing the law.

We disagree.

Landlords who choose to renovict may be bad apples. But, if they weren’t in the picture, they would be replaced by more bad apples. These landlords are using the loopholes as a business strategy, and hey — who can blame them.

If the law allows evicting for profit, why not?

The problem as we see it isn’t the bad apples, but the law that empowers them to disrupt lives and double rents. That law needs to be changed. How it gets changed, or by whom, isn’t important. All that is important is that the loopholes are closed.

The most common question we’re asked after people visit our website is “what can I do about it to help?” There are lots of ways to contribute: writing letters to your MLA, providing emotional support to your friends going through evictions and so on.

One group in Vancouver is taking things a bit farther with a new campaign called “Renters Fight Back”. The group’s mandate is to get renters out to vote in the upcoming May 12 provincial election, and to “evict Gordon Campbell” to get in a government that will change the laws in the RTA to protect renters.

rentersfightback.com was created by Christine Ackermann and Stephen Hammond, concerned citizens and renters who are passionate about tenants’ rights in BC. Since the Geogria Straight covered this new campaign in last week’s paper, we thought it would be of some interest to our readers as well.

Check it out to learn more about what Renters Fight Back has to say about the 2009 BC Provincial Election. You can also contact Christine and Stephen by email if you want more information.

This letter from Brian Broster and Ross Waring at the Seafield ran in the Courier to clarify a point in the article.

Re: “West End rental scene plagued by rent hikes,” March 6.

We at the Seafield are grateful to Ms. Thomas for her ongoing coverage of our predicament. However, we feel it is important to point out that at no time did we refer to our landlords, Messrs. Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson, as either “corrupt” or “unscrupulous.”

Even though the entire process and threat of losing our homes through mass eviction has, and continues to be, traumatic, we would emphasize that the tone of our disagreement has always remained civil.

Brian Broster and Ross Waring,

Vancouver

Seafield residents presented their case opposing landlord Gordon Nelson Investments’ application for a above normal rent increases at the Residential Tenancy Office yesterday.

After working long and hard over one month to prepare our counter argument, we are relieved that the process is over and are looking forward to taking a bit of a breather as we await the decision. The proceedings were held over a teleconference and lasted two and a half hours.

Of course, we’d like to take the opportunity to thank all of the people who helped us through this trying time in not only preparing and presenting our evidence at the RTO, but also lending emotional support leading up to, and during, the hearing.

Like many cases at the RTO, we didn’t receive a decision right away from our dispute resolution officer. This is normal and common procedure.

Seafielders will receive the verdict by mail in about 30 days time.

Residents received notice of an above normal rent increase from their landlords on January 14, 2009. If Gordon Nelson’s application for the increase is granted, residents will see an increase of as high as 73 percent in their rents.

Gordon Nelson are applying for the above normal rent increase using 23(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). Under this section of the RTA, the landlord has the full burden of proof in showing that residents under the application are paying significantly less rent for their apartments than residents who live in geographically similar apartments.

Residents at the Seafield Apartments (1436 Pendrell Street, Vancouver) currently pay a fair market rent for apartments when compared to other units in pre-1940s buildings in the central West End. Both a custom analysis conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as a scientific random-sample survey of renters in the central area of the West End confirms this. In contrast, consider the rents applied for by the landlord, Gordon Nelson Investments Inc.*

Seafielders are fighting Gordon Nelson Investments’ proposed geographic area rent increase of up to 73% today at the Residential Tenancy Office. The case will be heard over the phone by a Dispute Resolution Officer at 1 p.m. this afternoon. The hearing is scheduled to last for one hour.

Residents worked night and day over the past month to put together evidence that shows that they are paying similar rents as others who live in “geographically similar” units, including conducting a survey of rents in our neighbourhood.

The Area Rent Increase allows landlords to apply for an increase over and above the annual allowable amount if they feel that the rents being paid are significantly below market value of similar units.

RTA Guidelines say that:
“Similar units” means rental units of comparable size, age (of unit and building),
construction, interior and exterior ambiance (including view), and sense of community.

The “same geographic area” means the area located within a reasonable kilometer
radius of the subject rental unit with similar physical and intrinsic characteristics.

The Seafield Apartments is a 1931 built, three storey, brick walk up building. Apartments do not have amenities such as dishwashers, balconies, stainless steel appliances, views, granite counter tops, or en suite laundry etc. The building does not have a pool, sauna, rooftop patio, elevator or other such amenity.

*Sources:
1)    Current Seafield Rents and landlord’s applied for rents, see GNI’s Application for Additional Rent Increase dated January 9, 2009.
2)    Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation custom analysis, commissioned by Ross Waring. Contact Ross Waring for details or for CMHC’s full analysis by email.
3)    West End Renters’ Survey is a scientific random-sample study of over 300 West End renters, conducted by the Seafield tenants, with 128 respondents renting in pre-1940s buildings in the central West End. Contact Ross Waring for details by email.

Seafield residents learned today that residents of Emerald Terrace will be able to keep their homes and their pets!

The Residential Tenancy Branch found that the seven cat owners at Emerald Terrace on Nelson Street did not breach a “material part of their tenancy agreement”, despite having verbal rather than written permission to keep their animals.

Dispute Resolution Officer S. Okada wrote: “The notices to end tenancy are cancelled, with the effect that the tenancies continue.”

Andrew Simmons, a pet owner and resident of Emerald Terrace, thinks that the decision will have positive implications for other pet owners.

“We’ve brought this to people’s attention. We’ve shown they can fight it,” he said in an interview with the Province.

Emerald Terrace residents were served eviction notices by landlord Hollyburn Properties on January 6, 2009. Hollyburn Properties, which acquired 2045 Nelson Street about a year and a half ago, said that residents (who had owned pets in the building for years) required written permission to keep their pets. Hollyburn decided to apply this policy more than a year after they purchased the building.

Residents had verbal agreements from their previous building manager to keep their pets – agreements that Hollyburn should have honoured. Instead, the property management company chose to issue the tenants eviction notices for failing to comply with their policy.

Tenants said Hollyburn had to have known about the pets because they had inspected suites in the building on several occassions for maintenance and the installation of new devices.

In addition, Hollyburn Properties claimed that the pets were hazardous to people’s health, but no evidence was provided to support their claim, said Simmons.

Tenants of the building maintained that this incident wasn’t really about “allergies to pets” as Hollyburn claimed, but was instead a ploy to evict longer-term tenants in order to increase rents.

Residents and Hollyburn Properties went to the Residential Tenancy Office On January 16 to decide once and for all whether residents’ verbal agreements with their previous landlord coupled with Hollyburn’s lack of action on the matter for over a year was permission enough to keep their pets.

The high profile case garnered quite a bit of media attention and the decision comes a month after the hearing took place.

We think Hollyburn’s heavy handed approach is indicative of its reputation for using aggressive renoviction tactics designed to evict long term tenants in order to jack up rents in the West End.

We are proud of the people at Emerald Terrace for standing up for their rights. As Seafield Apartments residence approach their day at the RTO (this Wednesday - March 11), it is certainly refreshing to hear some good news from other residents in similar situations.

Congratulations and well done!

Image courtesy of the Courier.

Normally, we don’t run articles from mainstream media on our homepage, but this article by Sandra Thomas that appeared in today’s Vancouver Courier gives an overview of not only the situation faced by Seafield Apartments residents, but the plight other renters face due to the gutting of the Residential Tenancy Act. She also talks to other tenants in the West End (namely, residents of 990 Bute Street), who are facing renovictions by owner Satnam Singh Gandham. It is important to note that that at no time did Seafield residents refer to our landlords, Jason Gordon and and Chris Nelson of Gordon Nelson Investments, as either ‘corrupt’ or ‘unscrupulous’ as the article suggests.

By Sandra Thomas

Vancouver Courier

The first thing you notice when entering the West End apartment of Brian Broster and his partner Ross Warring is the spacious living room and bright sunlight streaming through the windows.

Other features of the charming two-bedroom suite include original hardwood floors, lead glass windows off the kitchen and high ceilings.

But, Warring explains, that charm is a trade-off for living in a 1931 three-storey walk-up with a tiny galley kitchen with minimal counter space, no balcony and heat provided by radiators, which on this sunny February day give the suite a tropical feel, even with the window open.

Warring and Broster believe it’s that mix of vintage detail and lack of amenities that makes the $1,374 monthly rent they pay for their 1,250-square-foot, two-bedroom apartment right on the money. But that’s not how the new owners of the Seafield Apartments at 1436 Pendrell St. see it.

In January, Broster and Warring, along with the other tenants of the building, received notices from Gordon Nelson Investments stating the company has applied to the provincial government’s Residential Tenancy Branch for rent increases of up to 73 per cent. That would see the monthly rent on Broster and Warring’s apartment rise to $2,255.

Gordon Nelson Investments is owned by local businessmen and brothers-in-law Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson. The tenants claim the application, based on what’s known as “geographic profiling” is outrageous, but Chris Nelson argues the increase is in keeping with what’s being charged for similar apartments in what he calls one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in North America.

The landlords and tenants will fight it out March 11 during arbitration through the Residential Tenancy Office. Though not legally binding, the outcome of the ruling, which could take up to 30 days to decide, is expected to be precedent setting.

The tenants of the Seafield view the application as yet another ploy to drive them out of the building, which would give Gordon and Nelson carte blanche to charge new renters what they want for rent.

But the tenants have drawn a line in the sand and say they’re not going to be driven out of their homes by what they call unscrupulous and corrupt landlords.

It’s a battle that’s been unfolding in apartment buildings across the West End for the past several years, and past and present tenants all put the blame squarely on the provincial Liberal government and more recently, Minister of Housing and Social Development Rich Coleman. The tenants say loopholes introduced to the Residential Tenancy Act in 2004 allow landlords to get around the allowed 3.7 per cent annual increase, and they want Coleman to amend the act. Despite repeated attempts to contact Coleman for this story, the minister never returned the Courier’s calls. Many tenants also claim Coleman remains missing in action during what they call a housing crisis sweeping the West End.

Broster, who’s been living at the Seafield for 16 years, accuses Nelson and Gordon of using the loopholes to drive the Seafield tenants out in several ways, including threats to evict them to make way for renovations. Some tenants living in other buildings say when they were evicted to make way for renovations, the work turned out to be nothing more than a coat of paint.

The Gordon Nelson application is also under review at city hall. The practice is becoming so common in the West End, it’s been dubbed “renoviction.” And according to the Residential Tenancy Act, it’s legal.

“It was after we fought that move that they applied for the rent increases,” says Broster, an architectural intern. “Now they’re trying to ‘rentovict’ us.”

One of the first instances of renovictions to garner media attention was the Richmond Gardens case in 2005.

The Richmond News reported that Amacon Properties had attempted to evict 60 tenants from its Gilbert Road apartment complex to make way for renovations. One of the tenants, a widow named Laara Raynier, successfully fought not only that eviction attempt, but six more over the next two years. At the time, Raynier said she was frustrated that an amendment written into the Residential Tenancy Act by Coleman wasn’t used to protect her. The clause gives dispute resolution officers the ability to fine landlords $5,000 for “vexatious” actions.

Broster says his landlords are also using tactics such as insisting on monthly suite inspections, misplacing rent cheques and then issuing eviction notices for late payment and cutting back on building maintenance, including garbage removal, as a way to push out tenants. “With the reduction in services, the loss of stability and quiet enjoyment of our home, we should be getting a rent reduction,” says Broster.
(more…)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Seafield residents talk to Stephen Quinn

A few weeks ago, Stephen Quinn of CBC’s On the Coast visited 1133 Barclay Street, one of Gordon Nelson Investment’s renovicted buildings for a tour to see why rents are skyrocketing in the west end.

Last week, Stephen Quinn visited the Seafield to hear the other side of the story. The Seafield was bought by Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson in 2008 and is now facing proposed rent increases of up to 73%.

Click on the “Play” button above the photo on this post to hear the On the Coast interview with residents Brian Broster and Melissa Mewdell.

Dana and Bobby are the proud parents of Eliana Dora Crudo

Seafield Apartments welcomed its newest resident yesterday when Dana and Bobby Crudo became the proud parents of a baby girl!

Weighing 8 pounds, little Eliana Dora Crudo was born at 8:38 p.m. at home.

It was always Dana’s wish to deliver her baby at home — at the Seafield. Her dream was almost shattered when Chris Nelson, of Gordon Nelson Investments, informed Seafield Apartments residents that we would be renovicted on February 1, 2009, the day her baby was due.

Dana and Bobby, who could have chosen to play it safe by moving out, decided to stand up and fight the renovictions, along with the rest of the Seafielders, even though it put their dream of a home delivery at risk.

While the renovictions never came, Gordon Nelson Investments has instead threatened Seafield residents with 73% rent increases.

Dana and Bobby have somehow balanced their busy lives (through renoviction threats, and now rent-o-viction threats) all while managing the challenges that come with being first-time parents. We are extremely happy that they decided to stay with us at the Seafield.

Congratulations Dana and Bobby!

GORDON NELSON ATTEMPT COLOSSAL RENT HIKE

Last Wednesday evening, January 14,residents of the West End’s Seafield Apartments at 1436 Pendrell Street received thick envelopes from their new landlords Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson of Gordon Nelson Investments (GNI) detailing the landlords’ application to the B.C. Residential Tenancy Branch for rent increases of up to 73%. The Seafield residents, a tight-knit group of neighbours who have been working together for months to save their community and their building from renoviction now face a new battle–“rent-o-viction”–- with their greedy landlords.

The tenants facing one of the largest rent increase of 72% are brother and sister Roland and Mary McFall, who are 83 and 92 years of age respectively, have lived in the building for 47 years, and are on a fixed income.

Since GNI took possession of the Seafield on August 1, 2008 and handed an eviction notice to Kevin and Trina, the building’s former live-in caretakers  (subsequently rescinded as their duties were completely unconnected to their tenancy), maintenance standards have declined precipitously. Residents, who take pride in the meticulous maintenance of the building, have frequently been forced to assume the cleaning of common areas, clearing of clogged downspouts, snow shovelling, groundskeeping, and garbage removal.

On December 30, 2008 the Seafield’s laundry machines were removed without notice and only recently replaced – with half the number of machines at nearly double the price (from $1.50 per load per machine to $2.75 per load per machine). Despite this neglect of the building, GNI has still applied for astronomical average rent increases of 63%.

The current residents have paid the maximum allowable rent increase every year of their tenancies. There is clearly no justification for this additional rent increase.

Seafield residents plan to challenge Gordon Nelson Investments’ cash grab and are calling on other tenants in the West End to log on to their website at http://seafieldapartments.com and post their rents, as they need this information to prove that their rents are in line with what many long time West End renters are paying.

HOW TO HELP:

Post a comment with your rent below, or email us.

Seafield Gives West End Laundry Mat the Thumbs Up

It’s true that Gordon Nelson Investments did eventually make good on their promise to return laundry services to the Seafield. And, being front loaders, the new washer and dryer are much more environmentally friendly than the machines of old.

But, replacing what used to be two washers and two dryers with one washer and one dryer (and no timeline on when the promised additional machines would arrive) was the first sign of something amiss.

The second was the near doubling of the cost of doing laundry in the building.

Seafielders, who used to pay $1.50 for a wash and $1.50 for a dry, are now being charged $2.75 per machine (an 83% increase in price). The average Seafielder does three loads of laundry a week. This translates into an additional $390 a year in costs. For Dana and Bobby, whose baby is due February 1st, they will likely spend an additional $600 a year.

Jason Gordon and Chris Nelson of Gordon Nelson Investments say that their business model is based around charging market prices for apartments and services. So, were Seafield Apartments residents paying 83% below market price for laundry? Or, are Gordon Nelson Investments charging more than average market price for this service?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Wendy and Melissa set out this weekend to observe the best example of market competition in the field of laundry: the intersection of Davie and Thurlow streets. This is where the two laundromats across from each other — The Clothesline and Davie Laundromat — compete for people’s business all day.

Our findings:
Davie Laundromat (open 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily)
1061 Davie Street
604-682-2717
Prices:
•    Top loaders at the back - $1.75 per load
•    Top loaders at the front - $2.00 per load
•    Front loaders in the middle - $2.25 per load
•    Double load - $4.25 per cycle
•    Load of drying - $1.50 to $2.00 (25 cents buys you 3.75 minutes, but it takes between 20 and 30 minutes to dry your clothes)
Extra notes: there’s a wide variety of sizes and number of machines which means that doing multiple loads is much quicker than if you only have a single washer/dryer like we do at the Seafield. The man who owns the shop is extremely friendly and helpful, and keeps the place pretty clean. Baskets and big tables are available in the middle of the laundromat which makes it easy to fold and sort clothing. Speed is this laundromat’s pride — it doesn’t take any longer than half an hour to wash, and half an hour to dry, your clothes.

The Clothesline Laundry mat (open 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily)
1070 Davie Street
604-689-9112
Prices:
•    Top loaders (older machines) - $1.75 per load
•    Front loaders - $2.00 per load
•    Double load - $4.00 per cycle
•    Load of drying - $1.50 to $2.00 (25 cents buys you 5 minutes in the single load dryers. 25 cents buys you 8 minutes in the older dryer).
Extra notes: like Davie Laundromat, there’s a wide variety of sizes and a large number of machines here, which makes it easy to do multiple loads all at once. In fact, there are more machines in this laundromat then at Davie Laundromat. It’s also slightly cheaper than Davie Laundromat, and is open earlier and stays open slightly later. But, the atmosphere isn’t as nice, and it’s not as clean. Also, it doesn’t have any big tables to fold or sort laundry.

Overall, Wendy and Melissa liked Davie Laundromat better. It was brighter, cleaner, faster and more friendly.

And, it seems the prices we used to pay at the Seafield weren’t really as out of line with market laundry prices as Gordon Nelson seems to think.

Tell us how much you pay for laundry at your building by leaving a comment below.

Seafielders were shocked to learn yesterday that Gordon Nelson Investments were attempting to evict a Seafield Apartments resident for not paying her rent — after they lost her rent cheque.

Wendy, who has lived at the Seafield for 31 years, has always paid her rent on time. She gives her rent cheques to the management - as per their request- three at a time in an envelope.

Putting November, December and January’s cheques together, she slid them under the management office door with other Seafielders as witnesses on October 3, 2008. Since her November and December cheques cleared, it was quite a surprise for her to find that her January rent hadn’t been taken out of her account by January 9.

On Friday that day, Gordon Nelson Investments’ building manager for the Seafield left Wendy a note on her door telling her to pay up by end of day and to include a $50 late fee. (The RTA allows for a maximum late fee of $25.)

On Saturday Wendy sent a registered letter to Gordon Nelson Investments explaining how she knows she had paid January’s rent — she has carbon copies of the three cheques she had written and submitted at the same time. On Monday she provided a duplicate copy of this letter when the building manager came knocking. All Wendy asked for in the registered letter was for them to look harder before she went to the trouble and expense of putting a stop-order on her original January cheque before writing a replacement cheque.

At 1:45 p.m. on Tuesday, January 14, Chris Nelson of Gordon Nelson Investments paid a visit to the Seafield. His response to her reasonable letter was to issue her an eviction notice: five days to pay, or she would have to vacate by January 26.

Wendy met with the building’s manager yesterday morning (Wednesday) to issue Gordon Nelson a new cheque, which should render the eviction notice moot. But she will have to eat the cost of the registered mail—unless she wants to take them to the RTO to reclaim that cost. Choosing not to do this at this point, she has decided to risk not taking on the additional expense of putting a stop-order on the original January cheque, as that would be another cost for her to absorb.

The trend here is unsettling. Gordon Nelson Investments has lost or misplaced rent cheques in at least four cases in their six months of ownership of the Seafield.

On August 6, former building manager Ivan Djanic, asked Melissa Mewdell to call him regarding her rent. She hadn’t paid, he contested, even though she had handed her cheque directly to him in front of other residents five days prior. While on the phone with Melissa over the issue, Ivan asked her if she would move out of the Seafield and into another building, which the company owns, for a rent of $50 less than the cost of her apartment in the Seafield.

“You know, to avoid the renovations,” he said. She declined the “generous” offer.

Mark and Christine’s rent disappeared in September too — but only temporarily. Gordon Nelson found it two weeks later.

Wendy has been the victim of this more than once. Her November 2008 rent cheque was lost by Gordon Nelson Investments. After Ivan came asking for the money, he agreed to go looking again for that rent cheque.

Wendy heard nothing for several days. She emailed Chris Nelson three times and received no response. On November 6, 2008, her cheque cleared.

Ooops. Wasn’t lost after all!

How might this situation have been resolved with less stress and expense for all concerned?

Admission by GNI of their mistake would have solved the issue right away.

Or, GNI could have contacted Wendy directly by phone or in person and politely explain the situation. That it appeared that, like her November cheque, her January cheque had, unfortunately, been misplaced again; that they had spent a good deal of time searching for it, with no luck; and could she please rewrite another one?

Seafielders are reasonable people.  Common courtesy and an honest admission of their mistake would have solved the issue right away.

Instead, a great deal of time, energy and emotion was spent on what could have been handled easily, simply and respectfully.

Now there is the distinct possibility that Wendy, who has always paid her rent on time, will have to spend considerably more time and energy ensuring that her credit rating hasn’t declined because of this unnecessarily heavy-handed incident.