West End Tenants Win ‘Renovictions’ Case

Residents of 1436 Pendrell win Renoviction case 548x308 West End Tenants Win Renovictions Case

Residents of 1436 Pendrell Street, Vancouver, Won Their Renoviction Case, photo by CBC News

CBC News

Tenants of a downtown Vancouver apartment building are celebrating after learning they won’t have to move out so the owners can renovate the building.

The news comes after an adjudicator at B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Branch dispute resolution service ruled the landlord acted in bad faith when it issued eviction orders under the pretence that they intended do extensive renovations.

The landlord of the 80-year-old Seafield building, which is located at 1436 Pendrell Street in Vancouver’s West End, first issued the 24 tenants of the building with an eviction notice shortly after buying the building in 2008.

The company Gordon Nelson Investments told the tenants of the 14 suites they would have two months to move out so the renovations could be done, or face substantial rent increases.

The Seafield Apartments houses 24 tenants in its 14 suites. But the tenants, some of whom had been in the building for nearly 50 years, fought the eviction order, saying they were essentially being evicted so the landlord could raise the rents.

They called the landlord’s move a “renoviction,” and countered that they said they were prepared to accommodate the renovations, but wanted to stay in the building.

The landlord took the case to B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Branch’s dispute resolution services, which first ruled the landlord could raise the rent by 38 per cent.

The tenants then appealed that rent hike in court and a judge overturned it in October. Ten days later the landlord issued new eviction notices to the tenants.

The tenants then took the case back an adjudicator, who issued a ruling on Feb. 15, saying the landlord acted in bad faith and had the ulterior motive of raising the rents when it issued the eviction orders.

As a result the tenants will not have to move out of the building, the adjudicator ruled.

Tags:

Leave a Reply