Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[quasi]

Sorry I wasn't trying to stir shit up.

Pay your rent don't give him a reason to evict you. I'd suggest you start shitting in a bucket and dumping it outside his door until the crappers fixed.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by Great68

Dude I get it.

I'm not siding with the landlord at all, all I was saying with respect to Quasi's response is that you should follow the proper procedure according to the RTA if you want to take any action, withholding rent, or damage deposit or otherwise, or you're just going to make the situation worse.

You can't just hire a plumber, and then next month when rent is due be like "Yo Landlord, so I'm keeping the $500 it cost me to fix the toilet out of my own pocket"

I'm not mad at all

Originally Posted by quasi

Sorry I wasn't trying to stir shit up.

Pay your rent don't give him a reason to evict you. I'd suggest you start shitting in a bucket and dumping it outside his door until the crappers fixed.

Didn't stir nothing up we can still be friends and if I ever met any of you in a bar I'd most likely buy you a beer

[meme405]

Originally Posted by twdm

Good god. Do I have to school you again on your obligations as a landlord?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/h...o-month-notice

It clearly says it doesnt matter if it is month to month.

That's great, and I would even be willing to pay him $4500 myself if he would just GTFO tomorrow.

I'll come on here and let you know when he starts squatting, and then I have to go to arbitration and pay to move all his shit out and stuff. And then you can remind me how I am a dumbass for renting the place in the first place. And all the renters in Vancouver can continue to complain about how the rental market is a POS because they have fought to make their rights so retarded that nobody bothers trying to rent anymore cause its just a major cunt.

Spoiler!

For the record, you really didn't teach me anything, I knew and have read over what you posted like 8 times, I'm just pissed because I don't see why the rules are what they are. Basically no matter how long someone has lived somewhere if I want them out, I have to give them a free month.
Why would that be? Why is that fair?

I can understand if we had a 1 year lease and I'm trying to kick you out before then, but after 2 years of being month to month, where he could literally have moved out at any point and not had to pay anymore, why shouldn't I have that same luxury of having to tell him to get out without owing him anything?

[mikemhg]

Man reading this thread is depressing the hell out of me.

My girlfriend and I have been renting a condo at Brentwood Drive 1BR + Den for $1,300 the last few years now, landlord has been fantastic too. He just sent me a msg last week while we were in Mexico letting me know that they plan to sell the condo ASAP.

Ugh, we weren't expecting that at all based on the last time we spoke back in October to give him a set of new cheques.

FML, sounds like the rental market is a nightmare we'll have to navigate shortly here..

[Traum]

Originally Posted by meme405

For the record, you really didn't teach me anything, I knew and have read over what you posted like 8 times, I'm just pissed because I don't see why the rules are what they are. Basically no matter how long someone has lived somewhere if I want them out, I have to give them a free month.
Why would that be? Why is that fair?

I can understand if we had a 1 year lease and I'm trying to kick you out before then, but after 2 years of being month to month, where he could literally have moved out at any point and not had to pay anymore, why shouldn't I have that same luxury of having to tell him to get out without owing him anything?

I don't have an explanation for you or for any landlords at all, other than the bulk of the RTA is retarded and retardedly biased towards the tenants. Protection for the landlord is minimal, and every new revision strips away yet more rights from the landlord. It is hardly surprising when property owners don't want to lease their units.

I don't have any good recommendations for you for your situation at hand, but in the future should you feel like being a landlord again, I would strongly recommend against having a tenant on month-to-month lease. When you do that, you are practically giving away one of your last tools to evict a tenant. Always have them sign a fixed term lease. That way, you know your committment is always limited to a specific duration, and you'd at least have a fighting chance to kick a tenant out in a timely manner, or a stronger defence should you take any matter to court.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

My girlfriend and I have been renting a condo at Brentwood Drive 1BR + Den for $1,300 the last few years now, landlord has been fantastic too. He just sent me a msg last week while we were in Mexico letting me know that they plan to sell the condo ASAP.

Ugh, we weren't expecting that at all based on the last time we spoke back in October to give him a set of new cheques.

FML, sounds like the rental market is a nightmare we'll have to navigate shortly here..

Do you have a signed rental contract with your landlord? And is it on fixed term or month-to-month?

On a fixed term contract, I think the suite's new owner is still obligated to fulfill the duration of your lease term. So if the new guy is trying to kick you out before your term ends, you can tell him no.

If you are on month-to-month, that is something I am not familiar with.

[CivicBlues]

Mike we were in the same situation as you a year and half ago. Luckily for us the landlord was willing to sell to us privately. We went the buying route as the mtg payment was basically lower than any comparable rentals after our rent was basically frozen for 5 years.

Things to keep an eye on if you are not in a position to buy and take the 2 months notice (assuming you are on month-to-month):

- Will the new owners keep you on as tenants?
- If no, they are basically signing a declaration upon purchase that are using the condo for personal use or for close family for at least 6 months.
- If they do rent it out to new tenants within 6 months and you catch them, the new owners are also on the hook to owe you 2 months rent (cash money!) as well.

[Harvey Specter]

So finally taking the plunge and doing a RE investment outside of BC. I've been looking at homes in the Hollywood Hills for a while now, regret not getting a house a couple years when you could find a decent home for around $850k. The reason why I'm eying Hollywood Hills is because the rental potential is huge, enough that it will cover the mortgage payment and houses aren't ridiculously expensive. Most of the homes in my price range need major TLC so it would be a good reno project, rent and flip.

I'll be flying down this weekend and looking at a few proprieties and hopefully put an offer before I leave.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Traum

I don't have an explanation for you or for any landlords at all, other than the bulk of the RTA is retarded and retardedly biased towards the tenants. Protection for the landlord is minimal, and every new revision strips away yet more rights from the landlord. It is hardly surprising when property owners don't want to lease their units.

I don't have any good recommendations for you for your situation at hand, but in the future should you feel like being a landlord again, I would strongly recommend against having a tenant on month-to-month lease. When you do that, you are practically giving away one of your last tools to evict a tenant. Always have them sign a fixed term lease. That way, you know your committment is always limited to a specific duration, and you'd at least have a fighting chance to kick a tenant out in a timely manner, or a stronger defence should you take any matter to court.

The free month is supposed to be compensation for the costs and hassle of having to find a new place and moving.

I don't know about this 17 million dollar-house-selling tenant of meme405's, but for most tenants having to pack up and move brings hardship in finances, time and sometimes emotion (especially in the rental market today).

The RTA is not retardedly biased towards tenants, there are many protections for landlords written into it. The problem is shitty amateur landlords that don't read and don't know how to properly use the act, then act all surprised when a tenant actually pushes their rights.

"IT'S MY PROPERTY I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT I WANT WAHH WAHH WAHH!"
This isn't fucking serfdom. A landlord, when they offer their property for rent, is agreeing to give up some rights for use of their property to their tenant as set forth by the RTA. Landlords can't just make their own rules.

The fixed term lease move-out clause will be closed by the government, unfortunately this is another one that LANDLORDS abused. If those landlords weren't so fucking greedy that used it as a means to jack rents sky high, then maybe it wouldn't be an issue.

Point is, there's shitty people on both sides. Landlords and tenants. Don't act like every landlord is a saint and woe is them.

[hud 91gt]

Originally Posted by meme405

That's great, and I would even be willing to pay him $4500 myself if he would just GTFO tomorrow.

I'll come on here and let you know when he starts squatting, and then I have to go to arbitration and pay to move all his shit out and stuff. And then you can remind me how I am a dumbass for renting the place in the first place. And all the renters in Vancouver can continue to complain about how the rental market is a POS because they have fought to make their rights so retarded that nobody bothers trying to rent anymore cause its just a major cunt.

Spoiler!

For the record, you really didn't teach me anything, I knew and have read over what you posted like 8 times, I'm just pissed because I don't see why the rules are what they are. Basically no matter how long someone has lived somewhere if I want them out, I have to give them a free month.
Why would that be? Why is that fair?

I can understand if we had a 1 year lease and I'm trying to kick you out before then, but after 2 years of being month to month, where he could literally have moved out at any point and not had to pay anymore, why shouldn't I have that same luxury of having to tell him to get out without owing him anything?

As far as I under stand, the only way you can get out of the 1 month as a landlord is having a lease of certain lengths. When I use to rent out my place, I would do one year contracts even if they wanted to stay longer term. That way I could boot them at the end of the lease if need be. Mind you, I haven't read what was posted, so maybe I was doing it illegally


If you want month to month... That's signing a new lease every month. Sounds like fun.... Oh yeah, don't let the lease lapse. You've then given up all your rights as a landlord and are in the no lease, month to month fun.

[ScizzMoney]

Being a landlord has turned me slightly more racist than I wish it did. I will avoid certain types of people renting now because of a few bad apples. Which sucks, because every group of people has good and bad ones. Just unfortunate all the bad ones I've had have been from the same two groups of people and fit the stereotypes others had warned me about when renting.

[Hondaracer]

When I was screening tenants for two days for my suite half the people I wrote off before they even opened their mouths, once they did it only confirmed my suspicions

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by Traum

I don't have an explanation for you or for any landlords at all, other than the bulk of the RTA is retarded and retardedly biased towards the tenants. Protection for the landlord is minimal, and every new revision strips away yet more rights from the landlord. It is hardly surprising when property owners don't want to lease their units.

I don't have any good recommendations for you for your situation at hand, but in the future should you feel like being a landlord again, I would strongly recommend against having a tenant on month-to-month lease. When you do that, you are practically giving away one of your last tools to evict a tenant. Always have them sign a fixed term lease. That way, you know your committment is always limited to a specific duration, and you'd at least have a fighting chance to kick a tenant out in a timely manner, or a stronger defence should you take any matter to court.

That won't work anymore as of today. New rental policy have been pass. Landlord can not ask the tenants to move after the fixed term lease have ended. If it ended and no fixed term lease is sign it will then go to a month to month. Landlord can only ask the tenants to leave if they intend to live in it themselves, let a relatives live in it or is doing major reno. At no point can landords kick tenants out other then the fact I listed above.

Only tenants can decided if they want to leave.

Don't believe me?
B.C. announces legislation to close fixed-term rental loophole - British Columbia - CBC News

So good kick trying to kick those annoying tenants who say is always late for rent but paid just before it goes through the process of being evicted or those who always complains about every tiny small things or those who always get complain from neighbour.

Basically with the new policy landlords have no rights to remove bad tenants. I am sure this will be VERY HELPFUL to rental markets in Vancouver as the article and tenants advocate said.s Let's restrict landlords even more!

[Traum]

HappySlip,

You must either be misunderstanding what I was suggesting, misunderstanding what the new legislation is about, or both. I have probably also not been clear enough about precisely what I mean as well.

As I understand, the new legislation only prevents landlords from using fixed-term contracts to completely re-negotiate the rental amount, therefore bypassing the RTB-imposed maximum rent increase ceiling. To me, what this means is, landlords are free to continue using fixed term contracts. However, subsequent rental contracts will have to adhere to the RTB-imposed maximum rent increase amount (as percentage increase).

What I was recommending is -- a landlord should always sign a fixed term lease with the tenant, and select the option that at the end of the (fixed term) tenancy, the tenant must vacate the rental unit. This way, at the end of the lease term, the landlord has the option to renew the lease contract with the tenant, or he can choose to not renew the contract, and therefore kick the tenant out at the end of the lease term.

If you look at the BC RTB-1 form, Section 2C & E, you will see that there is a clause indicating that when the tenancy ends at the fixed, specified date, the tenant must vacate the rental unit. Both landlord and tenant will need to explicitly acknowledge this when they sign the contract.

As far as I can see, this can still be used to "evict a tenant" at the end of a lease term, by virtue of simply not renewing the control. So that would still give the landlord a tiny bit of control in determine who he can rent to.

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ maybe but is pretty counfusing how the gov. explains this
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/h...tenancies/news

If you look under


What are the changes related to Fixed-Term Tenancies?

A vacate clause requires a tenant to move out on the date the agreement ends. Landlords will no longer be able to include a “vacate” clause in a fixed-term tenancy agreement except in certain circumstances. These new rules will apply to both new and existing tenancy agreements.

Unless the landlord and tenant agree to another fixed term, the tenancy will automatically continue as a month-to-month tenancy under the same terms as the original agreement. This type of tenancy continues until one party serves notice or they both agree to end the tenancy.


And then



In what kind of circumstances will a landlord still be able to use a vacate clause?

Effective December 11, 2017, fixed term tenancy agreements can no longer include a vacate clause requiring a tenant to move out at the end of the term unless:
• The tenancy agreement is a sublease agreement; or
• The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy in circumstances prescribed in section 13.1 of the Residential Tenancy Regulation. This Regulation specifies situations where a landlord or landlord’s close family member plans in good faith to occupy the rental unit

The ministry will monitor the use of these provisions, continue to consult with key stakeholders and may add new circumstances as necessary.

First it mentions as long as long party agree or wants to move then is fine but then the second part is states otherwise. I am no landlord but going though the changes seems confusing. Also if you have good tenants why would you want to raise rent or kick them out anyways? Good tenants are hard to come by. There are tons of bad tenants out there (have dealt with a few in the pass) and the process to kick them out is complicated and one sided to the tenants just feels like is not really worth renting your place unless you really need the money.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

^^ maybe but is pretty counfusing how the gov. explains this
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/h...tenancies/news

If you look under


What are the changes related to Fixed-Term Tenancies?

A vacate clause requires a tenant to move out on the date the agreement ends. Landlords will no longer be able to include a “vacate” clause in a fixed-term tenancy agreement except in certain circumstances. These new rules will apply to both new and existing tenancy agreements.

Unless the landlord and tenant agree to another fixed term, the tenancy will automatically continue as a month-to-month tenancy under the same terms as the original agreement. This type of tenancy continues until one party serves notice or they both agree to end the tenancy.


And then



In what kind of circumstances will a landlord still be able to use a vacate clause?

Effective December 11, 2017, fixed term tenancy agreements can no longer include a vacate clause requiring a tenant to move out at the end of the term unless:
• The tenancy agreement is a sublease agreement; or
• The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy in circumstances prescribed in section 13.1 of the Residential Tenancy Regulation. This Regulation specifies situations where a landlord or landlord’s close family member plans in good faith to occupy the rental unit

The ministry will monitor the use of these provisions, continue to consult with key stakeholders and may add new circumstances as necessary.

First it mentions as long as long party agree or wants to move then is fine but then the second part is states otherwise. I am no landlord but going though the changes seems confusing. Also if you have good tenants why would you want to raise rent or kick them out anyways? Good tenants are hard to come by. There are tons of bad tenants out there (have dealt with a few in the pass) and the process to kick them out is complicated and one sided to the tenants just feels like is not really worth renting your place unless you really need the money.

The RTB website hasn't caught up with the new legislation.
Your second part is what is now law. Effective yesterday vacate clauses at the end of a fixed term lease are no longer valid except for those two special cases.

Full document: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/ho...lines/gl30.pdf

[quasi]

I need to bookmark this thread so at any point in the future I'm thinking about putting a suite in my basement I'll just come here and those thoughts will just disappear.

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ Is not so bad if you find a good tenant . My parents is lucky to have good tenants that rented their basement suite for the past 15+ years. Yes they are a family and sometimes the kids do make a lot of noise but overall is decent.

Over the years I find that family with kids are much better tenants. They tend to respect the place more and aren't going to complain about every little thing or don't pay rent (at least family who cares about their kids).

[68style]

Originally Posted by Harvey Specter

So finally taking the plunge and doing a RE investment outside of BC. I've been looking at homes in the Hollywood Hills for a while now, regret not getting a house a couple years when you could find a decent home for around $850k. The reason why I'm eying Hollywood Hills is because the rental potential is huge, enough that it will cover the mortgage payment and houses aren't ridiculously expensive. Most of the homes in my price range need major TLC so it would be a good reno project, rent and flip.

I'll be flying down this weekend and looking at a few proprieties and hopefully put an offer before I leave.

I know quite a few people who invest in USA real estate and they all say the same thing... stay the fuck away from California... it's like an American version of BC with bleeding hearts for renters and no power for the owner of the property. Endless problems. All the guys I know that are really into it do it in Arizona and there's hundreds of managers who work on retainer and you get a bad renter, they literally go on your behalf with their gun (carry permit) and tell the renter to GTFO.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by 68style

I know quite a few people who invest in USA real estate and they all say the same thing... stay the fuck away from California... it's like an American version of BC with bleeding hearts for renters and no power for the owner of the property. Endless problems. All the guys I know that are really into it do it in Arizona and there's hundreds of managers who work on retainer and you get a bad renter, they literally go on your behalf with their gun (carry permit) and tell the renter to GTFO.

Lol, off topic but reminds me of a conversation I had with my buddy in Wyoming last week. Everyone is packing, he doesn't leave the house without his gun nor does his wife he's a firefighter she's a nurse. He also keeps an extra gun in his car cause well you never know when you're going to have to throw down and best or worst part depending on your stance you don't even need a permit to carry so any fucktard can be packing at anytime.

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Mike we were in the same situation as you a year and half ago. Luckily for us the landlord was willing to sell to us privately. We went the buying route as the mtg payment was basically lower than any comparable rentals after our rent was basically frozen for 5 years.

Things to keep an eye on if you are not in a position to buy and take the 2 months notice (assuming you are on month-to-month):

- Will the new owners keep you on as tenants?
- If no, they are basically signing a declaration upon purchase that are using the condo for personal use or for close family for at least 6 months.
- If they do rent it out to new tenants within 6 months and you catch them, the new owners are also on the hook to owe you 2 months rent (cash money!) as well.

We've been here for a number of years now, so we're month to month. He's offered to sell us the condo privately for around $500k, not even sure if that's good or not, as we haven't really been searching.

I doubt we'll purchase, I honestly don't even want to live in this area anymore, it's changed far too much. This area (Brentwood) is more and more looking like Metrotown every year.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

We've been here for a number of years now, so we're month to month. He's offered to sell us the condo privately for around $500k, not even sure if that's good or not, as we haven't really been searching.

I doubt we'll purchase, I honestly don't even want to live in this area anymore, it's changed far too much. This area (Brentwood) is more and more looking like Metrotown every year.

Didn't you hear Brentwood area is going to be the 2nd center of Burnaby. They are trying to do the same as Metrotown. I think is not bad to be honest. Everything within walking distance.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Harvey Specter

So finally taking the plunge and doing a RE investment outside of BC. I've been looking at homes in the Hollywood Hills for a while now, regret not getting a house a couple years when you could find a decent home for around $850k. The reason why I'm eying Hollywood Hills is because the rental potential is huge, enough that it will cover the mortgage payment and houses aren't ridiculously expensive. Most of the homes in my price range need major TLC so it would be a good reno project, rent and flip.

I'll be flying down this weekend and looking at a few proprieties and hopefully put an offer before I leave.

What took you so long?

Seriously though, stay away from CA. The tax system is fuck'd up in both personal (and trust me, IRS is NOTHING like CRA... dealing with CRA is like a walk in the park relative to IRS) as well as property (check any current/potential plan for property taxes... you can sometimes have houses paying 6k USD on property tax, and a house in similar condition/size/everything jumps to 20k the next block/year)

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

Didn't you hear Brentwood area is going to be the 2nd center of Burnaby. They are trying to do the same as Metrotown. I think is not bad to be honest. Everything within walking distance.

Lougheed and Willingdon simply don't have the capacity to handle the amount of people the city is trying to cram in there. It's wishful thinking that people moving there will abandon their cars because let's face it: the only people who can afford to buy units there now are rich Asians who all have cars, sometimes two or three per household.

Brentwood will also never be a walkable community because it is bisected by two major arterial roads that are used by heavy trucks. The only thing Brentwood has for it is that it's close to the City of Vancouver.

[ntan]

I'm not sure if I fully understand the new legislation with respect to fixed-term tenancies.

It sounds like I can only vacate them if I decide to use the property for myself (in good faith), or if the tenancy is a sublease contract.

If I do wish to vacate them at the end of the fixed-term contract for the aforementioned reasons, I must give them notice one (or is it two) months prior? Do I still have to give them one month's rent then?

Per my understanding, the limitation of rental increase is not on the unit, but with the tenant (for the given unit), therefore, if the tenant decides to leave, I'm still free to adjust the cost of rent to whatever I choose for a new tenant.

Is this in-line with everyone else's understanding?