So your 8% -2 % from inflation goes to 6% if your lucky then you'll have to deduct further ontop of that so no a million doen't really get you a living wage in vancouver.

The rent we have in YVR gives a rough idea how overpriced our RE really is.

The simple equilibrium I always use is that rent=mortgage payment with 20% down @25yrs.

And even that is a stretch because the LL is still cashflow negative. Common investor wisdom would demand to be at least cashflow neutral.

The rent is a sign of the market's ability to pay for shelter. For far too long we have relied on RE increase to compensate ownership that we forgot about economic fundamentals.

Now that the market is in freefall (at least for the high-end sector), I'd say to any one wanting to invest in RE to tread cautiously until we get near to market fundamentals.

It all depends on how attractive their current place is and how aggressively they've priced it.

Private showings are such a pita. Clean the shit out of the place and gtfo, so someone can take a look for 20mins. At least you get to do it on the other end.

I'm over them for sure, I have two dogs which makes it even a bigger PITA. We have to go home, get the dogs out as well walking around the neighborhood and you come back and you're not even sure if they've been through yet. Last nights 6:30 didn't show up until 7:20 so we're out with the dogs get back home bring there beds and crate back in, bowls back out and then we get a knock on the door oh sorry we're late.

Have another showing today at 2:45, at least this one isn't at dinner time like most or even worse they were scheduling them for like 2:00 during the week..... I'd have to leave work early come home take the dogs out ect... I've had enough of those, I'm not allowing any more daytime weekday showings you want to see my house come on my terms if that doesn't work I DGAF go buy a different house.

I thought they wern't allowed to offer "leases" anymore and it has to be month to month so how can u win a "year free lease"?

Fuck, no one understands the legislation and has this misconception.

Term leases are absolutely still allowed.
What is not allowed are move-out clauses at the end of the lease term.

Not sure what you mean by "not allowed to offer leases anymore". From what I understand, in rental housing discussions, the words "rent" and "lease" are pretty much used interchangeably. Plus, if a landlord wants to offer some sort of discount, who is there to stop him? Certainly not the tenant.

I haven't been following this thread too closely lately, so I am wondering what RS thinks about this?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tion-1.5129123

Coming from the view (and reality) that the RTB has always sided with the tenants way more than they do with landlords, I am skeptical AF that this new compliance and enforcement branch will rule fairly and without bias on residential tenancy matters. They are simply going to extend their current favouritism for the tenants, except that they will not be using enforcement / penalties / fines to obtain compliance from the landlords.

I know there are some pretty shxtty landlords around. At the same time, there is no shortage of shxtty tenants as well. I honestly don't understand why only landlords come under fire and get demonized.

Because there way more people renting in Vancouver than owners so if the gov wants any vote for election they will need policy that favors tenants otherwise no votes.

Renters don't come out and vote as much as owners. Governments will always favour home owners.

Term leases are useless now. After the term is over you still can't kick your tenant out. So if they don't want to move they can live there as long as they want. Which is dumb what's the point of a term lease or contract then?

Happen to a friend of mine she rented her apartment back in 2016 now she wants the unit back to move in with her husband and her 2 dogs. Give the tenant 4 months notice and following all the rules. The tenant complain to the tenancy board and won at the hearing. He claims that because he won't be able to find a suitable place with the amount of rent he is paying. Also he question the fact is only a one bedroom apartment and having 2 person and 2 dogs is impossible to live in it. So basically even if it is her unit and she wants it back so she can move it she can't. All she can do is increase the rent that's "SET" by the gov and hopefully force him out with the rent increase. But the increase is so low I doubt it will do anything.

So you tell me how are landlords suppose to get their units back even if it going to be for personal use. Who wants to be a landlord if you can't even evict tenants out even if they aren't paying their rent.

A few buildings I work at, offer 1month free. The caveat is, it's the last month on a 2 year lease. All they care about is filling the space. The prices are still high though.

Benefits for the tenant:

Guarantees a landlord cannot evict for family member or renovations for the duration of the term. Basically further guarantees the tenancy term for the tenant.

Benefits for the landlord:

Guarantees tenant will stay for duration of term, or they'll be subject to termination costs.

If you don't know how to evict tenants who don't pay rent, you're a shitty landlord:
Notice to End Tenancy for Unpaid Rent or Utilities RTB-30

Well yea, they are the ones paying the property tax and the tax on the rental income. And all the other associates taxes

HappySlip,

I'm not calling you a liar at all, but everything you said below doesn't make sense.

A term lease is a term lease. It is a legally binding contract. Now, there are rules that governs how the contract is to be executed. Namely, if the landlord does not want to renewl the lease after the signed lease term expires, he has to follow the rules -- advanced notice, potential compensation for the tenant, etc. But as long as those rules have all been followed, he should be able to evict the tenant. Things change and become really stupid if the landlord allows the lease to turn into a month-to-month thing. But as long as it remains a term lease, the landlord should be able to enforce the eviction.

For your friend's situation, I wonder if there is something missing from the story. ie. Are they trying to kick the tenant out before the term lease expires? Have they allowed the termed lease to turn into month-to-month? Stuff like that. Again, I'm not calling you a liar, but to me, something doesn't add up.

To me at least, the moral of the story for a landlord is to never allow the rental to become month-to-month. Once you let that slip, the RTA clauses are so heavily tilted in favour of the tenants that you are basically fxxked and completely at the tenant's mercy. The only thing you can do at that point is sell.

I been through that and the process always favor the tenants and it could take up to months and months. Even if the Tenancy board rule in favor of you. The tenant can still refuse to move out and then you go to court to have to them frocely remove form the unit and then store their belongings for them for a period of time.

It took well over 2 months to get my tenant move out and that's only because she wasn't a professional tenant and just fell on bad times and was able to move back with her parents. If you are unlucky enough to rent out to a professional tenant you are looking at 6 to 8 months in lose of rent.

You sound like you are leaving huge loop holes open for your tenants..

If you're agreement is sound and your on term contracts that should never happen.

Thanks for the tip, did not know about the month to month part. I'll definitely let my mother know. I guess she/we got lucky when she had to evict a tenant for me to move back in temporarily to save up for mortgage.

She's also been lucky with her tenants who tend to stay a few years, and never really had to evict anyone.

https://www.pazderlaw.com/residentia...y-act-changes/

Vacate Clauses in Fixed Term Tenancy Agreements

For many years the prescribed RTA form of residential rental agreement contained a section allowing for the use of fixed term leases which either 1) terminated at the end date or 2) turned into month to month tenancies at the end date. The landlord and the tenant would agree to either option at the outset of the lease by checking the appropriate box on the lease.

There were pros and cons to this section.

On the con side, some landlords used the termination clause to avoid the annual rental increase limit prescribed by the Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”) by terminating the fixed term lease and then entering into a new lease with the former tenant or a new tenant at the market rent (which often had risen faster than the prescribed allowable rental increase).

On the pro side, landlords also used the vacate clauses in fixed term agreements to get rid of unsatisfactory tenants who were frequently late with rent payments, who did not keep the rental property in good condition or who were not abiding by the strata by-laws.

As usual, the NDP government decided that the tenants’ rights trumped the landlords’ and effective December 11, 2017, limits were imposed on landlords’ ability to terminate a fixed term rental agreement when the term expired.

The new provisions in the RTA now prohibit landlords from terminating fixed term tenancy agreements when they expire except when: 1) a tenancy agreement is a sublease agreement or 2) the landlord or a close family member of the landlord intends, in good faith at the time of entering into the tenancy agreement, to occupy the rental unit at the end of the term or 3) the tenant has abandoned the premises or 4) the tenancy is frustrated or 5) the Director of the RTB decides or 6) the landlord and tenant agree to terminate the lease.

Except in these limited circumstances (or the parties agree to another fixed term lease), the tenancy will automatically continue as a month-to-month tenancy under the same terms as the original agreement or until either party serves notice on the other or both parties agree to end the tenancy.

These new rules are RETROACTIVE! They will apply to both new and existing tenancy agreements!

As for my friend the term ended already. She even offer him a few months' rent to get him to move but he just wouldn't. I mean he does have a point. Living right next to Metrotown for $1600+ a month is a killer deal.

Nope this happen in 2004 I think or around that time. Her cheque bounce and simply stop answering her phones and emails. Call into her work and they just said she isn't in. Called her work a few times and they finally said she was injury and haven't been in work for 2 weeks or so. Everytime we went to knock on the door she just won't answer but we know for sure she is here. Serve her the 14 day notice and still refuse to do move. On the 2nd month we just call the cops saying she haven't responded to us in over a month and was worry something was wrong with her. Cops went to the apartment with us and we knock on the door and no one answer and the cops directly us to open the door. BAM she was inside with her bf so we have to step out. After that she called us and said she is moving out that weekend which she did. In fact the cheque bounce on the 2nd month of her lease.

Damn... this is extraordinarily stupid. I'd even say it violates the spirit of contractual laws. Except for sufficiently-sized commercial operations that has the resources to deal with this bullshit, who'd want to get into landlordship when the tenancy rules are this stupid?!
FailFish

Currently the only condition that landlord may enforce a vacancy clause at the end of a term lease is if the landlord or close family member plans to move into the unit. This must be specified in the tenancy/lease agreement (Reference Form RTB-1, Section 2, Box E https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/ho...tb1_chrome.pdf)

The only difference ticking over to a month-to-month tenancy agreement is that now the landlord must provide 2 months notice and 1 month's rent compensation.

Yeah it wouldn't have been necessary if landlords weren't abusing vacate clauses as a tool to force illegal rent increases.

I agree that the higher-than-mandated rent increase is a loophole that should be killed off. But to also take away the tenant eviction right at the end of the term lease is ridiculous beyond measure. The idiot lawmakers that created this rule clearly has never ever dealt with how difficult it is to evict a bad tenant.

Essentially what they're saying is that term vacate clauses aren't to be used as a tool for eviction of bad tenants. There are other mechanisms for that, whether they're easy or not is a separate issue.