Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

Well in my situation, I was getting mail with the gf's name on them, so I think that would give me some leverage if it came to that. I mean she basically changed her address at that point.

Yea.. kinda stupid that the mail is what gives you the leverage as opposed to her actually being there.

She could spend 14+ days a month or whatever it is legally under the tenancy branch without your agreement but she was dumb enough to get mail sent there which would shoot her in the foot under any legal situation

[SSM_DC5]

Note to self: do not set up a separate mailbox for tenants. Instead filter through all the mail.

[6thGear.]

Originally Posted by supafamous

For what it's worth I think this is a bullshit by-law that reeks of privilege/discrimination - poor people often don't have this kind of choice. When my parents help immigrate my grandparents and my mom's siblings we were 10 people to a 3 bedroom house. Was it crowded? Yeah but it sure beat what they were living in back over in HK. Was it dangerous or unsafe? Nope.

This kind of by-law should be stricken from the books or modified upwards significantly especially considering the housing crisis.

It's a fire code bylaw that some stratas are starting to implement. I can't say how many percentage wise had adopted it, but personal experience 1/3 I've seen it

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Yea.. kinda stupid that the mail is what gives you the leverage as opposed to her actually being there.

She could spend 14+ days a month or whatever it is legally under the tenancy branch without your agreement but she was dumb enough to get mail sent there which would shoot her in the foot under any legal situation

I've rented out to about 7 tenants over the years, so I've been lucky with a good track record. All of them have been great except this one, which relatively, is not even that bad... considering he still paid on time.

One advice is that I do intentionally look for "dumb" tenants that don't really know what they're doing. I've had potential tenants come in, and based on the questions and how they talk, they sound like "veteran" renters, where they know all their legal rights, and sound like they'll stick it to you the second something goes wrong. I reject those. I'm not saying if you're an experienced renter, you don't deserve to rent or something. But honestly, I'm a newbie landlord too.. as in I don't have experience dealing with legal bullshit.

At the end of the day, I know I'm a good reasonable landlord and can vouch for myself, and all I want is someone that will just pay me on time and not be a "Karen" or find loopholes in the tenancy agreement. My current tenant is probably the best one I've had so far... a couple weeks back when we had the dump of snow. I was awoken by the sound of scraping outside. I look outside the window and see my tenant shoveling the walkway and sidewalk.. wtf?? lol.

[supafamous]

Does anyone here do month to month with their tenants? We do it cause we don't really see a material difference in making them sign a 1 year lease. We tell the potentials tenants that we do month to month only because if they're not happy we don't want to have to stay (and vice versa). We've found that our potential tenants all appreciate our level of candor about the relationship we're looking for.

[Great68]

Yeah since the rule change, leases seem like they give very little benefit.
I mean technically it's to guarantee that the unit will be rented for the year but the rules make it easy for the tenant to break the lease with very little repercussions, especially in this rental market.

IE: If the tenant breaks the lease, they'd be responsible for any loss of rent for the remainder of the lease *if you can't re-rent it out* or any difference in rental cost if you have to re-rent at lower rate (for the remainder of the lease).
But you actually have to actively try to actually re-rent it.

[Mikoyan]

Originally Posted by 6thGear.

It's a fire code bylaw that some stratas are starting to implement. I can't say how many percentage wise had adopted it, but personal experience 1/3 I've seen it

It's probably informally referred to as the 'Emily Yu' rule in North Vancouver.
She's the one who turned a 3 BR townhouse into a 15 bed hostel. Had the unit sold by court order, and got arrested claiming the unit was still hers.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...jail-1.6627634

[donk.]

So is she back running other hostels after her 30 day detention?

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by SSM_DC5

Note to self: do not set up a separate mailbox for tenants. Instead filter through all the mail.

i have a mailbox in front of their door, so i check all the mail in the main box and put theirs in their box

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

It's probably informally referred to as the 'Emily Yu' rule in North Vancouver.
She's the one who turned a 3 BR townhouse into a 15 bed hostel.

too early in the morning, i read that as brothel at first

[68style]

Originally Posted by GLOW

too early in the morning, i read that as brothel at first

Glad I'm not alone... and it wasn't early when I read it

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by supafamous

Does anyone here do month to month with their tenants? We do it cause we don't really see a material difference in making them sign a 1 year lease. We tell the potentials tenants that we do month to month only because if they're not happy we don't want to have to stay (and vice versa). We've found that our potential tenants all appreciate our level of candor about the relationship we're looking for.

I do 1 year, then afterward, just let it run month to month, cause too lazy to do more paperwork.

For me, it's just to weed out people who aren't serious enough and thinking long term. Just a peace of mind when I know the tenants intend to stay at least a year. If shit happens and the lease needs to be broken, then shit happens. I honestly don't even know what the procedure is... Never had to deal with that. lol.

[Badhobz]

Originally Posted by supafamous

Does anyone here do month to month with their tenants? We do it cause we don't really see a material difference in making them sign a 1 year lease. We tell the potentials tenants that we do month to month only because if they're not happy we don't want to have to stay (and vice versa). We've found that our potential tenants all appreciate our level of candor about the relationship we're looking for.

The wife did a 5 months fixed lease then month to month contracts with our last tenants. She doesn’t want to deal with sublet and assignment. There is a rule saying “A landlord can’t unreasonably refuse a sublet or assignment of a fixed-term tenancy agreement if there are six months or more remaining in the term.”

We were pretty reasonable landlords, we would rather they end the lease early, than have the tenants find some weirdo to take over the condo just to fulfill the contract.

[Badhobz]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

I've rented out to about 7 tenants over the years, so I've been lucky with a good track record. All of them have been great except this one, which relatively, is not even that bad... considering he still paid on time.

One advice is that I do intentionally look for "dumb" tenants that don't really know what they're doing. I've had potential tenants come in, and based on the questions and how they talk, they sound like "veteran" renters, where they know all their legal rights, and sound like they'll stick it to you the second something goes wrong. I reject those. I'm not saying if you're an experienced renter, you don't deserve to rent or something. But honestly, I'm a newbie landlord too.. as in I don't have experience dealing with legal bullshit.

At the end of the day, I know I'm a good reasonable landlord and can vouch for myself, and all I want is someone that will just pay me on time and not be a "Karen" or find loopholes in the tenancy agreement. My current tenant is probably the best one I've had so far... a couple weeks back when we had the dump of snow. I was awoken by the sound of scraping outside. I look outside the window and see my tenant shoveling the walkway and sidewalk.. wtf?? lol.

I agree … but then you will need to deal with all the dumbass

One of the tenant asked me to replace the washer because her clothing came out stinky after the wash. Apparently, she left her clothing inside the washer for hours before she put them in the dryer … Go figure !!!

But I would rather deal with the dumbass over the smartass any day.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by supafamous

Does anyone here do month to month with their tenants? We do it cause we don't really see a material difference in making them sign a 1 year lease. We tell the potentials tenants that we do month to month only because if they're not happy we don't want to have to stay (and vice versa). We've found that our potential tenants all appreciate our level of candor about the relationship we're looking for.

I don't do residential except a relatively short sting with a multifamily complex a few years ago, but given the current RTB rules, it makes very little sense to go on a term contract.

Term contracts are usually used to guarantee x amount of rent for the predetermined time period. However, with GVR's rent in constant upward fluctuation, why would any LL want to lock in for a year?

Moving is not cheap. We are a society where most people horde stuff one way or the other. For god sake, we have so many storages for rent so that people can horde stuff. Tenants aren't going to move just because suddenly the unit 2 blocks down is $50 cheaper a month.

And if you are in the market to flip properties (buy low, hold and sell when price is higher), a property is a much easier sell with a m-t-m clause. When discussing with a buyer who wants to occupy: we can deliver it vacant. When discussing with a buyer who wants tenant: the tenant is willing to stay.

[Great68]

Yeah the benefits from a fixed lease now definitely favour tenants more than landlords.

Like if a tenant wants to break, all they're potentially on the hook for is lost rent revenue, you can't force them to stay.

But I can't think of any valid reasons a landlord could use if they're the ones who wanted to break and you can't force them out (not counting eviction for cause, but that makes no difference if tenant is on lease or month to month).

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Badhobz

There is a rule saying “A landlord can’t unreasonably refuse a sublet or assignment of a fixed-term tenancy agreement if there are six months or more remaining in the term.”

That's just it, a sublet can be refused without issue if the tenant is month-to-month. Which means asking for a fixed term at all is kind of pointless.

[SSM_DC5]

Interest on damage deposits now.

[6thGear.]

Originally Posted by SSM_DC5

Interest on damage deposits now.

For all you rich RS landlords

https://www.cheknews.ca/b-c-landlord...-2008-1130476/

[JDMDreams]

Time to Jack up rent then

[6thGear.]

This has been around for quite some time, just was never a thing the past 10 yrs due to low rates

[PeanutButter]

Originally Posted by JDMDreams

Time to Jack up rent then

Most people I know who are landlords do not raise rent. I've concluded it comes down to them not wanting to be confrontational. Their property taxes have increased, their mortgage rates have gone up, their utilities have gone up, yet they are still afraid to raise rent a measly 2%...

And most renters won't even know of this interest rate deposit thing anyway... it's peanuts. 2% on a $2k deposit is only $40 a year....

[Traum]

Originally Posted by PeanutButter

Most people I know who are landlords do not raise rent. I've concluded it comes down to them not wanting to be confrontational. Their property taxes have increased, their mortgage rates have gone up, their utilities have gone up, yet they are still afraid to raise rent a measly 2%...

Before the pandemic, I can see how a reasonable landlord might not want to raise rent on a good (residential) tenant. But in the pandemic era, when costs have risen so much, it would be insane to not raise rent, esp when the increase is only limited to such a measly amount.

Even with a maximum allowed rent increase, I doubt it can cover the increased costs for the landlord with most residential rental suites.

[Gnomes]

Originally Posted by Great68

Specifying a guest "duration limit" has already been ruled an unconscionable term in past precedent, and would not be enforceable:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/h...ring-tenancies

Telling tenant to not have a guest 364 out of 365 days is apparently not allowed as long as they dont have mail, keys, move significant belongs over, etc

I currently have a tiny 400sqft 1 bedroom suite rented to a family of 3 (parents + 1 toddler). A new baby is incoming and their inlaws are coming from overseas to help out a "month". Even though my addendum says max 3 occupants, guests dont apply and "month" can turn to "months".

I emailed RTB for clarification and will report back whenever they reply

[blkgsr]

4 adults and two babies in 400sqft? damn that's tight

[The Producer]

lot of landlords in this thread