Tenant problem

Saniokca wrote: ↑ In short, it's called risk and return. If people understood the risk they would not be complaining about unfair rules because it would be priced in... The return (especially in Ontario) does not justify the risk but people still go in and still get burned.

It's harder to price in the risk but yes, the only way it remotely works is if you price in the risk of having a non paying tenant or a tenant who trashes your property.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ Don't get me wrong I am all for changing the system - there is a lot wrong with the current rules. But I disagree that as a taxpayer I should be subsidizing someone's investment. Are you ok with subsidizing corporations who pay me dividends?

I wasn't in favor during the great financial crisis.


But here the problem is that government shut down the courts and changed the rules. So even though I'm normally not in favor of supporting any businesses, when the government shuts down something (eg, restaurants) for the benefit of society as a whole, then society as a whole benefits, and so society as a whole owes support to those particular businesses.

Just like I agree that government can seize land to build an airport or highway, but just compensation must be paid.


Otherwise what you have is government forcing losses to fall randomly on people.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ I wasn't in favor during the great financial crisis.


But here the problem is that government shut down the courts and changed the rules. So even though I'm normally not in favor of supporting any businesses, when the government shuts down something (eg, restaurants) for the benefit of society as a whole, then society as a whole benefits, and so society as a whole owes support to those particular businesses.

Just like I agree that government can seize land to build an airport or highway, but just compensation must be paid.


Otherwise what you have is government forcing losses to fall randomly on people.

Well put argument but I disagree with that philosophy. This would mean that every industry should be supported and that would bankrupt us. When we are talking about survival (food, shelter, etc.) I agree that we should support people (hence you have EI, CERB, etc). But when we are talking about subsidizing an investment, I don't want to participate.

In a perfect world, most people and businesses would have a good cushion for a rainy day (or year, or two...). The very poor should be helped, the landlords and investors should not. I fall in the "investor" category but some of my holdings are in REITs, restaurant chains (luckily I sold SRV.UN shortly before the pandemic started), etc. Still, dividends were cut, some lost a lot of value (e.g. Riocan). Oh and next year, or maybe the one after that, the government will decide to increase taxes on dividends, cap gains inclusion, or just introduce new taxes (like in 2006 for income trusts). These are all risks that I accept and don't expect others to cover. Same with real estate - don't expect me to subsidize it.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ Well put argument but I disagree with that philosophy. This would mean that every industry should be supported and that would bankrupt us.

Not every industry, but ones that were ordered shut down.

Because otherwise what's happening is that individuals (owners who can't evict, restaurants that are closed) are subsidizing society out of proportion to their benefit.

Why should the accountant (which stayed open) get his safety subsidized by the retired plumber who rented his basement and got courts (evictions) shut down?

It was to everyone's benefit that evictions be halted. So costs should be born by everyone.


This has the added benefit of forcing the government to really think hard about how long each individual shut down should last and what the general rules of an industry should be.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑
Not every industry, but ones that were ordered shut down.

Because otherwise what's happening is that individuals (owners who can't evict, restaurants that are closed) are subsidizing society out of proportion to their benefit.

Why should the accountant (which stayed open) get his safety subsidized by the retired plumber who rented his basement and got courts (evictions) shut down?

It was to everyone's benefit that evictions be halted. So costs should be born by everyone.

So let's say I'm a retiree and invest all my money into a restaurant stock; Let's say I fully depend on those dividends. Then it's shut down and stops paying dividends. Do you think that the restaurant should get the money from government so they can pay my dividends?

Saniokca wrote: ↑ So let's say I'm a retiree and invest all my money into a restaurant stock; Let's say I fully depend on those dividends. Then it's shut down and stops paying dividends. Do you think that the restaurant should get the money from government so they can pay my dividends?

The stock market is a speculative space and the risk is baked into the reward and return game. He was talking I think more about small businesses being ordered to shutdown and not being compensated in any way other than being given a bigger shovel by the banks so they can just dig themselves a bigger debt hole, one which they will never get out of. I think the lack of empathy that some are showing in here is that they don't have any skin in the game. Shutdown effect different group disproportionately (some are just working from home collecting full pay and have not experienced any real hardship during this pandemic other than whining about not being able to visit their friends).

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ I've posted in the past about what an asinine suggestion that is. But just for fun:


Do tell where you'd find such a person. Kijiji thugs section?

And what would your "instructions" be?


What does that cost anyway? Do such services ever go on sale? Maybe in the Hot Deals section?
What about reviews? How would you pick one over another? Is satisfaction guaranteed? Refunds if the service doesn't work?

Hang out @ a seedy bar in a rough part of town. Start asking around.
A few will probably take your money and not do anything. But some tough guy might actually do something and help you beat someone up for a few bucks.
But since they know you arent crazy like that... if they get in trouble with the cops they’ll just rat you out for a lesser charge and now you go to jail for facilitating a beating.

Paying someone to beat someone, is just as bad as beating them yourself!

But reality... document everything and start the slow process of eviction. The more you document on paper & sooner you start, the quicker the eviction.

Try not to start a fight. Because some will actually go for it.
But this is not to say don’t watch your back. Keep an eye out and clock the guy if he actually comes @ you! (Speaking of self defence only ... and only if he actually comes at you).

Saniokca wrote: ↑ In short, it's called risk and return. If people understood the risk they would not be complaining about unfair rules because it would be priced in... The return (especially in Ontario) does not justify the risk but people still go in and still get burned.

Yep... all investment should be viewed with the same lens. And i say that broadly!
In the landlord case... there is regulatory risk. Its been well known for decades what is in the RTA and how the courts handle landlord/tenant matters.

Theres also the idea of risk mitigation. Pick and choose tenants wisely. Its not impossible, but the chances are slim of a good tenant becoming bad.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ So let's say I'm a retiree and invest all my money into a restaurant stock; Let's say I fully depend on those dividends. Then it's shut down and stops paying dividends. Do you think that the restaurant should get the money from government so they can pay my dividends?

No, I don't think the government should (or even could) make everyone "whole".

My point is just that if the government radically changes the rules, overnight, and for the benefit of all, then some sort of compensation is due.

The alternative would have been keep courts open and evictions on track (which, by the way, is almost what Quebec did: evictions where only shut down about 3 months).

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ No, I don't think the government should (or even could) make everyone "whole".

But the restaurants were closed for the benefit of all (allegedly) and I the dividends could be a crucial source of income for me. Why is it ok to subsidize a landlord but not the investor who collects dividends?

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ My point is just that if the government radically changes the rules, overnight, and for the benefit of all, then some sort of compensation is due.

The government does it all the time... e.g. the taxes on Income trusts in 2006.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ The alternative would have been keep courts open and evictions on track (which, by the way, is almost what Quebec did: evictions where only shut down about 3 months).

I think one thing we agree on is that governments are not great in general...

Again, landlording is (in my opinion) not an easy job and has plenty of risks which people don't understand when they go into it. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea to have minimum requirements to be a landlord - something similar to qualified/accredited investor in the finance world. It would create other issues though (e.g. less demand for investment properties might mean fewer buildings going up and higher rents).

To OP: sorry that we highjacked your thread. Hope you get this resolved soon and kick them out.

New landlord in BC. Have got a tenant from hell. Its 12.40AM, and the tenant started doing their 4th load of laundry for the night.

Any resources in BC for landlords?

I would look into it but you may have to fix it even though your getting no rent otherwise the LTB may rule against you. It may feel nice to say you made your mess, live with it but the LTB is looking for reasons to screw the landlord. So i would fix it but document everything.
Once you finally get rid of them do go after them for money owing. With your documentation of rent not paid and damages they caused, if small claims court is where you go then file and get the judgment. Then take the appropriate steps to garnish their wages for it.

Yes its a headache but if you want to get your money and teach them a lesson then you have to play the game. And with your hands clean otherwise they can screw you and get away with it.

Saniokca wrote: ↑ Don't get me wrong I am all for changing the system - there is a lot wrong with the current rules. But I disagree that as a taxpayer I should be subsidizing someone's investment. Are you ok with subsidizing corporations who pay me dividends?

I agree but you do know we gave corporations more money last year than we have spent on affordable housing in the history of Canada. I mean I don't think we should spend more on affordable housing but we should just keep things in perspective.

Being a landlord is a vastly underestimate risk. How much more does real estate go up from here to justify this risk? I have very high end rentals that have trailed in market appreciation but mean I largely and so far have avoided really any issues. The best returns are rundown triplexes but welcome to constant fights.

As for grease clogging the drain is that even something you can charge a tenant for? It's pretty much normal wear and tear IMHO. LTB sides with tenants on most grey areas so seems they will here and how do you prove it was unreasonable which is what you have to prove not that it clogged because of their actions. Dishwashers for example always break because tenants throw dishes without rinsing and without cleaning filters. Still you are on the hook as owner.

fogetmylogin wrote: ↑ I agree but you do know we gave corporations more money last year than we have spent on affordable housing in the history of Canada. I mean I don't think we should spend more on affordable housing but we should just keep things in perspective.

Being a landlord is a vastly underestimate risk.

Yes I know about money to corporations and I don't like it at all... A few months ago I heard part of an interview with a Canadian who is a big shot in the hedge fund industry (can't remember his name). He was arguing that the only ones were we're saving with these bailouts were the billionaires who owned a lot of stock in those companies. If a company like an airline were allowed to fail, their assets and operations would be bought and flights resumed. Yes some jobs would have been lost but those jobs would have been lost even with the bailout. I think that was his argument and it made sense to me.

That sentence about risk of being a landlord is what I'm trying to say all along... I don't think that too many small (one or two properties) landlords understand that. And having all your eggs in one basket would really scare me. Not to mention that you need to know how to deal with people and keep emotions at bay, which is hard to do if all your life savings are in it.

samyvrca wrote: ↑ New landlord in BC. Have got a tenant from hell. Its 12.40AM, and the tenant started doing their 4th load of laundry for the night.

Any resources in BC for landlords?

BC is just as bad as Ontario for landlords (I'm in BC and I've also lived in Ontario). Personally I wouldn't care about the laundry being done late. That doesn't even approach "tenant from hell" levels IMO. What else do they do to give them that title?

samyvrca wrote: ↑ New landlord in BC. Have got a tenant from hell. Its 12.40AM, and the tenant started doing their 4th load of laundry for the night.

Any resources in BC for landlords?

nope, sorry, you a F'ed, unless you can prove the tenants are doing commercial laundry business at the residential rental. Good luck finding proof.

Think of the bright side, water is free in CoV lol

Saniokca wrote: ↑ Yes I know about money to corporations and I don't like it at all... A few months ago I heard part of an interview with a Canadian who is a big shot in the hedge fund industry (can't remember his name). He was arguing that the only ones were we're saving with these bailouts were the billionaires who owned a lot of stock in those companies. If a company like an airline were allowed to fail, their assets and operations would be bought and flights resumed. Yes some jobs would have been lost but those jobs would have been lost even with the bailout. I think that was his argument and it made sense to me.

That sentence about risk of being a landlord is what I'm trying to say all along... I don't think that too many small (one or two properties) landlords understand that. And having all your eggs in one basket would really scare me. Not to mention that you need to know how to deal with people and keep emotions at bay, which is hard to do if all your life savings are in it.

He is 100% correct. I am all against bailout and handout of any form to big corps, small corps, rich, & poors.
People should learn they bare their own responsibilities.
Government should not be viewed as the insurance policy.

Agreed laundry at night is not near tenant from hell. Ontario is the worst. No recourse whatsoever ..

In guelph I have a tenant with some mental issues....has not let me on property for 6 months..has big dog...calls police if I get someone to cut grass outside and tells them that she's owner and myself or a grass cutter is trespassing. Have to deal with LTB but taking 6 months to get a court date...2k month rent...losing 20k... as I pay for her utilities....

Will lose 30k by time she moves out. Lots of little damages may make it 35k

The laundry bandits have done laundry everyday of the week including 3 more times today. And they have only been here a week. Oh, and he fixes his and his buddies' cars all day, running power tools . Its half an hour past midnight, and I can hear him whirring on the gas. I will probably have more tomorrow.

But yah, any resources for landlords in BC?

The one who said rents going up or less people willing to rent their place is because of this tilt towards tenants you are correct my wife said the same thing. My next tenants will have lots of screenings, if we decide to get tenants again.

Someone said try gay people they are better tenants.

As for drain, there is no dishwasher and they claim they are not draining grease. If they were not and this was new pit when they moved in then obviously they did put grease. If someone throws stuff that does not belong in drain (like toy, grease, Sanitary
Pads, diapers) isn’t it constitute negligence ? City warns residents not to drain grease and collect it outside. Since city cannot determine perhaps who did it they cannot come after them? This is my argument but I am not rigid if someone has better suggestion and think I am overboard on this claim and LTB May throw it out due to Grey area, I will reconsider.

After non payment of rent, tenants have many chances to pay even before sheriff shows up and N4 gets null and void. System need to differentiate abusers/violators. Once N4 is issued it should be registered whether tenant pays later. And after certain number of N4 issued for the same tenant there should be quick eviction, no lengthy process.

If I go to LTB and get judgment against tenant for non payment of rent and damages then if money not paid I should be able to put this on their credit, like any other non payment. If even small claims court cannot recover money and help me then where should Landlord turn to. That’s why Uncle Tony is so busy.
I would not call uncle Tony nor I would be unfair to my next tenants but after this experience we are not the same.
Premier said without thinking don’t pay rent. Landlord do not have endless money pit. I estimate my tenants would owe me 12-15K when they leave. I could have spent this money on anything but now I am forced to fork out.