posted
My roommate and I want to move out of our apartment. Neither of us are sure if we've signed a lease. I know that sounds ridiculous, but bear with me.
Both of us contacted the landlord from a rental website where the place was advertised as month to month rent, which was a large part of the reason we took it. We both told her by email when we contacted her that we weren't sure how long we'd be here, but it would probably be at least 8 months.
When we got here, we were presented with a rental agreement to sign. We both signed it. I signed it because, being an idiot, I somehow didn't notice the dates at the top until a day or two after I had signed it (I know, I know - but they were handwritten in, and I just... missed them). My roommate, being brighter, noticed the dates and said "I don't want to sign this because I don't think I'll be here until September" to which the landlord verbally replied "Oh, that's fine. Just as long as I have 30 days notice before whenever you leave. I'd prefer if you stay until at least April though."
The agreement is as follows:
quote:Rental Agreement
It Is Agreed That:
The student lodger will remain a resident of the premises for the term of this agreement, under the terms of residency stipulated in this document.
The term of this agreement is from Sept 1/06 to Aug 31/07. Monthly rent is [blah blah blah about rent and deposit].
It is further agreed that:
1. [no more than 2 people living here] 2. [no long term visitors] 3. Student lodgers must provide 30 days notice of their intention to terminate tenancy; failure to do so will result in forfeiture of damage deposit. 4. Owner reserves right to terminate residency with 30 days written notice for reasons not limited to non-payment, [blah blah blah etcetera] 5. [local phone calls only] 6. [no smoking]
Note: The student agrees that he or she is a lodger. No residential tenancy in law is being created by this document. The term of this agreement is for the period indicated, extensions being subject to the discretion of the owner.
Signatures, etc.
So we have no idea, if it comes to it, if we're stuck here. We'd like to know before we approach her if we need to explain everything and try to get her to "let us out of the lease", or if we are legally allowed to just give our 30 days notice and leave. Does anyone know what "no residential tenancy" means, legally? I gather it strips us of tenants' rights under the Residential Tenancy Act, but does that also mean this isn't a 'real' lease? Is there a difference between a "rental agreement for lodgers" and a "lease for tenants"? I know Canadian law might differ from US law, but neither of us have any head for this, and we can't sort the jargon out from what we can find online, which all seems to be about official tenants anyway, which we aren't. I was hoping someone might know something about it.
Thanks for any help.
Edit to add: This is in BC - I'm not sure how much things differ province to province.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there a student housing union for you to talk to in your area? They usually offer free advice on precisely this sort of issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can call the people at the Residential Tenancy Office and ask their advice. They know the law and will tell you what your rights and obligations are.
One thing they'll tell you is that if the lease/rental agreement has clauses that try to take away your rights as a tenant, those clauses are null and void.
Going strictly by the wording in the agreement, it appears (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) as though you'd be fine to give them 30 days notice.
When you call the Tenancy people, ask for their information sheets/pamphlets on tenancy laws. Depending on where you are, you might have to pick it up or, if you're not located in an area where they have an office, they'll mail it out to you. Although, really, a lot of the information you need is on their website.
I haven't lived in BC for a little over 3 years, so I have no idea what changes have happened since then, and yes, things differ a fair bit province to province, so it's a good thing you indicated which one.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, too, would interpret that contract as allowing you to leave anytime you want, provided you give the required 30 days notice.
I know very little of Canadian law, but I would assume that the reason for the just-under-a-year contract and for calling you "lodger" is to avoid tenancy laws that presumably give some sort of extra protection once you've rented a place a certain time. This way the landlord retains the option of kicking you out for no cause once the lease is up. I don't imagine that the landlords oral statement that she'd prefer you'd stay to April has any legal significance.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Residential Tenancy is solely a provincial concern. However, this agreement specifically stands outside the RTA making it a simple contract. The issue here is enforcement. Since the RTA will not govern either party, enforcement would have to be through Small Claims Court and the bottom line of that is it probably isn't worth either party's efforts to take the contract to court.
Indeed. I live in BC and my lodgers are always shocked to learn that they have NO rights whatsoever. Even their damage deposit has no legal standing and is essentially a sum of money they gave me with no special protection in law.
Of course, I always return it, but have no legal obligation to do so absent a Small Claims judgement.
In other words, your best bet is to talk nicely to your landlord, explain your situation, and work out a mutual agreement. They hold all the cards at the moment.
Craigslist may prove critical here. My issue used to be the cost of advertizing the room but an ad on craigslist is free and produces magnitudes better results than a classified ad.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW if your suite is self contained and being rented outside the RTA then it is surely an illegal suite. If that is the case, simply mentioning that the City may be concerned about the illegal kitchen would probably net a damage deposit return.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Residential tenancy' is a polite way of saying that squatters' rights can be asserted: ie a quasi"homestead" is created on someone else's property merely by the act of living on that property. The problem being that such "homestead"ers are extremely expensive to legally remove from ones property; irrespective of cause such as failure to pay rent, property damage, driving away other renters, neighbors' complaints, etc.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, I always return it, but have no legal obligation to do so absent a Small Claims judgement.
Eh, of course you have a legal obligation to return a deposition (absent damages on your property). Otherwise a Small Claims Court would never rule in favour of the lodger. A judgement ruling that you have to return the deposit doesn't create a legal obligation; it recognises a pre-existing one.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, everyone. Mainly I just wanted to know if anyone was familiar with the "lodger" position. It's not that we're fighting with the landlord or are worried about her refusing to give us back the deposit or anything, but we're not sure how she'll take the news that we want to move out, so we wanted to be prepared knowing what state we're in before we talk to her. She's been very nice, actually, but she has a certain... edge to her.
Tom, there might be one at the university. I wasn't sure if they'd be able to help since we're not "tenants", but I guess it's worth a shot to find out where we stand. I'll try to find it this week.
And quid, I went to that website earlier, but it's all about the RTA, and my main problem is that I don't know if we're covered by that. I don't think so, especially from what orlox said. Thanks though.
quote:my lodgers are always shocked to learn that they have NO rights whatsoever
This sentence really bothers me, unless you mean they're shocked when you first meet them and explain that they won't be "tenants". Otherwise, they shouldn't be shocked, because that means they weren't told up front what they were getting into. I understand that not creating an official tenancy is an act of protection for you against getting screwed over by bad tenants, which does happen, but at the same time - a tenant ought to be told what they're getting into, especially in a situation where the landlord will be holding all the cards. Actually, I think tenancies are generally bad news when *either* side holds all the cards. As well, I agree with Tristan in that you do have a legal obligation to return the deposit. Thanks for the landlord point of view though.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My conduct is governed by a moral foundation somewhat beyond provincial statute, but thanks for the insinuation.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
