A B.C. renter said their landlord installed security devices that invaded their privacy and failed to make vital repairs to the property.
The tenancy began on Oct. 1, 2020, with a monthly rent of $1,500, a security deposit of $750, and a pet damage deposit of $750.
The tenant applied for dispute resolution under the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) to require the landlord to complete repairs in the common area, including repairs to a ground water pump, installation of a railing on a retaining wall, and painting the rental unit.
The tenant said firefighters told them the groundwater pump needed to be fixed following a flood in April 2023. They also mentioned that the pipes in the home made noise, and they were worried about another flood.
The tenant also wanted the landlord to paint the rental unit because they had lived there for four years and that hadn't been done.
The tenant said the retaining wall where they park their vehicle is dangerous because it doesn't have a railing, adding that they had tripped and almost fallen over it.
Landlord claimed they weren't responsible for any repairs noted by the tenant
The landlord claimed they weren't responsible for the repairs, denying the existence of a groundwater pump on the property or being advised by the fire department in 2023 that one existed and required repairs.
To support their claim, the landlord provided a document from a plumber stating that the property didn't have a groundwater pump.
Regarding the retaining wall, the landlord stated that the tenant was never permitted to park at the back of the property near it. Therefore, a railing was not required.
The landlord noted that the unit does not require painting, but when it does, it will need to be remediated for asbestos first.
The tenant had also filed a claim to get the landlord to comply with the "act, regulation, and/or tenancy agreement" to stop serving letters about property maintenance to remove cameras that interfered with quiet enjoyment.
The landlord said the tenant needed to maintain the lawn and landscaping as per the tenancy contract, and the city sent letters regarding poor maintenance. They added that the security cameras do not face areas rented to the tenant for their exclusive use and possession. Additionally, they argued that they are in place to protect the entire property.
The tenant denied the cameras facing common areas and alleged that a "doorbell camera mounted beside the door of the other rental unit faces into their unit." The landlord denied this, stating "that it faces straight ahead on the shared walkway."
RTB weighs in on tenant's claims
The Residential Tenancy Board arbitrator noted that the tenant had to prove the groundwater pump needed repairs. In contrast, the landlord supplied a plumbing invoice stating there was no evidence of one. They dismissed the tenant's claim.
Similarly, the arbitrator said no evidence existed showing a railing needed to be installed on the retaining wall. They added that they were not satisfied that the renter was permitted to park in the back area, either.
The tenant didn't submit any evidence showing that the rental unit required paint, and the RTA doesn't stipulate that a landlord must do this every few years. Further, the renter did not show any pictures to support there were damages.
Regarding the security and doorbell cameras, the arbitrator did not believe they breached the tenant's privacy. No evidence was submitted demonstrating how these devices pointed into the tenant's exclusive space.
An addendum to the tenancy agreement signed by both parties states the tenant must keep the exterior of their home clean by maintaining the lawn and the landscaping and removing snow from the driveway and walkway(s). The landlord submitted a bylaw infraction letter dated May 21, 2024, regarding an inspection on May 17, 2024, and three warning letters to the tenant about their lack of lawn maintenance on May 24, 2024, April 30, 2024, and April 20, 2024.
"I find that the efforts made by the landlord to have the tenant comply with these obligations does not constitute either a breach of the act or tenancy agreement, or a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 28 of the act," the arbitrator stated in the ruling.
As the tenant was unsuccessful in all of their applications, their claim for recovery of the filing fees was dismissed on July 30, 2024. The tenant was instead ordered to comply with the tenancy agreement and maintain the area around their unit. Failure to comply could result in a complaint with the compliance and enforcement unit and administrative penalties.
