A Surrey family has been awarded $33,700 after being illegally evicted from their home, which was sold to a shady investor. Natalie Egger says that while they are relieved to have the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) rule in their favor, the compensation will soon evaporate from having to pay more for rent and utilities in their new rental home. In addition, a new legal journey begins to obtain the money that is now owed to them. Eggers’ case is one of dozens across the province where landlords evict tenants under false or false pretenses. The Eggers want to see a more streamlined process for getting their compensation. “We are pleased with the decision, but now begins the search to get the money we are owed,” Egger said. With the RTB order, the Eggers can now serve their former landlord’s home buyer, who will then have 15 days to respond and pay. If the buyers don’t, the Eggers will find themselves in provincial small claims court where a judge can order repayment.

The buyers raised the rent by 70% after the family was evicted

The family had been renting a detached house in South Surrey when their landlord informed them in March 2021 that the house was to be sold. In September 2021, the property sold for $2.3 million, and the family was given two months’ notice by the buyers to vacate by that December, as the buyers said they would occupy the home. The Eggers moved in October to a nearby home to accommodate their children. Their rent jumped from $2,800 to $3,200 a month, plus more expensive utilities, said Egger, a 41-year-old agricultural business consultant. When December rolled around, Eggers noticed the house was empty and listed for rent at $4,750 a month — a $1,950 premium over what her family was paying. According to the Residential Tenancies Branch’s policy guideline, a landlord must pay compensation to a tenant when the landlord “fails to use the rental unit for the purpose for which the notice was given” for at least six months after the date of occupancy. “If the landlord fails to meet these requirements, he must pay the tenant compensation equal to 12 months’ rent paid under the previous lease, unless the landlord’s failure was due to extenuating circumstances,” the policy states. Extenuating circumstances include the death of a family member who intended to occupy the home or a rental unit destroyed in a fire. A change of mind is not a mitigation, the policy states. An RTB arbitrator has the discretion to decide what constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance. At their Oct. 18 hearing, the buyers claimed they were not fully informed about the laws, which differed from those outside the province where they previously lived. They also claimed that one of the buyers had a heart attack, which changed their circumstances. The arbitrator ruled that ignorance of the law was no excuse and that the owners had not provided enough evidence of the medical emergency that caused them to re-rent the home.

Egger says brokers might need to revise their laws if that were the case. Zuzana Modovic, a lawyer at the Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre, previously told Glacier Media her team sees many cases of dishonest statements leading to compensation claims. The process usually has tenants navigating an RTB hearing and possibly court. There have been dozens of such decisions in 2022. Several notable ones involve evicting tenants and then listing their position as a short-term lease. While most of the decisions Glacier Media reviewed go in favor of tenants, some do not. Typical extenuating circumstances include medical conditions that prevent family members from moving and pandemic-related inconveniences. Egger previously described the experience of locating buyers as terrifying. Now, since the RTB has no enforcement mechanism, the Eggers may find themselves in litigation, as a creditor. Egger believes RTB decisions should lead to a more seamless way to recover funds. In June, a representative of the Attorney General and the Ministry responsible for housing told Glacier Media that the RTB is a neutral public body that cannot help applicants. However, he says the government has made some changes to help tenants. The most significant change related to compensation claims is the transfer of the burden of proof to the owner. “Previously, if the landlord failed to comply with this plan and a tenant sought damages from their landlord, the burden was on the tenant to prove it. The amendment shifts the burden to the landlord to prove that he used the property for the stated purpose of the termination of the lease,” the spokesman said via email. [email protected]