A Burnaby landlord was forced to hire a five-ton truck and four movers because he was in a panic that the tenant would move out in time for the home’s new owners after the property was sold.
And the landlord then went to the Residential Tenancy Branch to recoup the costs, but didn’t get the answers he wanted.
The landlord testified at a dispute resolution hearing that he had issued a two-month notice to end the tenancy as the property had been sold. One day, the landlord dropped by and noticed that the tenant had started the process of moving out.
“However, their impression was that there were so many items to move that the tenant would not be able to vacate the rental unit on the effective date,” reads a ruling by the RTB.
The landlord’s realtor testified that there was a mountain of items to be removed and that the tenant only had a tiny Ford Escort vehicle and a small trailer – and no helpers - and there was “no feasible way” the tenant could move out that many things in the remaining time.
And so, the landlord told the tenant that he would “assist in moving out” and it was that offer that became at issue as the tenant thought this meant the landlord would cover the costs.
“The landlord says the tenant was asked to identify which items he wanted to move and which items he wanted to dispose of,” reads the ruling. “The tenant identified a large quantity of items he wish to dispose of.”
The landlord then hired a junk removal service that required three separate trips to a waste transfer station. The landlord also rented a five-ton truck to move the tenant’s belongings to a storage locker. The landlord also had to hire four people to help with the moving to speed up the process and meet the deadline for moving out. Costs also included gas for the truck.
The total claim was for more than $2,150, but the tenant disputed that he should be covering those costs.
“He says the landlord or his realtor told him they would ‘take care of moving’ for him,” the ruling said. “He understood this to mean that the landlord would pay his moving costs.”
The tenant added that some of the items disposed of were not his, but those owned by a previous tenant. The tenant also said the moves damaged a barrel of homemade blackberry wine and that one of the movers was drunk on the job. The tenant said the wine barrel was worth $2,200.
The landlord responded that the movers were all sober, adding that the wine was undrinkable, according to the “movers who tried it,” the ruling said.
The RTB rules that the tenant had not proven that the landlord was responsible for the wine barrel.
The ruling also found that the tenant rightly understood that the landlord would “take care of” the move and that would mean he wouldn’t have to pay for it.
“The tenant altered his course of action in reliance on the landlord’s promise to ‘take care’ of the move, and the landlord cannot later assert a right to be reimbursed,” the ruling said. “However, I accept the evidence of the landlord and his realtor that the tenant, with only a trailer and without an ability to hire movers, would not have been able to move out all of his belongings from the property by the effective date. It is very likely that if the landlord had not assisted with the moving and removal, there would have been items left behind for the landlord to dispose of.”
So the ruling split the difference, and awarded the landlord $500 as compensation.
Follow Chris Campbell on Twitter @shinebox44.
