Question for landlords/people who know about such things

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Yes I would like to avoid moving in 3 months if I can, because it would be quite frustrating to move out and then see it for rent at a similar price just a few months later. But don't misconstrue that as "come or hell or highwater I ain't moving" because it's certainly not the case.

I don't know...if somebody wanted me out of their house and gave me three months' notice I would move. Whether the law is on your side or not, it's not right to live in somebody's house when they have asked you nicely to move in 90 days. I can't believe you feel justified in making it hard for him to get you out.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't know...if somebody wanted me out of their house and gave me three months' notice I would move. Whether the law is on your side or not, it's not right to live in somebody's house when they have asked you nicely to move in 90 days. I can't believe you feel justified in making it hard for him to get you out.

For the record I haven't said or done anything to make it more difficult on my landlord. All I've done thus far is said to him "ok thanks for the notice" then researched if listing the house for sale is a valid reason to end a month to month tenancy.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

For the record I haven't said or done anything to make it more difficult on my landlord. All I've done thus far is said to him "ok thanks for the notice" then researched if listing the house for sale is a valid reason to end a month to month tenancy.

I'm saying it shouldn't matter what the reason is. He has asked you to leave and given you 90 days to do it. That should be good enough for you, IMO. It sounds to me like you may be willing to exploit a technicality to force your way into staying there - I think that reflects poorly on you.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by photon

I got enough of my own tenant headaches to not be curious.

Then again misery loves company.

Why don't people see not paying rent and/or cutting out early as theft? I was at a tenant's place (their rent cheque bounced, first time) and this guy's girlfriend is crying to me that she has no friends and is breaking up with her boyfriend, moving out and going home. Girl, I'm the landlord, not a therapist. Call the boyfriend, he's going home too, so I guess they're moving out (still don't have actual written notice).

They don't want to pay August's rent despite not having given notice, one tells me to call the other to arrange for the overdue rent, girlfriend cries to me on the phone again, says the boyfriend has access to the bank account, etc etc.

Don't put me in the middle, just get your **** together for one day and work it out and be responsible for what you agreed to. I didn't write the landlord tenant act, I just have to live by it.

And people wonder where landlords that treat people like crap come from.. stupid tenants!

Ramen brother!!

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm saying it shouldn't matter what the reason is.He has asked you to leave and given you 90 days to do it. That should be good enough for you, IMO. It sounds to me like you may be willing to exploit a technicality to force your way into staying there - I think that reflects poorly on you.

What if his reason was "your a flames fan, I like the canucks, get out"?

Or "I don't like the colour of the car you're parking in the garage"

Either way, I've grown tired of this debate, I get the landlords put up with tons of BS, but that doesn't mean a tenant should just except every decision they make as gosspil.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

I think the point many landlords are trying to make, is that; when given 90 days notice, the reason shouldn't matter. Unfortunately, arcane laws don't allow that.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by photon

Alberta is great for landlords compared to BC or Ontario from what I've been told by other landlords.

I think the RTA in Alberta is actually pretty reasonable.

Rent increases allowed, but only 1 per year. That seems fair, since rent control is a bad idea, but raising someone's rent every 3 months isn't reasonable either.

A landlord who want's someone out can eventually get rid of them, but not just on a whim because they feel like it, which is important since we're dealing with people's shelter here.

It's absolutely more landlord-friendly than Ontario, but Ontario isn't getting any new rental housing because of that, and so what does exist goes for high prices on re-rental.

Keeping the rules reasonable for landlords reduces their risk and helps keep rents at more reasonable levels.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm saying it shouldn't matter what the reason is. He has asked you to leave and given you 90 days to do it. That should be good enough for you, IMO. It sounds to me like you may be willing to exploit a technicality to force your way into staying there - I think that reflects poorly on you.

I don't think there is anything wrong with exploring what the laws allow for both the rights of landlords and tenants. I am not really sure how your comments are encouraging an open discussion on this.

Just as note on my own experience with tenants - and this if you have ones that will challenge everything you do - if you extend a privilege to a tenant, i.e. let them come into your place to use your washer/dryer, they can continue to expect that, and it becomes part of the rental agreement, regardless of whether it was previously written down or not.

The other annoyance, is when you have a tenant (basement) that doesn't go out, so you have to manage to keep the temperature at 22 deg 24 hours a day, that's okay if your duct work can keep the basement at 22 and not make the main floor 25 deg. Plus they then challenge the utility bill because its so high when they leave the windows open and still want the temperature at 22 deg, but there's really nothing you can do.

Anyway, all in all if I ever wanted to be a landlord again, I'd buy a condo and rent it out.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't think there is anything wrong with exploring what the laws allow for both the rights of landlords and tenants. I am not really sure how your comments are encouraging an open discussion on this.

He can look up all the laws and right he wants. Personally, I think they're less relevant than the "right" thing to do in this case, which is glaringly obvious from my point of view. He can end the relationship with 30 days' notice but the landlord can't with 90? That's unfair.

I fail to see how you fail to see how my comments aren't encouraging an open discussion. I'm willing to discuss every point he raises.

[flamesrule_kipper34]

Originally Posted by Sliver

He can look up all the laws and right he wants. Personally, I think they're less relevant than the "right" thing to do in this case, which is glaringly obvious from my point of view. He can end the relationship with 30 days' notice but the landlord can't with 90? That's unfair.

I fail to see how you fail to see how my comments aren't encouraging an open discussion. I'm willing to discuss every point he raises.

This made me lol, sorry to de-rail slightly.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Sliver

He can look up all the laws and right he wants. Personally, I think they're less relevant than the "right" thing to do in this case, which is glaringly obvious from my point of view. He can end the relationship with 30 days' notice but the landlord can't with 90? That's unfair.

I fail to see how you fail to see how my comments aren't encouraging an open discussion. I'm willing to discuss every point he raises.

By telling him to man-up and look for a new place isn't really a useful counter-point.

It's likely a lot easier for a landlord to find a new tenant in 1 month, than for somebody to move all of their possessions, change where their bills get sent, etc. Also if the landlord knows anything, they would get the tenant to sign a 6 month or 1 year lease. That way they have some backup if they want to pursue lost rental revenue.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Wormius

By telling him to man-up and look for a new place isn't really a useful counter-point.

It's likely a lot easier for a landlord to find a new tenant in 1 month, than for somebody to move all of their possessions, change where their bills get sent, etc. Also if the landlord knows anything, they would get the tenant to sign a 6 month or 1 year lease. That way they have some backup if they want to pursue lost rental revenue.

Had I said that, you may have a point.

What I actually said was 90 days was reasonable notice for the landlord to give him. So yes, if somebody asks you nicely for control of their property back and they give you 90 days I think you should comply. How that isn't a valid counterpoint to you makes no sense to me.

This has nothing to do with lost rental revenue. I don't care about the landlord's lost revenue. I just care that a $700/month renter is contemplating holding a $400,000 house hostage on a technicality because he doesn't feel like moving. It's insane.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I just care that a $700/month renter is contemplating holding a $400,000 house hostage on a technicality because he doesn't feel like moving. It's insane.

You've completely misread my intentions if you think that was my original thought. My thought was more along the lines of "write the rent cheque to a new person/company each month"

Basically the short version of this is my landlord doesn't want the responsibility of renting anymore, so he's opted to sell. Given that it's a suited bungalow there it's highly likely it would be purchased as an investment property rather than a family home. Not much different than if we were dealing with a 4-plex or an apartment building really, new owners become the landlord.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Had I said that, you may have a point.

What I actually said was 90 days was reasonable notice for the landlord to give him. So yes, if somebody asks you nicely for control of their property back and they give you 90 days I think you should comply. How that isn't a valid counterpoint to you makes no sense to me.

This has nothing to do with lost rental revenue. I don't care about the landlord's lost revenue. I just care that a $700/month renter is contemplating holding a $400,000 house hostage on a technicality because he doesn't feel like moving. It's insane.

Yeah, but the landlord is selling it, so there is nothing the tenant can do but move within the time afforded to him.

Worst case is, he doesn't move after the 3 month notice of being told the house is being sold or major renos are going to take place. Then the owner goes to small claims court, the judge tells the tenant to move out out ASAP and then the owner can do anything he wants (change the locks, put the tenants possessions in the back alley, etc).

And the landlord also has to be careful - if the tenant stays another month after he was supposed to be out, and the landlord accepts a rent cheque, they're back to square one. I might be wrong about that last point. I remember an arbritator telling us not to take any cheques while the tenant is supposed to be evicted.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

You've completely misread my intentions if you think that was my original thought. My thought was more along the lines of "write the rent cheque to a new person/company each month"

Basically the short version of this is my landlord doesn't want the responsibility of renting anymore, so he's opted to sell. Given that it's a suited bungalow there it's highly likely it would be purchased as an investment property rather than a family home. Not much different than if we were dealing with a 4-plex or an apartment building really, new owners become the landlord.

Okay that's an important point and you're right I've been basically ignoring it. I'm acknowledging it now (and not flippantly; it's a valid distinction you're making), but by the sounds of things, your landlord wants to wash his hands of renters and the fastest way to do that is to give you 90 days. That sucks for you, but such is life.

What I've been more focused on is this:

As always there's two sides to the story, there has been headaches/issues for him

He's tired of being a landlord and he wants to stop being a landlord. Unless you're a slave, you can quit your job whenever you want. This guy should be able to quit being a landlord.

Plus, his house will show poorly with renters there (maybe not you, but in general renters don't care at all about making the house look perfect for prospective buyers). If he's going to maximize his return, he'll want his house to look its best. The other argument will probably be it'll be worth more as a rental with the units already rented, but I doubt a month-to-month rental agreement will add any value at all, so it's just as well he shows you the door (from his end).

It's his house so I think he has the right to choose what to do with it, not you.

[Regular_John]

Fair enough Sliver, as I said before I know landlords go through a lot of garbage from tenants giving sob stories for everything. Renting residential property is not something I'd ever want to get into for those reasons.

Thanks for the input everybody, I asked a question and I got the answer. How I'll act on that I do not know yet, but at least I've got the info.

[photon]

Even though I'm a landlord and there's tenants I wish I could just give 90 days notice to, I think the law is actually a good law to have. Being able to uproot someone's lives on a whim isn't something landlords should be able to do, so having exact spelled out reasons for such an action, and having them limited to reasonable things, makes a lot of sense.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by photon

Even though I'm a landlord and there's tenants I wish I could just give 90 days notice to, I think the law is actually a good law to have. Being able to uproot someone's lives on a whim isn't something landlords should be able to do, so having exact spelled out reasons for such an action, and having them limited to reasonable things, makes a lot of sense.

That's why you have a contract (lease) that spells out the terms of your arrangement. I, even as a lawyer, find it repugnant that you have to have a "valid" reason to remove someone from YOUR house, even with 90 day notice, when they are there month to month. The lease should be the extent of the protection offered.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

That's why you have a contract (lease) that spells out the terms of your arrangement. I, even as a lawyer, find it repugnant that you have to have a "valid" reason to remove someone from YOUR house, even with 90 day notice, when they are there month to month. The lease should be the extent of the protection offered.

You say its "your house" but its different category when you start treating it as a business by renting it to someone.

Maybe the laws are biased towards the worst-case scenario when it comes to evicting a tenant - eg) disabled person in a wheelchair who can't find a similar quality of living anywhere else. So by evicting him from this nice single-level apartment with a wheelchair ramp, etc. for no reason is depriving them of a comfortable place to live. So maybe the laws were just applied to everybody instead of going on a case by case basis for everybody with a hardship.

I am not sure that "I don't want to be in the landlord business anymore" is a very good reason by itself, and its not the case here because the owner intends to sell the property.

Honestly if the owner / landlord didn't have one of the valid reasons for evicting the tenant, he probably has a screw loose to not want the extra income that renting gives him. He could just turn it over to a property rental company to deal with if he wants to be hands-off. I mean, unless the owner lives in the same building and just wants to have his personal space back why would he do that?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I mean, unless the owner lives in the same building and just wants to have his personal space back why would he do that?

Have you ever viewed a property that you were considering purchasing that was tenanted? I have, and sometimes it's not pretty. Tenants who are having their place sold are often not very neat, and borderline hostile to someone looking at buying the place if they think they'll have to move. I'm not saying the OP would be like that, and it sounds like he wouldn't. The fact is however that small residential properties almost always sell for more money when they're clean and vacant than when they're tenanted.