A BC tenant and landlord were involved in a legal dispute over a damage deposit, with the renter claiming that the landlord refused to return it.
In a case that went to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, the renter claimed $650 for the unreturned damage deposit and alleged that the lack of return was unjustified.
In defence, the landlord told the tribunal that the tenant left significant damage to her property, more than the deposit amount.
While tenancy documentation wasn’t submitted to evidence, it was undisputed that the tenant provided a pet and damage deposit totalling $650 to start the tenancy. To set the tone for some of the details covered in the case, the tribunal said, “A damage deposit typically covers damage that goes beyond normal wear and tear only.”
In this case, the tenant owned two days that stayed with her during the tenancy. Another roommate also had a dog, as did the landlord.
According to the tribunal decision posted online, the tenant admitted that at some point, she broke her bedroom door and tried to fix it. Subsequently, they left the tenancy, and on March 7, 2024, they claimed the landlord refused to return the deposit.
The landlord made several claims against the tenant for damage, including:
- The dog pooped and urinated on the carpet after a contractor cleaned it
- The dog urinated on another tenant’s hall carpet “many times”
- Tenant’s dog urinated on the landlord’s wool carpet
- Tenant’s dog scratched a box spring, leaving permanent damage
- Tenant’s dog scratched the front door repeatedly, leaving damage
- Tenant’s dog scratched part of the landlord’s bedroom door. The tenant painted it, leaving a “patchy appearance”
- Tenant incorrectly installed her replacement bedroom door, trim and doorknob
The tenant denied most of these claims but admitted that she didn’t match the top doorknob side trim to the main trim very well and wanted to pay for that to be fixed. She valued it at $150. She also claimed that the front door had already been damaged and that other dogs had scratched it.
Thanks to a witness statement from another tenant, the tribunal believed the landlord and preferred her side of the tale for most of the claims, except for the scratches on the front door, which the tribunal agreed could’ve been any of the dogs.
After deductions for the cost of some of the damages, the tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the renter $48.75 in damage, which amounted to $113.11 after tribunal fees.