This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They picked a real winner here:
> According to Folkes, the tenant, who signed a lease agreement as Hermann Founiapte, insisted that the tribunal hearing involving his case be conducted in French, his first language, although he speaks English and has communicated with Folkes exclusively in English.
> Neighbours and Folkes claim others are living in the home, too, some of whom have their own keys, according to neighbours.
> “We have a building in Hamilton, (she) can wait until summer; when it’s built, we’ll get out,” he said, explaining they are constructing their own home in the city west of Toronto.
> Founiapte has not cited an inability to pay rent; he drives a red, late-model Dodge Ram pickup that is parked on the driveway. Founipate runs a trucking company.
> “No, no, no, I’m not scared of talking to you,” Founiapte tells a Global News reporter.
Hermann's trucking company is under a numbered company but doing business under his name. Just search his full name to find the numbered company.
Would be a shame if none of his clients paid him.
This type of scam is quite common in USA. I think they're called Squatters.
It wasn't deliberate. It just wouldn't work for me. Sorry. I typed it many times. 🤷 I'm not a computer/gadget guy at the best of times. Thank you for making it a workable link.
Ok, in that case if you’d like to know for future ref, Reddit does auto linking to other subs. You just need to use the format /r/ then the subreddit name without any spaces.
Tenants having stronger rights than landlords is very intentional. They don’t typically have equal resources or risks. For one party, you’re dealing with the potential loss of a home, for the other, a loss of an income stream.
That doesn’t mean we should accept tenants that abuse those rights. What we need is an efficient dispute system that isn’t backed up over a year.
We also need two streams.
Landlords who are utilizing the property for, well, a home for themselves or intend to.
Seperately with lower priority landlords who are using the property as an investment.
If I buy a house to use as my HOME I'm in the same urgent situation as any tenant requiring protection for most owners. It isn't comparable to a mega landlord with 6 buildings and 300+ units.
Yea, but the "we need to kick out the tenants because we (or a family member) plan to live there" trick is abused a lot to kick people out while skirting the other rules. It's just that most people don't have the time, money or motivation to pursue checking that the landlord ***really*** occupied the propertyy or just said so to make eviction smoother. Even if they do find the property listed for rent a month or two later, many will just grumble about it and move on rather than spend the effort to go after the landlord.
It would be great if there were some sort of way to have it enforced that the landlords really did move in when they said that they did... and severe penalties for those that abuse this.
I think that's why Trudeau is bringing in the
*Trudeau plan: rent will count towards credit score for houses that renters still can't afford*
If the owner doesn't produce a family member with that address or someone else claims they were renting off the owner, it's pretty easy to validate.
You don't think small landlords can't lose their home in a non-paying tenant situation? Imagine paying your rent or mortgage twice over and tell me again about how the liability is higher for the tenant.
Of course those situations exist. But the system is setup the way it is because on average the risks are far higher for the tenants.
Again, if we had a tribunal that could actually process these disputes efficiently, it wouldn’t be an problem.
You don't want a tribunal.
Tribunals operate entirely without oversight. They only answer to the politicians who appointed them. There's no meaningful grounds for appeal from the decision of an administrative tribunal.
What we need are more judges who agent pieces of lazy shit who actually do their jobs instead of just perennially kicking the can down the road because they're afraid to make a decision.
Just do what I did - Wait for your tenant to leave, and then just stop renting. I am happy to lose out on $1K per month in rental income in exchange for not having to deal with that shit.
I bought a house and inherited a tenant with it. Worked with/adjacent with the rental board, so knew how to exploit the system. I tried to raise rent when prices increased in 2022, and they sued. We spent 3 months preparing our case, and then on the day before the trial, dropped the case and gave her 30 days notice.
What value has the landlord added to the economy by having another person work to pay off the home that the landlord will eventually own? I don't even understand how you can make this argument, there is no reason why the landlord shouldn't lose their home if they made the poor decision to buy another home while expecting another person to work to pay for their mortgage. This is textbook living beyond your means and then expecting everyone else to pay the price for it.
What value does a tenant have who makes millions of dollars a year on their trucking company but avoid paying any bills? This isn't someone struggling to make ends meet. This is someone with an $80K truck looking to avoid paying a bill.
Yes, it is possibly a person who makes a good amount of money avoiding paying a bill (feel free to provide any sort of proof that this person is 100% for sure making millions please, if you cannot back up what you're saying with absolute certainty then don't say it at all, especially when arguing with someone). Tell me where in my comment I disagreed with that point specifically. I'm arguing that if a landlord cannot afford to pay their mortgage without exploiting the work of another person then they should not have a mortgage. I'm not arguing about anything else. Now if you have any good points to make that counter that opinion, please respond. If not then I don't really care what you have to say. Thanks.
He drives an $80,000 truck and in order to be a trucking company has to have one truck, that could be six figures easily. Just selling one of these assets would cover his rent for 3-4 years. He's rich. Stop defending dipshits for your ideology.
The landlords could sell their assets, or wait for it, not overleverage themselves on mortgages.
You have no idea around the circumstances of his business.
You aren't even able to engage with the point other commenter is making.
If someone has two mortgages, why would falling into arrears on the rental property mortgage affect the other property? Normally the mortgage is backed by the property it's on. So the rental property would be repossessed, but the bank wouldn't go after the other property unless the rental property's mortgage was "under water?"
That's not how loans work.
Like if you can't afford your car they don't just repossess your car and call everything good. They repossess your car and you still own them money. The total cost of a mortgage is typically 25-40% higher than the value of the home.
While I have more sympathy for small-time landlords than full-time corporate ones, at the end of the day, maybe they shouldn't expect someone else to work to pay for their mortgage.
They shouldn’t expect somebody else to keep their agreement?
So if you go to work and your company decides not to pay you that would be fine too? Or your bank decides to keep all your money and not give you any?
Seriously what is wrong with you?
Why not? The tenants are renting a space from the landlord. If the tenant does not want to pay, they can FUCK RIGHT OFF. It is NOT the responsibility of ANY landlord to provide free housing for tenants.
These are small business men and women who are trying to make their lives better by investing in real estate and renting it out to people who need a place to live. They could just as easily take that money and put it into a stock market index fund but they decided they wanted a physical asset they could see and touch and directly affect the rental potential of with fixes like a new paint job and renovations to the house.
If you have a problem with that, please tell me WHICH business it's acceptable to STEAL from. The local 7-11? The diamond engagement store? The vehicle dealership? The airline? The grocery store? The drug store?
Also WHERE exactly do you think tenants are going to live if all the small landlords pack up and decide not to rent out their properties tomorrow? Do you think those tenants will be buying the property if it goes up for sale? Is the government going to provide housing?
Just gonna answer that wall of text with this: banks and landlords are both rent-seeking middlemen that don't provide any real services. In a perfect world, housing that isn't personally owned by the people living in it would be publicly owned, and could be rented from the government or some other not-for-profit entity at a fair price that covers the cost of utilities and maintenance. Why should a tenant pay someone else's mortgage while reaping none of the rewards? Once that mortgage is paid off, does the tenant's rent decrease in cost? Does the tenant own the property? The answer to both of those is "no."
I know the idea that simply owning things doesn't mean you deserve money is a foreign concept to liberals, but when you think about it, it's just worthless rent-seeking.
The landlord has risks. This includes interest rate risk, putting up capital to begin with (opportunity cost lost), dealing with regulatory risk, tenant risk etc etc.
Look, it’s not a business Id get into-I prefer investing in real businesses but to each their own.
And if government had the will to buy up all these properties they would but taxes would be through the roof. The fact is the government doesn’t have the money to buy and then maintain and run all these properties. The only way they could would be to force sales/exappropriate properties on small time landlords which would never happen because it would crash the housing market overnight.
Banks and landlords don't provide any real services, huh?
Do you by chance own a car, and if so did you buy it in cash?
Do people typically buy houses in cash?
Do you use credit cards?
Why do you think tenants are entitled to free housing that landlords pay for, and take all the risk for?
It's disheartening that there are such delusional ideas out there.
Exactly. Tenants *need* those rights. For every story of unpaid rent, there are 100 tenants who are being shafted by absent landlords who don't uphold their end of the deal.
Grievances on both sides of the lease contracts rely on government entities like the LTB in Ontario to resolve these issues.
Unless we can get these offices up and running efficiently, we're in trouble.
Hey Ophy.
Don't vote for the guy who cut the number of judges overseeing LTB cases. The LTB needed more through-put and it got axed.
Vote for someone who will fund the system to make it work.
-YOW
Which is pure BS.
That is why there is a housing crisis because majority of people that have spare space to rent out, refuse to rent out because of tenants like Hermann Founiapte Dakono.
People would rather leave the house empty than rent it out. It's safer and cheaper than having to deal with bad tenants.
Government isn't helping landlords get rid of bad tenants. The laws that protect bad tenants is going to make the housing crisis even worse as they encourage more immigration.
>because majority of people that have spare space to rent out, refuse to rent out because of tenants like Hermann Founiapte Dakono.
How would you go about proving that, if someone asked how you knew that?
Maybe just anecdotal but we stopped renting out for this reason. It's just common sense. Reddit and other social media is full of scumbag tenants who brag about squatting. We don't want to be their victims.
We live in AB. Moved almost two years ago to accommodate our growing family. We did a ton of reading before we decided to rent out our old house. The only reason we went with renting it out is because AB doesn’t have all the issues ON does with the LTB, in AB you can actually evict someone.
If we lived in ON the house would still be sitting empty.
Agreed, a few years back I was offered a job in a different province and one of my thoughts was if I rented my place that I might not be able to move back to it if the job didn't work out.
Maybe we should have more rigorous enforcement of delinquent tenants? Stop messing around in civil court for a year costing the landlord a fortune and just kick the squatters out. Suddenly it wouldn't be so risky to invest in rental property anymore.
I agree. I own a fairly large house that had tenants when I purchased. As they move out and leave for various reasons I’m not replacing them. 3 people are gone so far, now I just have more storage space for myself.
There are thousands and thousands of renters who rent without a problem. The fact that you're scared of a bad tenent means you're not ready to make a low risk investment. Maybe sell off whatever property you're holding so people can buy it and actually live in it instead of hoarding property which is actually part of the housing crisis.
Banks will repossess faster if people start skipping mortgage payments. People who are living paycheck to paycheck will be screwed if they need to replace a roof or a furnace.
Low risk investment? My mortgage is $3500 a month, and it was $2400 before that. Do you even make that amount a month? Cause If you don’t, then probably not a good idea to call it “low risk”
Having to pay a huge mortgage because you took out a huge amount of money doesn't suddenly make your investment high risk. That's not what high risk means at all. Sell your property and pay off your mortgage if you are that financially illiterate.
Are you suggesting that as an 18 year old just moving out on my own with minimal job experience that I should be able (let alone want) to buy a home? There are lots of reasons to rent. Home ownership sucks in a lot of ways and not everyone should be forced to sign on to that.
The notion that property should be an investment and that everyone should have the majority of their life savings tied up in that investment is exactly why there is a housing shortage.
Hypothetically, not that this rule would be good, but if there was a rule that when you buy a house you can only sell it for the price you bought it, not including inflation, no one would ever want to buy, and everyone would prefer renting.
The largest reason buying is so appealing is the idea that you can jump on the investment boat and have this really expensive asset that only becomes more valuable over time. But of course, if everyone needs their homes to become more expensive over time, by definition homes will be expensive.
The largest reason for buying should be to have a place of one's own to live. Speculators and investors should keep their hands out of family dwellings.
“Family dwellings” is just a marketing label. Families come in many shapes and sizes and can live in a wide range of properties. Families can rent apartments, and in many circumstances that can even be a financially sensible choice (though largely not in suburb-centric places).
Buying a big detached home in the suburbs on the principle that you will be able to sell it for retirement *is* an investment. It doesn’t matter if you live in it.
If a crazy billionaire bought up multiple adjacent apartment blocks in downtown Toronto or Vancouver and kicked out all the tenants so that they could have their own giant building to live in, that doesn’t make them magically ethical because they’re residing in their big empty property that no one else is allowed to live in.
Similarly, on a lower scale, millions of large homes, with yards and low density living doesn’t make those owners not “investors”
Interestingly enough, a study in the Netherlands found that, after factoring in inflation, home prices there have not changed _in 400 years_ (except for a spike in the last 5). That's the way to do it.
I hate this argument. Maybe if potential home buyers didn’t have to compete against investors for half the properties out there, they might actual be able to buy, and not have to rent at all. And there would still be plenty of purpose built rentals available for those who need/want to rent
Literally everyone who owns a home is an investor.
If I buy a large two story home with a basement, which I live in with my partner, leaving most of the rooms largely empty, while you buy a property with the exact same floor area but it’s a duplex and you live in half the space and rent out half the space to another couple - are you somehow an “investor” while I’m just a “regular” homeowner?
In your situation you’ve provided more people a place to live than I have, while I’m taking just as much property away from people who want to live in it as you do.
As much as I agree that even 3 months of non-payment is ridiculous, we can't have evictions that are allowed to bypass LTB. I'd be fully supportive of an expedited process for 3+ months of non-payment, but to have any options to skirt the system is a slippery slope.
Agreed.
I'm a tenant and although I have very real frustrations with how home ownership and landlording are currently practiced, and seriously question the wisdom of this system we have, I am nevertheless a responsible tenant.
I pay my rent and take care of the unit.
I am very leery of anyone suggesting a bypass of the LTB for so serious an action as eviction, even if the cause is something justified like three months of non-payment.
An expedited process as you say, certainly. But that would include an attempt to communicate with the tenant, and an opportunity provided for the tenant to explain and defend themselves. Creating some sort of "at-will" right for landlords is a bullshit notion that should never be entertained.
And how exactly would that be enforced? The landlord accuses that the rent hasn't been paid, the tenant disagrees. The dispute needs to be settled by some kind of...tribunal. Perhaps we could call it the Landlord and Tenant Board?
If the LTB operated with perfect efficiency, you could get a tenant evicted within only a few days after they miss a single rent payment.
In this very odd situation that you've described, which is very easy to prove with bank statements; the tenant could sue the landlord for a false eviction and lying about non-payment, ultimately causing financial harm, after the fact.
Perhaps this is another bonus of Trudeau's credit score for rental payments idea.
When one side of a dispute faces a severely harmful outcome if they lose, and the other side only a financial one, it makes no sense to allow that harm to come to pass by default and then let that person sue for damages. Instead, the person who is only at risk of suffering financial losses should be the one made to wait for the hearing. Your idea is insane.
>the tenant could sue the landlord for a false eviction and lying about non-payment
That's an easy way to say "vulnerable people who can't afford a lawyer will be taken advantage of"
Instead of said *vulnerable* people taking advantage of other people's homes and ruining their lives?
There are govt funded legal resources available for people who don't have money.
Automatic based on what? The landlord’s word?
You would still need a body to determine that the claim is legitimate. We have a body, it’s just underfunded and horribly backed up. The current system would work perfectly fine if it had functioning dispute resolution.
This is a direct result of a broken system.
It not only hurts the small landlords but also the good tenants that are out there searching desperately for a home.
There’s a [petition](https://www.change.org/p/we-demand-automatic-eviction-orders-for-non-payment-of-residential-rent) to automatically evict these people.
Because of the system year long backlog and their policies that allow him to live there without recourse is why this system is so fucking one sided. How could this even happen? Even 3 months to evict a shit tenant is already too long.
It sends the message to everyone that you can go ahead and withhold rent for a year and intimidate a landlord into ruin or financial hardship. Then make them waste even more time and money getting the owed rent.
I hope more of these cases run rampant and they change the laws. Because if they needed to clear the backlog, they would need to hire 3x more, and that will never happen.
I wouldn’t say it’s a one sided system, that’s laughable. The system is broken however and shouldn’t take this long.
This doesn’t send the message to everyone to do it. These people once evicted will never be able to rent again.
They *should* be able to never rent again, but that's not the case.
Eventually a landlord won't do enough due diligence. They'll interview the tenant, get proof of income, even run a credit check. It'll come up golden, and they'll forget to check their name on LTB histories or google for articles written about them. The tenant will provide a fake reference as a previous landlord. They pay first and last, then they go right back to squatting in the next home.
Yeah, imagine if none of this dispute is inaccessible to the public. How do you expect them to due their due diligence if this info isn't available to them?
Yeah, imagine having to wait a year just to get a hearing to evict the tenant and the entire time he doesn't pay and you have no recourse isn't one sided.
Please rent your house to me, so I can put you into financial straits for 2 years.
Btw, they can continue to rent. They consider this a civil issue, not a federal issue. As long as a landlord approves then, it's fine. You can't enforce a law where a person can't rent a place.
Of course there not it would be illegal and if you can prove you are a landlord there definitely isn't some one your local lands lord Facebook that will give it to you definitely not
Honest question here. Given how the system apparently takes forever to kick these people out and apparently the owners won’t get a penny for all the unpaid rent: couldn’t the owners just open the door and move in and make them uncomfortable? Shut down the power or water?
Fair. But also not paying rent is illegal too - I assume? Also potentially illegal if you have more people in than you said you would.
So question is why would one illegal action be more ok than another?
Good question, not a lawyer, so I’m speculating as well.
If you signed a contract with the tenant, even if they don’t pay, they have right to the space. Only the LTB can compel them to move out.
Ontario's failed landlord / tenant regulations are the perfect hedge for large corporate REITs. It places an unsustainable financial burden on the small landlords with tight margins and inability to pay for a legal team. Eventually it will break, REITs will take over the market.
Sadly the system worked before Doug Ford. He terminated adjudicators en mass and didn't replace them. For years it lagged until COVID numbers really burdened it. I understand we've hired more adjudicators but it's not enough. We have morer population and a backlog. Sigh.
When I wanted to kick out a bad tenant it would take a few months. If he knew how to game the system perhaps 6-8 months. In today's rental market it's nuts. I've sold all my rentals and got out. Each time a good tenant moved out I sold the property. It was gradual but intentional. I just sold the last property (I had 3). i feel relieved. I would never rent in today's world. I heard that the person who bought and rented my old unit got burned hard. They TRASHED the place. Didn't pay rent past the first and last month's rent deposit. I'm friendly with the lady next door to my old unit and she Facebook's me. Said the new neighbors were absolute nightmares. It's been over a year and they are still squatting.
>While their tenant is not paying, she says the family is dipping into their credit line to cover the expense.
How the hell did they ever get past the stress test to get their mortgage in the first place?
Reading these comments, and noting that some are actually supporting the idiot squatting, is why I would never, ever, invest in rental property in Ontario. The risk is simply not worth it. Invest in properties in FL, they have stronger rules to kick out squatters (and made them even stronger). Good return, lower risk.
I have some bad news, people fake being students and squat in those situations too.
The worst offenders make up varied stories to get a restraining order and have you removed, or they'll just fake a lease and keep all your stuff.
It's rare. But your plan doesn't provide much protection against professional squatters.
I rent rooms cash only snd one guy was a professional rip off scammer. So after her tried to fake a e-transfer the door got locked on him and away he went
Owning other people’s homes is risky business.
Can’t disagree, he sounds like a nightmare tenant, but at the end of the day I can only feel so bad for landlord’s and I have a hard time believing it had to get this bad.
Tenants are good, landlords are bad. There is a bad tenant database in my province and I looked up the ones in my town. Literally people renting houses and owing over 40K before they are removed. And some of the tenants do it more than once so move around. Have no clue how they fake credit checks and such to get in.
This happened to my parents once. They were scammed by a tenant who used a fake driver’s license, fake credit report, fake employment letter and fake paystubs. All falsified documents. They even created a fake website for their fake employer. Clearly fraud, but the police wouldn’t do anything- they said it was an LTB matter (there’s a comforting thought- people are driving around with fake licenses and apparently the police don’t care). It took my parents almost a year to get rid of these people. The whole time they gleefully declared that they were living there for free and there was nothing we could do.
This was the last straw for my parents. It was the last incident in a long string of headache-inducing incidents on that fourplex; trash neighbourhood leads to trash tenants (Lawrence/Allen area of Toronto). They ended up selling the property late last year, and they’re now planning to use the money to buy a cottage. IMO a much better use of the capital, fuck rentals.
Or they'll just rent with their partner doing the application.
I moved around a lot before buying my home a few years ago, and not a single landlord I rented from (about 10 different places) ever required a credit check. Only two ever asked for proof of income one of which was an apartment complex, the other was a private landlord. Both were just a printout from my employer, probably could have faked it if necessary.
I don't remember ever actually providing references. Only the apartment complex asked for previous landlords and I gave them the half-truth that I lived with parents prior.
All of the landlords made the decision based on a personal interview and my ability to pay first and last. If all you have to do is be charismatic in the application process, I'm amazed all of my past landlords haven't been getting burned.
> ever required a credit check.
Are you sure? All I need is for you to sign the application consenting to a credit check, your full name, DOB, and address to pull your credit.
I'm sure. Most places I never had to provide DOB or address, and I also monitor my credit.
TBF, most of my tenancies were with private landlords. I have always had a solid job and I interview well so I come off trustworthy. All of those "features" can be faked though.
>Most places I never had to provide DOB or address
Oh wow
>All of those "features" can be faked though.
Exactly. I'm 20+ years in the industry, and I got complacent a few years ago skipped some of the checks, and now have an annoying neighbour for it who I likely would have caught if I had properly vetted them.
Expect to see more of this when Canada's rental vacancy rate is an abysmal 1.5% when a healthy rate is about 3% or more.
It creates a toxic environment for both landlords and tenants.
The problem is a lot of landlords rent their properties cash under the table and don’t report the income. When you buy and sell a car, you have to go through the government with the registration etc. You need to have a license, insurance, registration, and so forth. Your car payments are credit reported. Why isn’t rent the same? There needs to be a registration system available for renting showing the legal owner and tenant, with payments tracked. If there is any issue everything is already documented and you would be able to file for an eviction, and have a bailiff kick the person out within a month.
Tenants are taking advantage of the situation because the government is benefiting from shirking their social responsibilities. Landlords loosing ten of thousands not recoverable need to hold the government accountable with a class action lawsuit to force change to a system all agree that's broken.
The thing I never understood is when a renter starts doing this why landlord doesnt make life tough for them
Cut the utilities, what are they going to do, complain to the LTB?
Park your vehicle in the driveway (you own the house) so they cant get any cars in or out
Change the locks (again what are they gonna do, complain?)
In most scenarios we know landlord has lost the 22K
So take em to LTB, make 22K claim, tenant claims back 10K, and they walk away and you lost net 12K now
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They picked a real winner here: > According to Folkes, the tenant, who signed a lease agreement as Hermann Founiapte, insisted that the tribunal hearing involving his case be conducted in French, his first language, although he speaks English and has communicated with Folkes exclusively in English. > Neighbours and Folkes claim others are living in the home, too, some of whom have their own keys, according to neighbours. > “We have a building in Hamilton, (she) can wait until summer; when it’s built, we’ll get out,” he said, explaining they are constructing their own home in the city west of Toronto. > Founiapte has not cited an inability to pay rent; he drives a red, late-model Dodge Ram pickup that is parked on the driveway. Founipate runs a trucking company. > “No, no, no, I’m not scared of talking to you,” Founiapte tells a Global News reporter.
Hermann's trucking company is under a numbered company but doing business under his name. Just search his full name to find the numbered company. Would be a shame if none of his clients paid him. This type of scam is quite common in USA. I think they're called Squatters.
If you want to get mad go check out /r/squatting It's a whole sub dedicated to squatting and how to do it.
I'm honestly amazed that isn't a fetish porn subreddit.
It’s not a fetish porn subreddit *yet*
🤣🤣🤣 fair statement!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
A couple was murdered in hamilton by the man they were renting from over a dispute last year.
Agreed!
They do. Have worked for some.
Agreed. But if they have any way to connect you...you will lose in the long run. But yeah, I definitely agree with you.
[удалено]
Why would you make the link deliberately not clickable? /r/squatting
It wasn't deliberate. It just wouldn't work for me. Sorry. I typed it many times. 🤷 I'm not a computer/gadget guy at the best of times. Thank you for making it a workable link.
Ok, in that case if you’d like to know for future ref, Reddit does auto linking to other subs. You just need to use the format /r/ then the subreddit name without any spaces.
Thank you. I'm guessing I missed the first /. I'll try better next time. Again, thank you. Old guy not smrt. Lol
Haha no worries. I assumed since you put it in a code block you knew what you were doing hence my first comment.
I think I was able to correct it in initial post. Thank you.
And they have more rights than owners
Tenants having stronger rights than landlords is very intentional. They don’t typically have equal resources or risks. For one party, you’re dealing with the potential loss of a home, for the other, a loss of an income stream. That doesn’t mean we should accept tenants that abuse those rights. What we need is an efficient dispute system that isn’t backed up over a year.
We also need two streams. Landlords who are utilizing the property for, well, a home for themselves or intend to. Seperately with lower priority landlords who are using the property as an investment. If I buy a house to use as my HOME I'm in the same urgent situation as any tenant requiring protection for most owners. It isn't comparable to a mega landlord with 6 buildings and 300+ units.
Yea, but the "we need to kick out the tenants because we (or a family member) plan to live there" trick is abused a lot to kick people out while skirting the other rules. It's just that most people don't have the time, money or motivation to pursue checking that the landlord ***really*** occupied the propertyy or just said so to make eviction smoother. Even if they do find the property listed for rent a month or two later, many will just grumble about it and move on rather than spend the effort to go after the landlord. It would be great if there were some sort of way to have it enforced that the landlords really did move in when they said that they did... and severe penalties for those that abuse this.
I think that's why Trudeau is bringing in the *Trudeau plan: rent will count towards credit score for houses that renters still can't afford* If the owner doesn't produce a family member with that address or someone else claims they were renting off the owner, it's pretty easy to validate.
You don't think small landlords can't lose their home in a non-paying tenant situation? Imagine paying your rent or mortgage twice over and tell me again about how the liability is higher for the tenant.
Of course those situations exist. But the system is setup the way it is because on average the risks are far higher for the tenants. Again, if we had a tribunal that could actually process these disputes efficiently, it wouldn’t be an problem.
You don't want a tribunal. Tribunals operate entirely without oversight. They only answer to the politicians who appointed them. There's no meaningful grounds for appeal from the decision of an administrative tribunal. What we need are more judges who agent pieces of lazy shit who actually do their jobs instead of just perennially kicking the can down the road because they're afraid to make a decision.
Just do what I did - Wait for your tenant to leave, and then just stop renting. I am happy to lose out on $1K per month in rental income in exchange for not having to deal with that shit. I bought a house and inherited a tenant with it. Worked with/adjacent with the rental board, so knew how to exploit the system. I tried to raise rent when prices increased in 2022, and they sued. We spent 3 months preparing our case, and then on the day before the trial, dropped the case and gave her 30 days notice.
And then people wonder there's a housing shortage; more landlords are wisely choosing to do what you have done.
What value has the landlord added to the economy by having another person work to pay off the home that the landlord will eventually own? I don't even understand how you can make this argument, there is no reason why the landlord shouldn't lose their home if they made the poor decision to buy another home while expecting another person to work to pay for their mortgage. This is textbook living beyond your means and then expecting everyone else to pay the price for it.
People only want to socialize the losses nowadays, profit though that's all mine.
What value does a tenant have who makes millions of dollars a year on their trucking company but avoid paying any bills? This isn't someone struggling to make ends meet. This is someone with an $80K truck looking to avoid paying a bill.
Yes, it is possibly a person who makes a good amount of money avoiding paying a bill (feel free to provide any sort of proof that this person is 100% for sure making millions please, if you cannot back up what you're saying with absolute certainty then don't say it at all, especially when arguing with someone). Tell me where in my comment I disagreed with that point specifically. I'm arguing that if a landlord cannot afford to pay their mortgage without exploiting the work of another person then they should not have a mortgage. I'm not arguing about anything else. Now if you have any good points to make that counter that opinion, please respond. If not then I don't really care what you have to say. Thanks.
He drives an $80,000 truck and in order to be a trucking company has to have one truck, that could be six figures easily. Just selling one of these assets would cover his rent for 3-4 years. He's rich. Stop defending dipshits for your ideology.
The landlords could sell their assets, or wait for it, not overleverage themselves on mortgages. You have no idea around the circumstances of his business. You aren't even able to engage with the point other commenter is making.
If someone has two mortgages, why would falling into arrears on the rental property mortgage affect the other property? Normally the mortgage is backed by the property it's on. So the rental property would be repossessed, but the bank wouldn't go after the other property unless the rental property's mortgage was "under water?"
That's not how loans work. Like if you can't afford your car they don't just repossess your car and call everything good. They repossess your car and you still own them money. The total cost of a mortgage is typically 25-40% higher than the value of the home.
While I have more sympathy for small-time landlords than full-time corporate ones, at the end of the day, maybe they shouldn't expect someone else to work to pay for their mortgage.
Lol. Wtf do you think rent is? How should this work exactly?
They shouldn’t expect somebody else to keep their agreement? So if you go to work and your company decides not to pay you that would be fine too? Or your bank decides to keep all your money and not give you any? Seriously what is wrong with you?
Why not? The tenants are renting a space from the landlord. If the tenant does not want to pay, they can FUCK RIGHT OFF. It is NOT the responsibility of ANY landlord to provide free housing for tenants. These are small business men and women who are trying to make their lives better by investing in real estate and renting it out to people who need a place to live. They could just as easily take that money and put it into a stock market index fund but they decided they wanted a physical asset they could see and touch and directly affect the rental potential of with fixes like a new paint job and renovations to the house. If you have a problem with that, please tell me WHICH business it's acceptable to STEAL from. The local 7-11? The diamond engagement store? The vehicle dealership? The airline? The grocery store? The drug store? Also WHERE exactly do you think tenants are going to live if all the small landlords pack up and decide not to rent out their properties tomorrow? Do you think those tenants will be buying the property if it goes up for sale? Is the government going to provide housing?
Just gonna answer that wall of text with this: banks and landlords are both rent-seeking middlemen that don't provide any real services. In a perfect world, housing that isn't personally owned by the people living in it would be publicly owned, and could be rented from the government or some other not-for-profit entity at a fair price that covers the cost of utilities and maintenance. Why should a tenant pay someone else's mortgage while reaping none of the rewards? Once that mortgage is paid off, does the tenant's rent decrease in cost? Does the tenant own the property? The answer to both of those is "no." I know the idea that simply owning things doesn't mean you deserve money is a foreign concept to liberals, but when you think about it, it's just worthless rent-seeking.
The landlord has risks. This includes interest rate risk, putting up capital to begin with (opportunity cost lost), dealing with regulatory risk, tenant risk etc etc. Look, it’s not a business Id get into-I prefer investing in real businesses but to each their own. And if government had the will to buy up all these properties they would but taxes would be through the roof. The fact is the government doesn’t have the money to buy and then maintain and run all these properties. The only way they could would be to force sales/exappropriate properties on small time landlords which would never happen because it would crash the housing market overnight.
Banks and landlords don't provide any real services, huh? Do you by chance own a car, and if so did you buy it in cash? Do people typically buy houses in cash? Do you use credit cards? Why do you think tenants are entitled to free housing that landlords pay for, and take all the risk for? It's disheartening that there are such delusional ideas out there.
The alternative is you get to live in a tent if you can’t afford to own a home.
Exactly. Tenants *need* those rights. For every story of unpaid rent, there are 100 tenants who are being shafted by absent landlords who don't uphold their end of the deal. Grievances on both sides of the lease contracts rely on government entities like the LTB in Ontario to resolve these issues. Unless we can get these offices up and running efficiently, we're in trouble.
Hey Ophy. Don't vote for the guy who cut the number of judges overseeing LTB cases. The LTB needed more through-put and it got axed. Vote for someone who will fund the system to make it work. -YOW
No judges oversee ltb cases. They are adjudicators, and when I worked there a few years ago they had about 20 for the whole LTB
And they have more rights than owners
Which is pure BS. That is why there is a housing crisis because majority of people that have spare space to rent out, refuse to rent out because of tenants like Hermann Founiapte Dakono. People would rather leave the house empty than rent it out. It's safer and cheaper than having to deal with bad tenants. Government isn't helping landlords get rid of bad tenants. The laws that protect bad tenants is going to make the housing crisis even worse as they encourage more immigration.
The housing crisis is because Canada is bringing in 100k new people even month.
It’s laughable that you think THIS is why we have a housing crisis.
right, if we didnt have a housing crisis they wouldn't have been able to charge $3400 a month in rent no utilities to being with lol
My guess is 3400 mostly just covers the owners costs
>because majority of people that have spare space to rent out, refuse to rent out because of tenants like Hermann Founiapte Dakono. How would you go about proving that, if someone asked how you knew that?
Maybe just anecdotal but we stopped renting out for this reason. It's just common sense. Reddit and other social media is full of scumbag tenants who brag about squatting. We don't want to be their victims.
And scum bag Landlords who do abc or dont do xyz yet still charge exorbitant amounts for rent…
We live in AB. Moved almost two years ago to accommodate our growing family. We did a ton of reading before we decided to rent out our old house. The only reason we went with renting it out is because AB doesn’t have all the issues ON does with the LTB, in AB you can actually evict someone. If we lived in ON the house would still be sitting empty.
Of course Reddit is full of things like this, people don't come on Reddit to talk about their excellent tenant who pays the rent on time every month.
anecdotal but scumbag landlords have destroyed canadas healthcare sector
Yup, I currently am working in a different province and my 3 bedroom house is sitting empty. Not gonna rent it for someone to squat and not pay me.
Agreed, a few years back I was offered a job in a different province and one of my thoughts was if I rented my place that I might not be able to move back to it if the job didn't work out.
Maybe we should have more rigorous enforcement of delinquent tenants? Stop messing around in civil court for a year costing the landlord a fortune and just kick the squatters out. Suddenly it wouldn't be so risky to invest in rental property anymore.
The system exists in Ontario, it's just horribly backlogged. The squatter in the story know that and exploit it.
I agree. I own a fairly large house that had tenants when I purchased. As they move out and leave for various reasons I’m not replacing them. 3 people are gone so far, now I just have more storage space for myself.
There are thousands and thousands of renters who rent without a problem. The fact that you're scared of a bad tenent means you're not ready to make a low risk investment. Maybe sell off whatever property you're holding so people can buy it and actually live in it instead of hoarding property which is actually part of the housing crisis.
Banks will repossess faster if people start skipping mortgage payments. People who are living paycheck to paycheck will be screwed if they need to replace a roof or a furnace.
Low risk investment? My mortgage is $3500 a month, and it was $2400 before that. Do you even make that amount a month? Cause If you don’t, then probably not a good idea to call it “low risk”
Having to pay a huge mortgage because you took out a huge amount of money doesn't suddenly make your investment high risk. That's not what high risk means at all. Sell your property and pay off your mortgage if you are that financially illiterate.
Paying your mortgage is a risk? Lol Also are you actually trying to shame someone bc of their income? Real small dick energy bud 😂
The landlord is contributing to the housing problem, not the tenant. If you own more than one family dwelling, you are the problem.
If nobody owned more that one family dwelling, there would be nowhere to rent.
Exactly, just places to buy at competitive local rates. Who wants to rent?
Are you suggesting that as an 18 year old just moving out on my own with minimal job experience that I should be able (let alone want) to buy a home? There are lots of reasons to rent. Home ownership sucks in a lot of ways and not everyone should be forced to sign on to that.
The notion that property should be an investment and that everyone should have the majority of their life savings tied up in that investment is exactly why there is a housing shortage. Hypothetically, not that this rule would be good, but if there was a rule that when you buy a house you can only sell it for the price you bought it, not including inflation, no one would ever want to buy, and everyone would prefer renting. The largest reason buying is so appealing is the idea that you can jump on the investment boat and have this really expensive asset that only becomes more valuable over time. But of course, if everyone needs their homes to become more expensive over time, by definition homes will be expensive.
The largest reason for buying should be to have a place of one's own to live. Speculators and investors should keep their hands out of family dwellings.
“Family dwellings” is just a marketing label. Families come in many shapes and sizes and can live in a wide range of properties. Families can rent apartments, and in many circumstances that can even be a financially sensible choice (though largely not in suburb-centric places). Buying a big detached home in the suburbs on the principle that you will be able to sell it for retirement *is* an investment. It doesn’t matter if you live in it. If a crazy billionaire bought up multiple adjacent apartment blocks in downtown Toronto or Vancouver and kicked out all the tenants so that they could have their own giant building to live in, that doesn’t make them magically ethical because they’re residing in their big empty property that no one else is allowed to live in. Similarly, on a lower scale, millions of large homes, with yards and low density living doesn’t make those owners not “investors”
Interestingly enough, a study in the Netherlands found that, after factoring in inflation, home prices there have not changed _in 400 years_ (except for a spike in the last 5). That's the way to do it.
I hate this argument. Maybe if potential home buyers didn’t have to compete against investors for half the properties out there, they might actual be able to buy, and not have to rent at all. And there would still be plenty of purpose built rentals available for those who need/want to rent
Literally everyone who owns a home is an investor. If I buy a large two story home with a basement, which I live in with my partner, leaving most of the rooms largely empty, while you buy a property with the exact same floor area but it’s a duplex and you live in half the space and rent out half the space to another couple - are you somehow an “investor” while I’m just a “regular” homeowner? In your situation you’ve provided more people a place to live than I have, while I’m taking just as much property away from people who want to live in it as you do.
Can they not lien his company?
Not till they get a judgment for the value of the outstanding rent at the point of eviction. Then, they have to take them to court to get the lien.
*”You don't have to pay rent for a YEAR.”* That's outrageous. Three months seems reasonable. Anything more and it accommodates scammers like this guy.
I agree. Three months of non-payment should be automatic eviction. No need to wait for LTB hearing. The current situation is ridiculous.
As much as I agree that even 3 months of non-payment is ridiculous, we can't have evictions that are allowed to bypass LTB. I'd be fully supportive of an expedited process for 3+ months of non-payment, but to have any options to skirt the system is a slippery slope.
Agreed. I'm a tenant and although I have very real frustrations with how home ownership and landlording are currently practiced, and seriously question the wisdom of this system we have, I am nevertheless a responsible tenant. I pay my rent and take care of the unit. I am very leery of anyone suggesting a bypass of the LTB for so serious an action as eviction, even if the cause is something justified like three months of non-payment. An expedited process as you say, certainly. But that would include an attempt to communicate with the tenant, and an opportunity provided for the tenant to explain and defend themselves. Creating some sort of "at-will" right for landlords is a bullshit notion that should never be entertained.
And how exactly would that be enforced? The landlord accuses that the rent hasn't been paid, the tenant disagrees. The dispute needs to be settled by some kind of...tribunal. Perhaps we could call it the Landlord and Tenant Board? If the LTB operated with perfect efficiency, you could get a tenant evicted within only a few days after they miss a single rent payment.
In this very odd situation that you've described, which is very easy to prove with bank statements; the tenant could sue the landlord for a false eviction and lying about non-payment, ultimately causing financial harm, after the fact. Perhaps this is another bonus of Trudeau's credit score for rental payments idea.
The issue is they are already homeless at that point and have a million other problems beyond building a legal case.
When one side of a dispute faces a severely harmful outcome if they lose, and the other side only a financial one, it makes no sense to allow that harm to come to pass by default and then let that person sue for damages. Instead, the person who is only at risk of suffering financial losses should be the one made to wait for the hearing. Your idea is insane.
>the tenant could sue the landlord for a false eviction and lying about non-payment That's an easy way to say "vulnerable people who can't afford a lawyer will be taken advantage of"
Instead of said *vulnerable* people taking advantage of other people's homes and ruining their lives? There are govt funded legal resources available for people who don't have money.
Automatic based on what? The landlord’s word? You would still need a body to determine that the claim is legitimate. We have a body, it’s just underfunded and horribly backed up. The current system would work perfectly fine if it had functioning dispute resolution.
It’s not that they don’t have to I believe it’s just because of the massive backlog with the LTB there’s no way to enforce payment.
The dead beat owns a trucking company? Which one?! For science.
This is all due to the immense imbalance of rights and people abusing the system
This is a direct result of a broken system. It not only hurts the small landlords but also the good tenants that are out there searching desperately for a home. There’s a [petition](https://www.change.org/p/we-demand-automatic-eviction-orders-for-non-payment-of-residential-rent) to automatically evict these people.
And people using housing as a revenue stream.
Housing is a product like anything else
Because of the system year long backlog and their policies that allow him to live there without recourse is why this system is so fucking one sided. How could this even happen? Even 3 months to evict a shit tenant is already too long. It sends the message to everyone that you can go ahead and withhold rent for a year and intimidate a landlord into ruin or financial hardship. Then make them waste even more time and money getting the owed rent. I hope more of these cases run rampant and they change the laws. Because if they needed to clear the backlog, they would need to hire 3x more, and that will never happen.
I wouldn’t say it’s a one sided system, that’s laughable. The system is broken however and shouldn’t take this long. This doesn’t send the message to everyone to do it. These people once evicted will never be able to rent again.
They *should* be able to never rent again, but that's not the case. Eventually a landlord won't do enough due diligence. They'll interview the tenant, get proof of income, even run a credit check. It'll come up golden, and they'll forget to check their name on LTB histories or google for articles written about them. The tenant will provide a fake reference as a previous landlord. They pay first and last, then they go right back to squatting in the next home.
Being a landlord is a business, if you don't do your own due diligence that's your own fault.
Yeah, imagine if none of this dispute is inaccessible to the public. How do you expect them to due their due diligence if this info isn't available to them?
Yeah, imagine having to wait a year just to get a hearing to evict the tenant and the entire time he doesn't pay and you have no recourse isn't one sided. Please rent your house to me, so I can put you into financial straits for 2 years. Btw, they can continue to rent. They consider this a civil issue, not a federal issue. As long as a landlord approves then, it's fine. You can't enforce a law where a person can't rent a place.
But they dont need to rent anymore, the money saved from not paying rent gets them a down payment on a house.
Is there a "no rent" list? There should be.
There is but the landlord has to report them which rarely happens
I’d rather there be a slumlord list first.
I don't see why they can't be implemented together
how do you verify the allegations? Best just to use court cases and credit history
Of course there not it would be illegal and if you can prove you are a landlord there definitely isn't some one your local lands lord Facebook that will give it to you definitely not
This is why you don't rent to Dodge owners.
"Dodge" as in "DODGING rent payment" lol.
This is part of reason feds are pitching the idea that rent payments affect your credit rating.
Honest question here. Given how the system apparently takes forever to kick these people out and apparently the owners won’t get a penny for all the unpaid rent: couldn’t the owners just open the door and move in and make them uncomfortable? Shut down the power or water?
That's illegal and if you did that, you would be the one to get fined by the LTB for failing to provide utilities and trespass to property.
Fair. But also not paying rent is illegal too - I assume? Also potentially illegal if you have more people in than you said you would. So question is why would one illegal action be more ok than another?
Good question, not a lawyer, so I’m speculating as well. If you signed a contract with the tenant, even if they don’t pay, they have right to the space. Only the LTB can compel them to move out.
Ontario's failed landlord / tenant regulations are the perfect hedge for large corporate REITs. It places an unsustainable financial burden on the small landlords with tight margins and inability to pay for a legal team. Eventually it will break, REITs will take over the market.
Hermann Trucking US DOT Number: 2640235 Tel: 647-269-230 [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) 6-3045 Gladeside Ave Oakville, ON L6M 0R3
And people wonder why there’s vacant homes, lol.
Sadly the system worked before Doug Ford. He terminated adjudicators en mass and didn't replace them. For years it lagged until COVID numbers really burdened it. I understand we've hired more adjudicators but it's not enough. We have morer population and a backlog. Sigh. When I wanted to kick out a bad tenant it would take a few months. If he knew how to game the system perhaps 6-8 months. In today's rental market it's nuts. I've sold all my rentals and got out. Each time a good tenant moved out I sold the property. It was gradual but intentional. I just sold the last property (I had 3). i feel relieved. I would never rent in today's world. I heard that the person who bought and rented my old unit got burned hard. They TRASHED the place. Didn't pay rent past the first and last month's rent deposit. I'm friendly with the lady next door to my old unit and she Facebook's me. Said the new neighbors were absolute nightmares. It's been over a year and they are still squatting.
Rent should impact your credit rating. Tenants with incurred rent arrears should be evicted. Not rocket science. Landlords are not a welfare tool.
Rent thevies who steal housing should face jail time
>While their tenant is not paying, she says the family is dipping into their credit line to cover the expense. How the hell did they ever get past the stress test to get their mortgage in the first place?
The same way everyone does. No one was tested for 6% interest rates
Delinquent tenants should have their wages garnished. Full stop. This is insanity
Reading these comments, and noting that some are actually supporting the idiot squatting, is why I would never, ever, invest in rental property in Ontario. The risk is simply not worth it. Invest in properties in FL, they have stronger rules to kick out squatters (and made them even stronger). Good return, lower risk.
We need to make crime illegal again in the Country.
[удалено]
You would actually have to live there.
I have some bad news, people fake being students and squat in those situations too. The worst offenders make up varied stories to get a restraining order and have you removed, or they'll just fake a lease and keep all your stuff. It's rare. But your plan doesn't provide much protection against professional squatters.
I rent rooms cash only snd one guy was a professional rip off scammer. So after her tried to fake a e-transfer the door got locked on him and away he went
Time to squat the squatters. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOxoys9gKE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOxoys9gKE)
Owning other people’s homes is risky business. Can’t disagree, he sounds like a nightmare tenant, but at the end of the day I can only feel so bad for landlord’s and I have a hard time believing it had to get this bad.
Tenants are good, landlords are bad. There is a bad tenant database in my province and I looked up the ones in my town. Literally people renting houses and owing over 40K before they are removed. And some of the tenants do it more than once so move around. Have no clue how they fake credit checks and such to get in.
Not to victim blame but some landlords don't do any checks. A lot of these scammers have multiple aliases too based on what I've seen in the news.
This happened to my parents once. They were scammed by a tenant who used a fake driver’s license, fake credit report, fake employment letter and fake paystubs. All falsified documents. They even created a fake website for their fake employer. Clearly fraud, but the police wouldn’t do anything- they said it was an LTB matter (there’s a comforting thought- people are driving around with fake licenses and apparently the police don’t care). It took my parents almost a year to get rid of these people. The whole time they gleefully declared that they were living there for free and there was nothing we could do. This was the last straw for my parents. It was the last incident in a long string of headache-inducing incidents on that fourplex; trash neighbourhood leads to trash tenants (Lawrence/Allen area of Toronto). They ended up selling the property late last year, and they’re now planning to use the money to buy a cottage. IMO a much better use of the capital, fuck rentals.
Or they'll just rent with their partner doing the application. I moved around a lot before buying my home a few years ago, and not a single landlord I rented from (about 10 different places) ever required a credit check. Only two ever asked for proof of income one of which was an apartment complex, the other was a private landlord. Both were just a printout from my employer, probably could have faked it if necessary. I don't remember ever actually providing references. Only the apartment complex asked for previous landlords and I gave them the half-truth that I lived with parents prior. All of the landlords made the decision based on a personal interview and my ability to pay first and last. If all you have to do is be charismatic in the application process, I'm amazed all of my past landlords haven't been getting burned.
> ever required a credit check. Are you sure? All I need is for you to sign the application consenting to a credit check, your full name, DOB, and address to pull your credit.
I'm sure. Most places I never had to provide DOB or address, and I also monitor my credit. TBF, most of my tenancies were with private landlords. I have always had a solid job and I interview well so I come off trustworthy. All of those "features" can be faked though.
>Most places I never had to provide DOB or address Oh wow >All of those "features" can be faked though. Exactly. I'm 20+ years in the industry, and I got complacent a few years ago skipped some of the checks, and now have an annoying neighbour for it who I likely would have caught if I had properly vetted them.
If that was my house i'd be vandalizing the fuck out of that red truck every single night.
Expect to see more of this when Canada's rental vacancy rate is an abysmal 1.5% when a healthy rate is about 3% or more. It creates a toxic environment for both landlords and tenants.
Running into one of these while renting out your property is a nightmare.
Maybe they should have lived in the house when they bought it.
All you need to do is watch the video in the article to understand what’s going on
The problem is a lot of landlords rent their properties cash under the table and don’t report the income. When you buy and sell a car, you have to go through the government with the registration etc. You need to have a license, insurance, registration, and so forth. Your car payments are credit reported. Why isn’t rent the same? There needs to be a registration system available for renting showing the legal owner and tenant, with payments tracked. If there is any issue everything is already documented and you would be able to file for an eviction, and have a bailiff kick the person out within a month.
Tenants are taking advantage of the situation because the government is benefiting from shirking their social responsibilities. Landlords loosing ten of thousands not recoverable need to hold the government accountable with a class action lawsuit to force change to a system all agree that's broken.
Get in there and bear spray the shit out of them. I’d never let this go even if i have to go to jail
The thing I never understood is when a renter starts doing this why landlord doesnt make life tough for them Cut the utilities, what are they going to do, complain to the LTB? Park your vehicle in the driveway (you own the house) so they cant get any cars in or out Change the locks (again what are they gonna do, complain?) In most scenarios we know landlord has lost the 22K So take em to LTB, make 22K claim, tenant claims back 10K, and they walk away and you lost net 12K now