My girlfriend's ex-landlord is a complete asshat

February 23, 2006 1:36 AM

Is my girlfriend's ex-landlord trying to screw her?

My girlfriend has a bit of a situation that we need some help with. She came to Canada in December 2003, on a one year student work visa. Upon moving into her apartment in (mid) January 2004, she informed the building manager that she could not sign a 1 year lease, as she would be leaving at the end of December for sure (her visa was up, and she HAD to return to Ireland). The building manager said no problem, and ammended the lease appropriately (to 31 December, 2004). She asked the manager if she would need anything else signed to make her intentions of leaving clear. The building manager said no.

In June 2004 (or thereabouts) a new building manager was assigned to the building. My girlfriend spoke to this building manager, informing her of the agreement she had made with the previous building manager. The new building manager said that it was no problem, etc etc etc. Come end of November, my girlfriend went down to talk to the building manager again to verify that everything was still kosher, and the BM then informed her at that point that she MUST give 60 days written notice, and would not be able to leave prior to Jan 31, 2005. She immediately gave written notice to the BM that she was intending to leave Dec 31 (she no longer has a copy of this notice). The BM said this was fine, and before the end of December proceeded to check the apartment for damage (as per the security deposit), and show the apartment to new prospective tenants.

Thus, my girlriend assumed everything was fine. However, in October 2005 (or thereabouts), my girlfriend received a letter (in Ireland) from the property management company that manages this building, which was a bill for well over a month's rent, with a threat to report it as a bad debt to Equifax if it was not paid. What steps should she take in this situation? If it was simply a matter of never returning to Canada, she wouldn't worry about it, but we are planning on coming back to Canada and do not want her to be saddled with $2000+ worth of bad debt sitting on her credit report.

She doesn't want to pay it as a matter of principle, but I've warned her that she very well might have to. Is she responsible for anything more than January's rent + interest? I've checked in the Tenant Protection Act, and can't seem to find anything about this. It seems as though the charges added on by the management company are pretty much equal to extortion.

Note: she also had a roommate (named on the lease) who is also back here in Ireland, but she is no longer in contact with this person (they had a falling out). Is she really only responsible for HALF of the outstanding balance? Or will the landlord try to put this bad debt onto BOTH of their credit ratings?

posted by antifuse to law & government (24 comments total)

Further note: this wasn't some individual slumlord renting out a small place, it's a really big management company (the name eludes me, as the bill is at home) that was running a very large building in the Yonge & Wellesley area of Toronto.
posted by antifuse at 1:39 AM on February 23, 2006

Further further note: the BM NEVER gave her a copy of the lease, despite her asking for it many many times, and she only JUST got a copy of the lease after contacting the folks at the management company about this bill back in the fall. There is no mention of the leaving at the end of December in the lease, just the usual "if you don't provide written notice and no new lease is signed, this lease will change to month-to-month as soon as the first year is up" clause.
posted by antifuse at 2:12 AM on February 23, 2006

If the lease was amended by the original supervisor, why does it now not contain any mention of the 31 December termination date?

Does she have any paper that confirms that she agreed this new date when she moved in?
posted by Grinder at 2:31 AM on February 23, 2006

Your last comment is the only relevant portion. I was about to say that this was a relatively simple issue of providing a small claims (or whatever you do in Canadia) court with the lease agreement saying it ended on the 31st and proof of payment up to that point, but it looks like the GF didn't look out for herself in an official enough capacity. My guess now is that she is screwed.

My only advice would be to kiss some ass and try to do things as amicably as possible, perhaps settling on only paying a portion of it or just her share, etc. Otherwise it is just her word against her signature.

Who knows, maybe another mefite has a brilliant idea that will fix everything. I'll keep my fingers crossed for ya.
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 2:34 AM on February 23, 2006

Sorry - the 31 December termination date is on the lease, but there is no mention of the "I am leaving for sure, don't make this go month to month on 31 December" agreement.
posted by antifuse at 2:35 AM on February 23, 2006

It's too bad that she didn't keep a copy of her notice to leave on December 31. That could solve this whole thing.

Considering that she didn't obtain a copy of her lease, and didn't keep a copy of her notice to leave, I would say that her poor record-keeping is what's getting her screwed over, unfortunately. A company can try to screw a consumer over at any time; it's up to you to protect yourself against it, and she didn't really do that. Consider it an expensive lesson learned I guess, unless she can come up with a copy of that notice.
posted by boomchicka at 2:44 AM on February 23, 2006

Well, I think even WITH the notice (I'm sure she could get a copy of it from the company) she is still screwed, as she's required by law to give 60 days notice. However, I can't see how the management company can be charging her for more than 1 month's rent (she paid rent for December, after all, so technically she was only required to pay rent for January and she would have been all squared up).

And to be fair, she DID ask for copies of the lease on about 20 occasions while in Canada, and it was never provided.

My personal suggestion to her is going to be to offer to pay half of one month's rent, plus interest, and say they can charge the remainder of the stuff to her old roommate.
posted by antifuse at 2:51 AM on February 23, 2006

Does the lease specify the 60 day notice period?Where does this requirement come from?

I'm still a bit unclear about the lease. Is this for a fixed period, until 31 December, then becoming a month-to-month lease?
posted by Grinder at 3:21 AM on February 23, 2006

Highlights of the Ontario Tenant Protection Act

The end of a lease does not always mean a tenant has to move out. A lease can be renewed, or a new lease made, if the landlord and tenant agree.

If a new agreement is not reached, the tenant has the right to stay as a month to month or a week to week tenant – depending on how often rent payments were required under the expired lease.

A tenant with a lease must also give at least 60 days notice. The termination date cannot be earlier than the final day of the lease.

So, it's the LAW that you have to give 60 days written notice. The least is a fixed period, until 31 December, but due to the way that Tenant laws work in Ontario, it becomes month-to-month if you don't renew it or provide 60 days notice to leave.
posted by antifuse at 4:13 AM on February 23, 2006

OK. You say "due to the way that Tenant laws work in Ontario, it becomes month-to-month if you don't renew it or provide 60 days notice to leave". Are you sure about this? I would expect the lease to end on 31 December unless the tenant does something to continue it, like continuing to pay rent.

I don't know anything about Ontario law but I think that looking closely at how a lease changes from fixed-term to month-to-month might yield an escape route. The lease should say something like one of the following: this lease ends on 31 December unless the tenant and landlord agree otherwise, or this lease runs until at least 31 December and thereafter month-to-month unless the tenant gives 60 days notice.

Given the lack of records from her side, she's probably not got a strong argument to make. She should have insisted on getting stuff in writing from the other side.

Given the amount of money involved, is it worth having at least a preliminary consultation with a knowledgeable Ontario lawyer? It seems a pretty straightforward issue if the lawyer has all the relevant documentation, and this seems to be something with long-term consequences for her.
posted by Grinder at 4:26 AM on February 23, 2006

What exactly is the bill for? It should at least be itemized. Also, has she contacted the management company yet by phone? Places like this are often willing to negotiate.

I recently found this tactic quite useful in dealing with a terrible landlord. Inform them, in no uncertain terms, that there is no way for you to pay it. Lost your job, gone back to graduate school, just had a child, whatever. Also, don't tell them you want to come back to Canada. She's not even in the country! How the heck are they going to threaten her, when she's no longer within the jurisdiction? At the worst, they will negotiate the amount down to something reasonable, like a few hundred bucks.
posted by MrZero at 5:01 AM on February 23, 2006

A few practical matters come to mind :

1)In my opinion, it would be very useful to start communicating with the landlord or his agents IN WRITING as this saga plays itself out, preferably by something like registered or certified mail. This provides you with a record of what has transpired in the event that you want to dispute something on your credit report. Phone calls of the "he said she said" variety leave you with nothing. Lay it all out in writing and send it to them ASAP.

2)In most U.S. states, your entitled to one free copy of your credit report yearly from each of the three big companies that do this. You might want to see if this is the case in Canada. Copies can be ordered and viewed over the internet. Get a copy to see where things stand at the moment. Review the credit company's mechanism for settling disputed information in case it comes to that.

3)Do they even know that your GF is planning on returning to Canada someday? Their letter sent to someone in a completely different country seems like a bit of a stretch. They might just being seeing if someone over whom they have minimal leverage (the credit report) is foolish enough to pay them without putting up a fight. I'm with your GF. Give them a fight.
posted by bim at 5:06 AM on February 23, 2006

I'd definitely start by doing what bim suggests — explain the whole situation in writing, and send it to the company. It may be a case of different people at this company handling the case, and due to poor documentation, they don't understand what the situation is. If they don't agree to drop the matter, then proceed with some of the other suggestions in this thread.
posted by orange swan at 5:19 AM on February 23, 2006

As an added note regarding the roommate - typically leases make both roommates responsible for the rent in its entirety. They can come after both of them for the full amount - until one of them pays it all or they both pay half, or whatever. The landlord is not responsible for enforcing whatever agreement your girlfriend and her roommate may or may not have had about rent splitting, and is entitled to collect from both or either (but not more than the actual debt).
posted by jacquilynne at 6:13 AM on February 23, 2006

Were the utilities/cable/phone/etc in her name? Maybe if she can use the old bills to prove to the management company that she moved out on Dec. 31 and that the building manager agreed to this, they will be lenient. Can the building manager be contacted to corroborate her story?
posted by mullacc at 7:11 AM on February 23, 2006

(1) Contact the local tenant's rights association in the city where she used to live. They will let you know what is going on. (2) Find out where you stand on the law, esp. in the cases, as much of landlord-tenant law is case law, (can't be 100% sure about Canada. (3) Then contact the management company, bypassing the BM, as suggested above.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:52 AM on February 23, 2006

In the US, I would look to accord and satisfaction as a way out of this situation. Basically, you send them a check for a lesser amount with language on it to the effect that, if they cash it, they are legally agreeing to resolve the entire matter for the amount of the check. I've personally used this twice, both in landlord-tenant situations, and they've always accepted the lesser amount.

Not sure if Canada has a similar legal theory.
posted by probablysteve at 8:18 AM on February 23, 2006

Also, find out when/if the apartment was re-rented by calling the current tenents if possible. If they rented it out to another party right away, they probably can't collect rent from both parties for the same unit/period. I assume in Canada that there is a general duty to mitigate damages and finding a replacement tenant should not be a windfall for the landlord but simply serve to reduce the landlord's damages.
posted by probablysteve at 8:27 AM on February 23, 2006

Email the Tenancy Board. They always got back to me in a day or so. I seem to recall that, if you broke a lease, they could only come after you for the amount they actually lost. They have to prove that they took reasonable steps to find a new tenant. I was told (informally) that they can usually only go after you for a month's rent. Check with the tenancy board. Management companies try all sorts of things and may not be privy to the actions of individual managers.
posted by acoutu at 9:36 AM on February 23, 2006

Does she have anything written that demonstrates that the landlord had inspected the apartment and was showing it?

I've dealt with a similar (though even messier) situtation before. She should gather together all of her documentation in case she needs it. Contact the tenants rights office and get an opinion on the situtation. As mentioned upthread, she should write a letter explaining exactly what she did, who she talked to, what agreements were reached, and when (estimate if necessary.) No more phone calls. Keep it all in writing.

Send it to the management company certified/registered/signature required. CC the building manager.

They'll probably back down and compromise. I agree with Mr. Zero -- emphasing that the money doesn't exist is a strong tactic as well.
posted by desuetude at 9:43 AM on February 23, 2006

You mentioned that the landlord checked for damage, and started to show the suite. Does she have a checkout report? Did he return her security deposit?
If so, then the might very well be screwed. IANAL, but I am a landlord, and I live in Canada. I am fairly certain that once you give back the security deposit, you have effectively said 'We are square' and cannot go after someone after the fact. You may use the deposit to pay for the rent that you would have been collecting for the term of the lease, and then go after them for more if it does not cover the cost, but you have a responsibility to try your best to rent out the apt in the meantime. If you are successful, then you cannot (as was said above) collect twice for the same apartment.
I would suggest that you contact your bank, because if they gave you your damage deposit back (in the form of a cheque) then you can get a copy of it (your bank would have access to this) and tell them to go F--K themselves.
posted by TheFeatheredMullet at 9:45 AM on February 23, 2006

Isn't it illegal for the management company not to provide a copy of the lease until after it's terminated? That seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

Don't back down on this. Yes, she should've had documentation, but she requested it many times during the run of her lease, and informed the landlords promptly of any changes. She's done nothing wrong. Go to small claims-- it's pretty illegal for a management company not to provide a lease, no? And providing one would've allowed her to make the clarification she clearly attempted to make all along. She's in the right here; just giving up seems like the wrong thing to do.
posted by koeselitz at 10:25 AM on February 23, 2006

with a threat to report it as a bad debt to Equifax if it was not paid

I had to laugh at this. If/when she does come back to Canada, how could anyone identify her as the same person in the Equifax report?

If the answer is they can't, then tell them to shove off and when she comes back to Canada tell her to just omit any information about her previous visit whenever she feels she could be able to.

They can't really use just her name because who's to say there isn't another person with the same name out there? I wouldn't sweat it too much. Equifax works on a Name and SIN# system AFAIK. I could be wrong though.
posted by ChazB at 11:18 AM on February 23, 2006

She immediately gave written notice to the BM that she was intending to leave Dec 31 (she no longer has a copy of this notice)

If she no longer has a copy of this notice, it legally may as well not have happened.

Was there a proviso in the lease that she had to give 60 days written notice if intending not to renew? If so, and she did not keep a copy of this notice, she's semi-screwed, depending on the local laws and what the lease said was the penalty for this.

Read over the copy of the lease that she retains. It should be very clear about what happens in various default situations.

If she didn't retain a copy of the lease with end date Dec 31, signed by whoever was authorized to sign for the landlord, she's *really* screwed.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:37 PM on February 23, 2006