According to the landlord, the tenant was also a hamster.
Untidy flats are a common source of strife in tenancy disputes – but a few cases really stand out from the rest.
While it’s one thing to leave a few towels on the floor or have a few dishes in the sink, a tenant in Vancouver has reportedly made some dangerous choices in his residence.
According to Section 32 of the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), landlords are responsible for supplying and maintaining their residential properties in a state that complies with the health, safety and housing standards required by law. In other words, they need to keep your pad pest free or deal with pest problems as they occur.
But tenants also have a responsibility to maintain the cleanliness of their rental units.
In a dispute in 2012, the landlord in Vancouver requested a notice to terminate the lease because they claimed the tenant was endangering their property and causing extraordinary damage to the unit.
According to the landlord, the tenant continuously created problems by collecting garbage and cast items. Further, they claimed that the tenant started a fire by burning newspapers that her puppies had peed on. They said the blanket caught fire this way.
Vancouver Fire and Rescue conducted an investigation and determined the conditions were a fire hazard. The landlord stated that they tried to help the tenant resolve the conditions, but they would not comply.
The landlord stated that they also involved the city’s hoarding task force to try to help the tenant.
In addition to the mess, the landlord said the tenant also had two dogs removed from the property and destroyed by animal control because they attacked a neighbor. The landlord then instructed the tenant not to have more dogs, but she got two new puppies.
In response to the allegations, the tenant said she had cleaned the unit to the point that she could “move around the living room.” In addition, she noted that she did not have a working stove or refrigerator.
Later, a city inspector said the dogs had caused significant damage to the device because the dogs were allowed to defecate and urinate freely. The landlord had photographic evidence of this damage.
Despite the extraordinary impurity, both parties reached agreement that included dates for follow-up inspections and demanded that tenants should not bring more animals into the unit.