Two B.C. landlords whose costs have skyrocketed – due to their variable-rate mortgage – have been allowed to impose huge rent hikes on their tenants to offset their financial losses.
Two B.C. landlords whose costs have skyrocketed – due to their variable-rate mortgage – have been allowed to impose huge rent hikes on their tenants to offset their financial losses.
In a recent ruling, an arbitrator with the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch approved increases totalling 23.5 per cent over two years for each of the landlords’ four rental units.
That’s on top of the 3.5 per cent annual increase previously approved by the B.C. government for 2024.
“The landlords experienced dramatic interest rate increases which have made managing the property unsustainable,” reads the ruling, which was published in May.
Because they aren’t overriding it - the legislation allows for these rent increases in certain circumstances. Not agreeing with the law or the decision, but the arbitrator isn’t making up some new power.
Thanks, yeah admittedly I hadn’t read the entire article before posting - and quickly realized the answer to my question when I did! I should really know better than to do that :)
Anyway, maybe the question I should have asked is more like, “why the heck did they give arbitrators so much latitude” - which it sounds like we agree on!
If I were to play devil’s advocate, it would be that capped rent increases is to prevent predatory landlords from increasing rent more than their costs, but that if their costs go up more then they have a way to cover that without losing the property / going bankrupt.
That provision is maybe more acceptable when you’re talking about families renting out their basement suite, but I have zero sympathy for investors who took a risk and lost. And even in the case of non-investor landlords, I’m skeptical that it’s appropriate to make the tenant shoulder all the increased costs.
I’ll be honest, I have zero sympathy for any landlord here. Rent control is necessary to (hopefully) make sure there is housing that people can afford to live in - and acts as a kind of limit to the extraction of an ever-increasing portion of the paychecks of the working class by the landlord class.
If the renter loses the ability to pay for a home, they become homeless. If a landlord loses the ability to pay for a property, they become a renter. Economic conditions changed? How about this: these landlords should sell, and make property prices drop a little, instead of having renters getting kicked onto the street.
The landlords, who are identified only by the initials S.O. and K.O., argued they had good reason to expect the rate would remain low when they purchased the property. The Bank of Canada had kept its interest rate low for more than decade, as part of the government’s effort to stimulate the economy following the 2008 recession.
… in 2021? We were in the middle of a global pandemic, economy was already starting to show signs of stress, and a nationwide property values had shot up 25% YoY. How did they even manage to make the argument that anyone in their right mind would expect interest rates to remain low until the end of their term?!
You raise a great point. That’s @#$%ing absurd. It sounds like the “an arbitrator with the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch” was unqualified to work on this case if they do not understand that economic point
Mortgage rates shouldn’t be considered and no one should be bailing out real estate speculators. A competent investor knows there is a market rate for rent, and would consider the variable risk of debt financing and would never have considered the ‘investment’. Owners of units that aren’t highly leveraged have minimal exposure to these rate increases. These people are simply greedy speculators that not only took stupid gambles, they are partially responsible for the current real estate crisis in the first place. High leverage, low interest rates drove high demand and market scarcity.
This ruling needs to be disputed as the adjudicator’s decision appears incompetent, prejudiced, or both.
“I find the world and economic events in reaction to the pandemic were not reasonably foreseeable and have impacted the landlords, despite them taking reasonable precautions by accessing a mortgage through a recognized and well-known lender,” the ruling reads.
Really? It wasn’t reasonable to foresee this crisis with record low emergency interest rates and highest real estate prices in history? Idiot.
Man, I can’t wait until government schmuck decides that the stock I bought that dropped 80% over the course of the pandemic is ‘unfair’ and I should be compensated. Absolutely utter bullshit.
If their gamble on real estate didn’t work out, take the hit, sell at a loss, and learn your lesson.
No fucking wonder people can’t buy a starter home anymore.
They less hate tenants and more don’t see them as people but more of an income source. It’s the same reason why companies don’t care about burnout so long as someone can be replaced(even though it’s a lose-lose we’re not talking about smart, long-term thinkers here).
As a renter, this is deeply disturbing. Their rent is going up 7.7x the previously stated legal limit so that “Two B.C. landlords” who didn’t properly anticipate the consequences of their borrowing can be bailed out of financial losses?! WTF are these “two B.C. landlords”? Corporations, probably, right? Modern-day capitalism is such a fucking grift: if you’re not rich, you’re on your own; if you’re rich, you get bailed out. The renters did nothing wrong here: they were fiscally responsible. But the laws will be bent to extract (steal) unforeseen amounts from them in order to bail out wealthier people who chose to take on the risk they did to satisfy their greed. If you’re not rich, standing on your own two feet isn’t good enough. If you are rich, don’t worry about standing on your own two feet–keep taking on risk to make more money and we’ll protect you if you incur losses
I was always told landlords deserve to extract profit from the economy for nothing because of the risk they take on. Yet time after time it seems like they can’t possibly tolerate any risk at all.
Then fucking sell the property and cut your losses. Why is it that landlords are sacrosanct people that make money regardless of the bad “investment” they made?
The GDP is so tied to the real estate that we see inane shit like that.
Won’t that likely still cost the tenants their home? Any guarantee new owner will keep the old price if the interest rates are higher? Or who would want to buy it if it’s a loss?
Tenants are already getting fucked over. People already on financial strain hit by a 25% rent increase over 2 years like it happened here will lose their apartment and the landlord gets to keep his property that “pays for itself” (see: someone else is paying their property). And that sets a precedent for other landlords.
At one point in time, the trade off for renting was a lower monthly payment than a mortgage and a maintained apartment by the landlord.
Nowadays, tenants pay for the entirety of the mortgage, and landlords complaint when they aren’t cashflow positive month to month and don’t maintain their property because they have the big end of the stick on a human right.
And the response from the government? “We’ll look into it”. Fuck that noise.
If it doesn’t sell, fine. Then maybe people will stop buying up housing to have rental income. And while I understand why people do it, I in no way agree with it … because it’s only wealthier people who can afford to do it. The average person is priced out.
So let those who bought at low-now high interest rates lose their shirts, as it seems that’s the only way prices will come down … because every level of gov’t hasn’t done sweet fuck all to stop (or even hinder) the practice.
Or variable rate interest should be illegal? That’s kinda where I was going. People keep yelling about landlords when everything in general follows the path of least resistance. Cut the problem off as near to the source as possible.
Variable rate let’s me take on the rate risk and pay (on average) less interest. Fixed interest means the bank prices in the rate risk and you pay for that in a higher rate.
They’re allowed to give the tenants one month notice if they or their immediate family are moving in but yeah outside of that they just inherit the lease as is.
If they do that and then rent it out within 6(?) months they have to pay the tenants 12 months of rent… IF the tenants can prove it and then take the landlord to court. So not ideal eitherway.
The law just changed to 4 months notice for landlord/family use (3 months if it’s for a new buyer) and the landlord/new buyer/family must live there for 12 months (actually live there, not just keep it off the rental market).
Good rent control has rules about jacking up the rent in a property you acquired so selling it shouldn’t affect the tenants. Like the other people have said it would simply be that the landlord would have to sell for a price that makes sense.
Rich people can all find their way off bridges for all I care. This shit is vile, has no place in a functioning society, and is completely voluntary.
The problem occurs when house prices tumble from an influx of sales, and the 32% (In NZ) of your population that are paying their mortgage off on their primary residence are potentially plunged into negative equity on rising interest rates.
Once you’re there, you’re kind of fucked. You can sell, but you’ll still owe the bank money, so you can’t buy/downsize. You can’t even change banks. You’re a risky customer, so you get higher interest rates. All you can do is hope the market rebounds or declare bankruptcy.
So you’re risking fucking over 30% of your nation (and arguably the most productive segment of your country as they’re earning money to pay that mortgage), to appease a fraction of (as not every renter can/wants to buy. Eg, students, temporary immigrant workers etc) the 30% of renters that are being fucked over by high house prices.
Not to mention, all the renters you’ve displaced into an even more competitive rental market.
But that’s not to say the solution is to shrug your shoulders and let the landlord class continue to punch down.
It would be expensive, but you could guarantee (current) mortgages for primary residences in cases of financial hardship. Buy mortgagees out and turn the houses into state housing, renting them back to the previous owners at fair prices.
Just because you made shitty financial decisions doesn’t give you the right to violate rent increase rules… if you can’t afford to keep the property then sell.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
How on earth is it possible for an arbitrator to just override legislation like this?
Because they aren’t overriding it - the legislation allows for these rent increases in certain circumstances. Not agreeing with the law or the decision, but the arbitrator isn’t making up some new power.
Thanks, yeah admittedly I hadn’t read the entire article before posting - and quickly realized the answer to my question when I did! I should really know better than to do that :)
Anyway, maybe the question I should have asked is more like, “why the heck did they give arbitrators so much latitude” - which it sounds like we agree on!
If I were to play devil’s advocate, it would be that capped rent increases is to prevent predatory landlords from increasing rent more than their costs, but that if their costs go up more then they have a way to cover that without losing the property / going bankrupt.
That provision is maybe more acceptable when you’re talking about families renting out their basement suite, but I have zero sympathy for investors who took a risk and lost. And even in the case of non-investor landlords, I’m skeptical that it’s appropriate to make the tenant shoulder all the increased costs.
I’ll be honest, I have zero sympathy for any landlord here. Rent control is necessary to (hopefully) make sure there is housing that people can afford to live in - and acts as a kind of limit to the extraction of an ever-increasing portion of the paychecks of the working class by the landlord class.
If the renter loses the ability to pay for a home, they become homeless. If a landlord loses the ability to pay for a property, they become a renter. Economic conditions changed? How about this: these landlords should sell, and make property prices drop a little, instead of having renters getting kicked onto the street.
Why is it the tenant’s problem when these “businesspeople” made bad business decisions?
Nobody owes you protection from the consequences of your own actions.
So if/when rates go back down the tenants can apply to have their rent lowered back, right?
They can apply all they want
… in 2021? We were in the middle of a global pandemic, economy was already starting to show signs of stress, and a nationwide property values had shot up 25% YoY. How did they even manage to make the argument that anyone in their right mind would expect interest rates to remain low until the end of their term?!
You raise a great point. That’s @#$%ing absurd. It sounds like the “an arbitrator with the province’s Residential Tenancy Branch” was unqualified to work on this case if they do not understand that economic point
Because they’re ignorant and entitled.
Mortgage rates shouldn’t be considered and no one should be bailing out real estate speculators. A competent investor knows there is a market rate for rent, and would consider the variable risk of debt financing and would never have considered the ‘investment’. Owners of units that aren’t highly leveraged have minimal exposure to these rate increases. These people are simply greedy speculators that not only took stupid gambles, they are partially responsible for the current real estate crisis in the first place. High leverage, low interest rates drove high demand and market scarcity.
This ruling needs to be disputed as the adjudicator’s decision appears incompetent, prejudiced, or both.
“I find the world and economic events in reaction to the pandemic were not reasonably foreseeable and have impacted the landlords, despite them taking reasonable precautions by accessing a mortgage through a recognized and well-known lender,” the ruling reads.
Really? It wasn’t reasonable to foresee this crisis with record low emergency interest rates and highest real estate prices in history? Idiot.
Man, I can’t wait until government schmuck decides that the stock I bought that dropped 80% over the course of the pandemic is ‘unfair’ and I should be compensated. Absolutely utter bullshit.
If their gamble on real estate didn’t work out, take the hit, sell at a loss, and learn your lesson.
No fucking wonder people can’t buy a starter home anymore.
The Real Estate Bubble That Can’t Pop
I say it is time for the feudal system to be abolished. No more Lords.
Do you propose to start building communism? If not, how exactly this is going to work?
Why do they hate tenants?
They less hate tenants and more don’t see them as people but more of an income source. It’s the same reason why companies don’t care about burnout so long as someone can be replaced(even though it’s a lose-lose we’re not talking about smart, long-term thinkers here).
I know. The phrase is what I wish journalists asked point blank at any spokesperson answering questions about it.
Why allow rental rate hikes instead of allowing the tenants to purchase the building dirt cheap?
U N I O N N O W
This is a dystopian ruling.
As a renter, this is deeply disturbing. Their rent is going up 7.7x the previously stated legal limit so that “Two B.C. landlords” who didn’t properly anticipate the consequences of their borrowing can be bailed out of financial losses?! WTF are these “two B.C. landlords”? Corporations, probably, right? Modern-day capitalism is such a fucking grift: if you’re not rich, you’re on your own; if you’re rich, you get bailed out. The renters did nothing wrong here: they were fiscally responsible. But the laws will be bent to extract (steal) unforeseen amounts from them in order to bail out wealthier people who chose to take on the risk they did to satisfy their greed. If you’re not rich, standing on your own two feet isn’t good enough. If you are rich, don’t worry about standing on your own two feet–keep taking on risk to make more money and we’ll protect you if you incur losses
I was always told landlords deserve to extract profit from the economy for nothing because of the risk they take on. Yet time after time it seems like they can’t possibly tolerate any risk at all.
Then fucking sell the property and cut your losses. Why is it that landlords are sacrosanct people that make money regardless of the bad “investment” they made?
The GDP is so tied to the real estate that we see inane shit like that.
Won’t that likely still cost the tenants their home? Any guarantee new owner will keep the old price if the interest rates are higher? Or who would want to buy it if it’s a loss?
Tenants are already getting fucked over. People already on financial strain hit by a 25% rent increase over 2 years like it happened here will lose their apartment and the landlord gets to keep his property that “pays for itself” (see: someone else is paying their property). And that sets a precedent for other landlords.
At one point in time, the trade off for renting was a lower monthly payment than a mortgage and a maintained apartment by the landlord.
Nowadays, tenants pay for the entirety of the mortgage, and landlords complaint when they aren’t cashflow positive month to month and don’t maintain their property because they have the big end of the stick on a human right.
And the response from the government? “We’ll look into it”. Fuck that noise.
If it doesn’t sell, fine. Then maybe people will stop buying up housing to have rental income. And while I understand why people do it, I in no way agree with it … because it’s only wealthier people who can afford to do it. The average person is priced out.
So let those who bought at low-now high interest rates lose their shirts, as it seems that’s the only way prices will come down … because every level of gov’t hasn’t done sweet fuck all to stop (or even hinder) the practice.
It’ll sell at some price point. Property isn’t a guaranteed growth investment and we should stop treating it like one.
Also, only a fucking idiot gets a variable rate mortgage.
Or variable rate interest should be illegal? That’s kinda where I was going. People keep yelling about landlords when everything in general follows the path of least resistance. Cut the problem off as near to the source as possible.
That’s not unreasonable sounding… I’m not certain if there are any second order effects but it feels like a good consumer protection change.
Variable rate let’s me take on the rate risk and pay (on average) less interest. Fixed interest means the bank prices in the rate risk and you pay for that in a higher rate.
I understand what it is. I said make it illegal. It largely contributed to the housing collapse.
I don’t think there was really much of a housing collapse in Canada…
No, the new buyer has to honour the lease amount, and then subject to normal 2-4% per year adjustment.
They’re allowed to give the tenants one month notice if they or their immediate family are moving in but yeah outside of that they just inherit the lease as is.
If they do that and then rent it out within 6(?) months they have to pay the tenants 12 months of rent… IF the tenants can prove it and then take the landlord to court. So not ideal eitherway.
The law just changed to 4 months notice for landlord/family use (3 months if it’s for a new buyer) and the landlord/new buyer/family must live there for 12 months (actually live there, not just keep it off the rental market).
Good rent control has rules about jacking up the rent in a property you acquired so selling it shouldn’t affect the tenants. Like the other people have said it would simply be that the landlord would have to sell for a price that makes sense.
Rich people can all find their way off bridges for all I care. This shit is vile, has no place in a functioning society, and is completely voluntary.
The problem occurs when house prices tumble from an influx of sales, and the 32% (In NZ) of your population that are paying their mortgage off on their primary residence are potentially plunged into negative equity on rising interest rates.
Once you’re there, you’re kind of fucked. You can sell, but you’ll still owe the bank money, so you can’t buy/downsize. You can’t even change banks. You’re a risky customer, so you get higher interest rates. All you can do is hope the market rebounds or declare bankruptcy.
So you’re risking fucking over 30% of your nation (and arguably the most productive segment of your country as they’re earning money to pay that mortgage), to appease a fraction of (as not every renter can/wants to buy. Eg, students, temporary immigrant workers etc) the 30% of renters that are being fucked over by high house prices.
Not to mention, all the renters you’ve displaced into an even more competitive rental market.
But that’s not to say the solution is to shrug your shoulders and let the landlord class continue to punch down.
It would be expensive, but you could guarantee (current) mortgages for primary residences in cases of financial hardship. Buy mortgagees out and turn the houses into state housing, renting them back to the previous owners at fair prices.
It seems if you’re wealthy enough your wealth gets to enjoy a nice racheting effect.
That’s fucking bullshit.
Just because you made shitty financial decisions doesn’t give you the right to violate rent increase rules… if you can’t afford to keep the property then sell.
Butbutbut MUH PROFITS?!