LR93-8

Appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed.

Linked prior order: LD92-177

Order text

Order LR93-08 - A-004-93 - Rental Appeal - Jeanine Vanneste v. Calvin Mol, Property Care & Rental Agent for George MacKenzie (Apr 2, 1993) Docket A-004-93 Order LR93-8 IN THE MATTER of the Rental of Residential Property Act , R.S.P.E.I. 1988, C.R 13.1, and IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act , by Jeanine Vanneste (the Lessee) against Order No. LD92-177 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated January 8, 1993. Friday, April 2nd, 1993 Linda Webber, Chairman Michael Ryan, Commissioner Myrtle Jenkins-Smith, Commissioner Order Participants 1. Appellant Lessee Jeanine Vanneste 2. Respondent Lessor Calvin Mol, Property Care and Rental Agent for George MacKenzie Reasons for Order 1 Background Jeanine Vanneste (the Lessee) was shown apartment #1 at 87 Water Street, Charlottetown, P.E.I., on July 28, 1992. At that time she said she would take it and gave the Lessor's agent two cheques—one for $550.00 for the first month's rent and one for $250.00 as a security deposit. In return she was given the keys to the apartment. A few days later the Lessee found out she didn't get the job she had expected so she informed the Lessor (by leaving a message on the agent's answering machine) on Saturday, August 1, 1992, that she could not take the apartment. On Monday, August 3rd, she returned the keys. She had put a stop-payment on the cheques. By Form 2, Application for Enforcement of Statutory or Other Conditions of Rental Agreement dated November 24, 1992, the Lessor's agent sought a finding that rent is owed and an order that the rent would be paid in the amount of $266.00 (slightly less than one-half of one month's rent). The Director held a hearing on December 23, 1992 and, as a result of that hearing, ordered the Lessee to pay $266.00 to the Lessor. By Form 17, Notice of Appeal dated February 8, 1993, the Lessee appealed the decision of the Director. 2 Evidence & Argument The facts set out in the Background , above, are not in dispute. The Lessee argues that (1) her message on the answering machine should be valid notice and (2) she was not made aware of the rules under the Rental of Residential Property Act and it should have been the responsibility of the Lessor to make her aware of them. The Lessee also complained about how long the Lessor waited until filing his claim and the fact that other parties were contacted about this matter even though her mailing address was clearly marked on her cheques. The Lessor's agent stated that he never got the message the Lessee said she left on the machine but it was possible the machine was not working. He admitted to failing to notice the address on the cheques, explaining that his attempts to locate her caused him to talk to other people about the matter and caused the delay in the application. The Lessor's agent took the position that the law is clear—the rent is owed and he is not responsible for educating tenants. As well, he stated that the Lessee is fortunate that the apartment was re-rented quickly and for that reason the Lessor is seeking only pro-rated rent for the 15 days it was empty. 3 Decision The Commission sympathizes with the position the Lessee found herself in after having committed to renting the Lessor's premises. However, that does not change the law or the Lessee's obligations. The short time the Lessee was committed to the premises could well have been the time during which the Lessor could have obtained another tenant. The Lessor and his agent are not responsibe for advising the Lessee of the law. At the same time, we do not feel the Lessor took undue advantage of the Lessee's position. The fact that the apartment was rented out to another person two weeks later indicates a serious attempt to eliminate the problem created by the vacant premises and was to the advantage of the Lessee. The delay in filing the application is not, in our view, so long or unreasonable as to raise any barrier to the Lessor's claim. Accordingly, 1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. The Order of the Director is affirmed; and 3. The Lessee shall pay the sum of $266.00 to the Lessor on, or before, April 12, 1993. An order will therefore issue. IN THE MATTER of the Rental of Residential Property Act , R.S.P.E.I. 1988, C.R 13.1, and IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act , by Jeanine Vanneste (the Lessee) against Order No. LD92-177 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated January 8, 1993. Order UPON the appeal of Jeanine Vanneste against a decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated January 8, 1993; AND UPON hearing the appeal conducted in Charlottetown on March 3, 1993; NOW THEREFORE , for the reasons given in the annexed Reasons for Order; IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. The Order of the Director is affirmed; and 3. The Lessee shall pay the sum of $266.00 to the Lessor on, or before, April 12, 1993. DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 2nd day of April, 1993. BY THE COMMISSION: Linda Webber, Chairman Michael Ryan, Commissioner Myrtle Jenkins-Smith, Commissioner