VadeLab
AllowedResidential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia)·

Landlord Wins Damages Claim Against Tenant

Case No. AnonDec-301290

📌 In brief

A landlord won a case against a tenant who left their rental property in an extremely dirty state with damaged furnishings. The court ordered the tenant to pay for damages and allowed the landlord to keep the security deposit as compensation.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord is entitled to compensation under sections 32, 67, and 38 of the a person Tenancy Act if a tenant leaves the rental unit in an unclean condition with damage exceeding ordinary wear and tear.

Topics

residential tenancysecurity deposit

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 32Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 67Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 38

📚 Full judgment

The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.

⚖️ View on the official court website ↗

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed11 cases
Allowed in Part1 case

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • A landlord is favored when a tenant leaves the rental unit unclean or damaged beyond normal use.
  • A tenant is favored when the landlord does not return their security deposit or start a dispute within 15 days.
  • A landlord is favored when a tenant owes unpaid rent.
  • A landlord is favored when they apply for unpaid rent or cleaning costs against the security deposit within 15 days of getting the tenant's new address.
  • A landlord is favored when a tenant does not pay rent or challenge a 10-day notice within five days.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • An application is dismissed if the landlord cannot prove they properly delivered required documents to the tenant.
  • An application is dismissed if the tenant does not properly deliver their legal documents.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

Who was involved?

A landlord and a tenant were involved in the dispute over property damage and cleaning costs.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant left the rental unit in an unclean condition with damages exceeding ordinary wear and tear, supporting the landlord's claims.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 32, 67, and 38 of the Residential Tenancy Act were applied to determine compensation for damage and security deposit retention.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The landlord's evidence showing extensive cleaning costs and replacement expenses due to tenant neglect was crucial.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants should leave rental units clean and undamaged, as landlords can seek compensation for damages exceeding normal wear and tear.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs showing the condition of the unit after tenancy, invoices for cleaning and repair costs, and receipts for replacement items were significant.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the Residential Tenancy Branch can typically be appealed to the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is advisable to consult with a qualified lawyer for legal advice specific to your situation.

Official source: Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) — this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Residential Tenancy Branch (British Columbia) (© Province of British Columbia). VadeLab reproduces no part of the decision text; the summary above is VadeLab's own material. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.