VadeLab
Allowed in PartCivil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims·

Tenant Wins Partial Security Deposit Refund Due to Move-In Inspection Failure

Case No.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a security deposit refund if the landlord fails to conduct a move-in inspection as required by the Residential Tenancy Act.

Topics

security depositmove-in inspectiontenancy agreement

Provisions

Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 47Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 24Residential Tenancy Act (BC), s. 36

📚 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 ↗

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant was entitled to a refund because the landlord did not perform a move-in inspection or complete a condition inspection report.
  • The landlord was responsible for understanding the correct security deposit amount, not the tenant.
  • The landlord admitted that the security deposit should have been at most $600, based on the tenancy agreement.
  • The tenant was successful in her claim and was therefore entitled to reimbursement of tribunal fees.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's request for a set off for cleaning expenses was denied because she was not entitled to keep any of the security deposit.
  • The tenant's claim for non-contractual interest was not awarded because the tenancy agreement already included a contractual interest rate.
  • The landlord's claim for $600 as "extra" security deposit was not a dispute-related expense.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What was the dispute about?

The claimant argued that she was owed a full refund of her security deposit, while the respondent claimed she was owed money for damages and cleaning costs.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Residential Tenancy Act, specifically sections 24 and 36, were applied.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that a proper move-in inspection is conducted to avoid disputes over security deposits.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The signed tenancy agreement and the claimant's submission regarding the move-in inspection mattered.

Official source: Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims 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 Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims (© 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.
Tenant Entitled to Security Deposit Refund - Civil | VadeLab