this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
153 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

7106 readers
710 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social & Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
153
B.C. landlords allowed to impose massive rent hikes after mortgage payments spike (bc.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 4 weeks ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

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?

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Or who would want to buy it if it's a loss?

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.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 weeks ago

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.

[–] bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I understand what it is. I said make it illegal. It largely contributed to the housing collapse.

[–] bob_omb_battlefield@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think there was really much of a housing collapse in Canada...

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Well it caused a worldwide recession.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 weeks ago

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.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

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.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

No, the new buyer has to honour the lease amount, and then subject to normal 2-4% per year adjustment.

[–] gerbler@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

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).