Looking For a Rental In Canada?

Utilize Canada Rental Guides’ Custom Apartment and Home Rental Search
all over the greater BC Apartment Rental area by simply starting your apartment or home rental search in the box above. Our proprietary Canadian Rental Search Engine is not only equipped with the most up to date listing results; but also delivers real time Map Results, Drag and Click Interfaces, Integrated Google Street Views, Walk Scores, Nearby Restaurants, Stores and Multiple rental property pictures. Search quickly and easily for BC Apartments for Rent, Vancouver Apartments for Rent, Student Apartments in Toronto and more.

 
When you conduct your inspection of the rental unit to determine whether you want to rent, make sure that everything is clean and in working order.
If there is something that does not meet your criteria then discuss it with the landlord and ask if the landlord is willing to rectify the problem.
The problem should be fixed prior to move in and/or a reasonable explanation in writing from the landlord as to why it isn’t. 
If your landlord agrees to rectify the problem but has not yet started before you move in, make sure to take pictures and get a document with signature that the landlord has agreed to fix the issue(s). If the problem is not rectified you will have documentation proving that the landlord responsibilities have not been fulfilled and that you as the tenant where not responsible for causing the issue(s) in the first instance. This is especially important if the issue is a safety or health one that might cause you to end up breaking the lease.
Did the landlord seem to be mindful of your request(s) during the inspection? Was the hallway, exterior of the building and the parking lot clean? Did it appear as though general maintenance was being conducted on a regular basis? Is this a place that meets your criteria and will you be able to make it your home?
 
Find
and other great apartments at http://canadarentalguide.com
 

The Good, the bad, and the down right ugly tenant

There are lots of different tenants out there. Some times it amazes me how often a landlord will end up stuck dealing with a tenant bound and determined to cause trouble who has a record for it. 

 
With the technology of this age it is much easier to get a hold of records and numbers. The first thing any landlord should do is run a tenant screening on the potential tenant. Make sure to use a legit company, preferably one a member of the BBB like http://www.tenantverification.com/ and http://www.atenantscreen.com/. Don’t just run a credit check, get a national criminal record check done, get their eviction record searched. 
 
Then comes the fun part. Its time to do some research. Check arrest records, you will be amazed by some of the things you can learn. If someone has been arrested multiple times it is probably best to not rent to them, even if they were never convicted. Either they keep getting luck or they hang out with people you don’t want visiting your apartment.
 
Check the news. You won’t believe how many tenants have taken multiple landlords to court and then go find a new landlord to rip off. 
 
Call jobs. I once had a potential tenant make up a fake pay stub. I called the place they were suppose to be working and found out that said person had been fired 6 months ago for stealing. 
 
Talk to past landlords. Sometimes problem tenants don’t have records. Its not against the law to be a pain and your not likely to find records on how often they called their landlord to complain over stupid things. 
 
For more tips http://www.tenantsinfo.com/ is a good source of landlord tenant information.

Tenants do research

As I landlord I’ve been doing tenant screening for years. Been withhttp://www.tenantver​ification.com for most of it. Researching applicants is just part of the job.  And during all of that time only two applicants have ever request information from me to run their own search.  Research is just as important to do if you’re the renter as it is for the landlord . Check things like tax records, market price for the area and so on. Never western union, always see the apartment first and if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is. Also beware of any “landlord” out of state or country, especially if they give you a large amount of personal information and a sad story.

Renting Scam

Tips on avoiding renting scams

  • Never Western Union Money to someone who isn’t family or a close friend
  • If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is
  • Bad Grammar or English is a red flag
  • Out of country or out of state without a property manager is a no no
  • Never give out money or personal information before you’ve seen the apartment
  • Check the internet for other ads for the apartment and make sure the price and contact information match
  • Look at tax records
  • Beware of emails with lots of personal information especially containing information on a tragedy, volunteer work or missionary work.
  • Walk away if “Landlord” doesn’t do basic tenant screening such as a credit check

 

http://www.tenantverification.com – more information on tenant screening.

DON’T ASSUME LANDLORD’S INSURANCE COVERS ALL DAMAGE

Don’t assume landlord’s insurance covers all damage

Posted 03/22/2012 by Janet Portman
Q: I read a recent New York Times article about renters insurance, which quoted an insurance professional who warned that if a tenant’s possessions are damaged, “the landlord’s policy is not going to cover your damages.” But the article says there’s “an exception to that … if the landlord was ‘aware of a prior hazardous condition, failed to correct it in a reasonable time frame, and your property was damaged.'”
I’m confused — as a landlord, am I insuring my tenant’s property if it’s damaged as a result of my carelessness? –Paul B.
A: Your confusion is understandable. In a sense, this insurance professional was right: Tenants in this situation might get some money from the landlord’s carrier. But it’s not correct to conclude that when landlord carelessness is involved, the landlord’s policy will “cover” the tenant. Once you see how these claims work, you’ll see what I mean.
Here’s a typical scenario:
Suppose Sam’s computer, which he left on the kitchen floor while it was recharging, is ruined when the pipes burst under the kitchen sink, causing a flood. Sam’s landlord had supposedly fixed the leak just that day, but a plumber later confirms that the landlord did a shoddy job. It’s pretty clear that the landlord was careless.
Sam’s landlord has property insurance, but that insurance covers only the landlord’s property; it wouldn’t extend to Sam’s computer. The landlord also has liability insurance, which covers the landlord when his carelessness results in damages or injury.
If Sam the tenant has renters insurance …
Here’s how things would play out if Sam has his own policy. Sam takes pictures of the floor and his computer, gets a statement from a computer repair shop and the plumber, and submits the claim to his insurance carrier. The company pays Sam; most companies do not dispute these claims unless they have solid reasons to suspect fraud. Sam buys another computer. (Hopefully, he’s got “replacement value,” not “actual cash value” coverage, which results in enough money to cover the total cost of a new computer.) Sam’s carrier can go after the landlord (known as “subrogation”) to get reimbursed, but because this is a small claim, it probably won’t. Even if it did, Sam wouldn’t be involved.
If Sam has no renters insurance …
In the absence of his own policy, Sam wants the landlord to pay for the results of his shoddy repair. He sends documentation of the damage to the landlord, demanding reimbursement. Sam cannot make a claim on the landlord’s property policy, because that policy did not insure Sam’s stuff.
The landlord then has three options: Pay Sam; refer the claim to his carrier, which will treat it as a claim against the landlord’s liability policy; or ignore Sam. If he doesn’t pay voluntarily but refers the claim, the carrier will get in touch with Sam and probably settle. But if he simply ignores Sam, Sam will have to sue the landlord to get his money. Even then, the landlord is under no obligation to involve his insurance company, and may choose not to in order to keep his record clean.
If Sam wins in small claims court, he will get a judgment that he will have to collect. But if the landlord won’t pay, he can’t just present the judgment to the landlord’s insurance company. Instead, he will have to attach the landlord’s bank account or garnish his wages.
So you see, Sam may eventually get his money from the landlord’s carrier, but only if the landlord chooses to involve the insurance company, and only if they settle or Sam wins in court. That’s a far cry from saying that the landlord’s insurance will “cover” damage to the tenant’s property caused by the landlord’s carelessness. The bottom line: It’s a lot easier to have your own coverage and let the insurance companies sort it out.
Q: The lease I’ve been asked to sign has an odd clause concerning attorney’s fees and costs in case there’s a lawsuit. It says that the loser will pay the winner, but only up to $1,500. Is this legal? –Geoff S.
A: Lawsuits between landlords and tenants can arise over the meaning and implementation of the lease, or over issues that aren’t covered by the lease. A lawsuit over the landlord’s retention of the security deposit is an example of the first kind; a tenant’s claim that the landlord charged her more rent because of her race is an example of the second.
Whether your landlord’s attempt to limit the loser’s liability for court costs and fees will hold up depends on the kind of lawsuit at issue, and on what your state law has to say about the matter. Let’s take a look at each situation.
Lawsuits over the lease
Some landlord-tenant disputes arise when one side claims that the other isn’t abiding by the lease terms, or is implementing them in a way that is contrary to the spirit of the lease. For example, a landlord might claim that a tenant is failing to take reasonable care of the property, in violation of the lease clause that requires such care, and terminate accordingly. The tenant contests the ensuing eviction lawsuit, and one side wins. In this situation, your lease’s cap on the loser’s liability might hold up, as long as there’s no state law or policy that would lead a judge to strike it down.
But suppose the lawsuit is over the tenant’s use of a rent-withholding remedy, which was followed by the landlord’s decision to take away the tenant’s parking privileges. The tenant, claiming unlawful retaliation, sues and wins. Will the cap be applied? That depends on whether the anti-retaliation statute itself requires the loser to pay the winner’s costs. When retaliation is involved, many statutes include this type of provision.
For example, California law specifies, “In any action brought for damages for retaliatory eviction, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if either party requests attorney’s fees upon the initiation of the action.” (Cal. Civil Code § 1942.5(g).)
The statute in Illinois does not provide for these fees (765 Il. Comp. Stat. § 720/1), but Texas law does (Tx. Prop. Code Ann. § 92.333).
So, if your state’s anti-retaliation statute requires the loser to pay reasonable fees, but the loser’s attorney fees exceed $1,500, will a court uphold the lease’s attempt to vary the statutory rule? It depends. Sometimes, courts allow landlords and tenants to vary the rules, but often they don’t.
For example, courts won’t uphold a lease clause that relieves a landlord of the duty to maintain fit housing.
Lawsuits that arise independently of the lease
Now, suppose you’re dealing with a legal spat that does not have its origin in the lease, such as a discrimination lawsuit. It’s doubtful that a hearing officer or a judge would apply a lease clause that attempted to limit the liability of the losing party. Often, the antidiscrimination statute itself specifies that the loser will pay.
And from a practical point of view, such a limitation would limit the number of cases brought to challenge illegal landlord acts, which is not what state legislators want.
Here’s the problem: Imagine a winning tenant whose attorney has billed for many thousands of dollars, as is common. If the losing landlord is responsible for only $1,500, the balance will have to come from the winning tenant. If the award to the tenant in the lawsuit is modest, the lawyer could end up with most of it. Knowing that this may be how things turn out, tenants may be discouraged from bringing such suits, which is not what legislators intended when they wrote laws proscribing discrimination.
For this reason, a court might refuse to apply a lease clause that limits the loser’s liability for the winner’s fees.
——–
Posted by Kristina Woods at 7:51 AM 

Tenant Screening : free is not the way to go

As a new landlord I have not yet down a lot of tennat screening. I used a free service I found online for my last tenant and now it is kicking me in the butt. It seems that the free version might of missed a rather important issue. the Tenant in question had just recently been evicted from an apartment for causing property damage and it didn’t show up at all.

So as you have no doubt guess my tenant has damaged my property. he backed up into the fence and completely knocked it down. There is also several deep scratches on the floor of the apartment and hole in the wall. I’m in the process of evicting the guy and am keeping the security deposit which should cover all the damages but its such a hassle. Never going to use a “free” service again.

I did some research and found http://www.atenantscreen.com and http://www.tenantverification.com/ on the BBB certified site. Haven’t decide which to go with yet but they both have great reviews and their on BBB so it should be good.