Woman ordered to pay difference of reduced rent, after Alberta urged landlords to work with tenants
Posted Dec 4, 2020 12:15 pm.
Last Updated Dec 4, 2020 1:00 pm.
This article is more than 5 years old.
CALGARY (CityNews) – Anxiety has risen over an order to pay thousands back in rent after one woman thought she negotiated a reduced monthly payment under rules brought in during the pandemic.
Now she’s finding out she’s still on the hook as she looks to fight the repayment.
“They came back with a 50 per cent reduction, they did say we will come up with a repayment plan within 30 days. I never received a repayment plan. From what I considered, I thought the rent was forgiven.”
Stephanie McCrady’s aesthetician business was closed for months before the loss of income eventually had to shut it down permanently.
She reached out to her landlord in the southeast community of Acadia.
McCrady claims after about three months paying reduced rent, her landlords said they planned to sell the house.
She decided to move and received this email on June 15 stating she was a “landlord’s dream” but that the house was in disarray during a recent visit and “we, now, are out so much money for the mortgage. Rent recovery is not possible at this time due to your leaving on July 15, 2020. However, the damage deposit can cover some of the $3,150.00.”
“Her home is still for sale so I’m just speculating, but I feel like she’s trying to recoup money that she’s lost since she’s had to cover the mortgage without me living there,” McCrady said.
In the spring, the government announced temporary pandemic rental protections and asked tenants and landlords to work together.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Minister of Service Alberta said, “In developing that payment plan, both parties were required to determine how much rent could be afforded and how long it would take to get back to regular payments with no back-rent owing.”
Lawyer Randi Collins said landlords can’t seek retroactive payments for rent reductions, but they’re seeing more confusion as both parties dispute what they actually agreed to.
“The agreements were, in most instances, not solidified in any kind of agreement that was signed, there weren’t parameters behind it. So, there’s a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication between landlords and tenants.”
But last week McCrady was ordered to pay about $2,500 in rent after a Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service hearing.
The landlord was ordered to give the security deposit back, minus about $800 in damages that McCrady argues is mostly landscaping charges.
Collins said it’s hard to say who’s at fault without knowing all the details when it goes to a hearing or court
“It is really important that these agreements are in writing, that the understanding between the parties is as clear as possible because as these decisions makers try to sort through what is fair is reasonable for the parties, they’re going to tend to revert back to what the original lease agreement does say.”
CityNews reached out to McCrady’s landlord who declined to comment. She’s now working on an appeal.
