In the time since our friend submitted his application for tenants' rights as a resident at the Motel, one of the frustrating things has been the amount of dis-information that's being passed around. We're not exactly sure where it comes from. It may be a genuine lack of understanding, or it might be a deliberate campaign.
For example, there is a difference, in our jurisdiction, between the "Innkeepers' Act" and the "Landlord Act". If you rent a room, you're covered by one or the other and the distinction determines your rights.
If you fall under the Innkeepers', you can be kicked out on short notice, the lock can be changed, and you can be denied pets. But the property owner is responsible for providing things like daily cleaning service and linens.
If you fall under the Landlords', you have to receive fair notice of eviction, be given a chance to make good on whatever has created the situation, your locks cannot be changed, unless by a bailiff, and you cannot be denied pets. But the property owner is not responsible for cleaning and linens.
Because of this, and because of the wording of the letter and summons, the management is going around telling everyone that our friend is demanding maid service and that, if they have to provide this, they'll have to raise everyone's rent by $100 a month, which would put most of them out.
The most common responses are 1.) our friend shouldn't be so hard to get along with that he's demanding 'maid service', it's just ridiculous (the word 'uppity' comes to mind, but hasn't been said) and 2.) the maid will be coming into everyone's rooms, going through their stuff, violating their privacy.
We try to explain that 1.) he's not demanding any such thing, it's just mentioned in the letter as an example of proof that our friend doesn't fall under the Innkeepers' Act because if the property was a 'vacation' property, cleaning would have to, under the law, be provided. The absence of these things proves it's a residence. All of which is a red herring anyway, because he's not asking for cleaning service, he's asking for the opposite, and 2.) the tribunal decision will apply only to him, and if anyone else wants tenants' rights, they would have to go through the process themselves.
We try to explain, but they just shut down and won't hear or don't understand the distinction between asking for something, and pointing out its absence.
It's got a lot of people genuinely upset. They're barely making it as it is and the threat of raising the rent by $100 a month, as one woman put it, "scares the bejesus out of me. (The owners) are rich people. They can do anything they want to us."
So the latest dangling sword is that the owners are going to shut down about half of the worst units and everything but the manager's residence. They figure that then they could collect enough rent to pay the bills until they're able to sell. Which would initially throw out about 50 people, and then, possibly everyone.
At the moment, there is a rumour going around that our friend has backed down and withdrawn his application. We're letting it ride. Sometimes clarity isn't worth the fight.
r
For example, there is a difference, in our jurisdiction, between the "Innkeepers' Act" and the "Landlord Act". If you rent a room, you're covered by one or the other and the distinction determines your rights.
If you fall under the Innkeepers', you can be kicked out on short notice, the lock can be changed, and you can be denied pets. But the property owner is responsible for providing things like daily cleaning service and linens.
If you fall under the Landlords', you have to receive fair notice of eviction, be given a chance to make good on whatever has created the situation, your locks cannot be changed, unless by a bailiff, and you cannot be denied pets. But the property owner is not responsible for cleaning and linens.
Because of this, and because of the wording of the letter and summons, the management is going around telling everyone that our friend is demanding maid service and that, if they have to provide this, they'll have to raise everyone's rent by $100 a month, which would put most of them out.
The most common responses are 1.) our friend shouldn't be so hard to get along with that he's demanding 'maid service', it's just ridiculous (the word 'uppity' comes to mind, but hasn't been said) and 2.) the maid will be coming into everyone's rooms, going through their stuff, violating their privacy.
We try to explain that 1.) he's not demanding any such thing, it's just mentioned in the letter as an example of proof that our friend doesn't fall under the Innkeepers' Act because if the property was a 'vacation' property, cleaning would have to, under the law, be provided. The absence of these things proves it's a residence. All of which is a red herring anyway, because he's not asking for cleaning service, he's asking for the opposite, and 2.) the tribunal decision will apply only to him, and if anyone else wants tenants' rights, they would have to go through the process themselves.
We try to explain, but they just shut down and won't hear or don't understand the distinction between asking for something, and pointing out its absence.
It's got a lot of people genuinely upset. They're barely making it as it is and the threat of raising the rent by $100 a month, as one woman put it, "scares the bejesus out of me. (The owners) are rich people. They can do anything they want to us."
So the latest dangling sword is that the owners are going to shut down about half of the worst units and everything but the manager's residence. They figure that then they could collect enough rent to pay the bills until they're able to sell. Which would initially throw out about 50 people, and then, possibly everyone.
At the moment, there is a rumour going around that our friend has backed down and withdrawn his application. We're letting it ride. Sometimes clarity isn't worth the fight.
r
Comments