Docket A-002-01
Order LR01-01

IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act, by Harvey Dawson (the Lessee) against Order No. LD00-217 of the Director of Residential Rental Property dated December 28, 2000.

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

on Thursday, the 25th day of January, 2001.

Maurice Rodgerson, Panel Chair
Jim Carragher, Commissioner
Arthur Hudson, Commissioner

Order

Participants

1.     Appellant:  

Harvey Dawson (Lessee)

2.    Respondent:

Keith Tanton (Lessor)

Reasons for Order

1.  Introduction

Mr. Dawson is appealing the decision of the Director of Residential Property, which directed that the Lessee pay the Lessor rent owing in the amount of $1,500.00.  In filing the appeal the Lessee included a handwritten note stating three reasons for the appeal: 

  1. Mr. Tanton did not tell the Rental Board I had paid $200.00 damage deposit.

  2. Rental Board did not give me any money for the clothes I had to throw out and the food I had to throw out in count of the old fridge he had in the apartment.

  3. The Rental Board did not tell or make Mr. Tanton fix up his apartment.

The hearing was held in Summerside in the Boardroom of Access PEI at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 22, 2001.  Present at the hearing were Mr. Dawson and Mr. Tanton.

2.    Background

Documents from the office of the Director of Residential Rental Property pertaining to the appeal were tabled at the hearing and identified as Exhibits E-1 though E-12.

The Lessee tabled two additional items at the hearing, a hand drawn diagram of the fridge noted as Exhibit E-13, and four receipts pertaining to rent and payments for a car, noted collectively as Exhibit E-14.

The Lessee stated at the hearing that the refrigerator in the apartment did not work properly and it would freeze food rather than keep it cool.  As a result he lost fruits, vegetables, and meats stored in the refrigerator because they either froze or suffered serious freezer burn such that they could not be consumed.  He estimated his losses at about $500.00 and believes this amount should be deducted from the rent owing as compensation for the loss.  Mr. Dawson stated he did not keep any account of the losses and did not formally complain to the Landlord about the losses because the Landlord already knew 'the fridge was no good'.

Mr. Dawson raised the matter of the purchase of an automobile from the Lessor and claimed he had paid $1,200.00 for the automobile when the agreed upon price was $1,000.00, and the $200.00 should be directed towards reducing the rent owed.  Mr. Dawson made reference to receipts (Exhibit E-14) which showed payments for both rent and the car on the same receipt.

Mr. Dawson also claimed to have lost some clothes because the basement apartment leaked and the floor became wet. He stated the clothes became covered with mildew and he threw them out.  He indicated he had not brought the matter of the loss of clothing to the attention of the Landlord and did not seek restitution. He further stated he was not now seeking any compensation for the clothing.

In making his statements, and in responding to questioning from the Commissioners,  Mr. Dawson stated he was not objecting to the finding of rent owing.  He accepted the fact he owed rent in the amount of $1500.00, but further stated that he should be compensated for the lost food, and the extra $200.00 paid on the car.

Mr. Dawson stated one of his objectives is to have Mr. Tanton required to make repairs to the apartment, although Mr. Dawson no longer lives in the unit.

Mr. Tanton, the Lessor, in making his statement to the Commission, indicated that the Lessee had been in arrears in rent for most of the six years he rented the apartment, but he always made an effort to pay and Mr. Dawson was made aware on a monthly basis of the amount of arrears.  He referred to Exhibit E–6 which he says gives a clear accounting of all the payments made by the Lessee and the amount left owing. 

Mr. Tanton stated he was not aware of ongoing problems with the refrigerator.  He indicated there was one reference to a problem and Mr. Tanton had the refrigerator serviced by the company that does the work for his rental units.  He further stated that he did not hear back from Mr. Dawson and assumed the refrigerator was working properly.  When he was informed some time later that the refrigerator repairs did not solve the problem, he installed a new refrigerator.

He stated that at no time during that period, which preceded by two years the Notice of Termination, did Mr. Dawson raise any concerns about the loss of food.  In fact he stated the first he heard of this matter was in the note sent as part of Mr. Dawson's appeal.

In relation to the car, Mr. Tanton stated the Lessee needed a car and he sold him a car for $1,000.00, and allowed him to pay it off over time.  He stated each receipt was clearly marked with the amount paid towards rent and the amount paid towards the car.   According to his records Mr. Dawson agreed to pay $1000.00 for the car and that was the only amount charged against the car and the only amount paid for the car.

In examining the receipts in question (Exhibit E-14), and discussing the matter with Mr. Tanton, Mr. Dawson stated he was not interested in pursuing the matter of the payments made for the car.  He accepted the explanation of Mr. Tanton that the amount paid for the car was $1,000.00.

Mr. Tanton stated he was not made aware of any damage to clothing as a result of water leaks.  He stated that on one occasion there was a problem with a clogged rain gutter and he responded promptly.  He says any damage to clothing would have been of the nature that could be corrected by washing the clothing and it should not have been necessary to throw out any clothing.

Mr. Tanton expressed frustration with the fact the process has gone on for some time, and on each occasion there are new issues that were not raised earlier, and were not raised by the tenant during the six years he lived in the apartment.

 Mr. Tanton  says Mr. Dawson raised the issues after he served the Notice of Termination.

3.  Decision

Based on the evidence filed, and the evidence presented the Commission denies the appeal and confirms Order LD-00-217 of the Director of Residential Rental Property.

Mr. Dawson stated clearly at the hearing that he did not disagree with the rent owing, namely the $1,500.00 determined in the Order of the Director of Residential Rental Property.  Therefore, based on the evidence filed, the Commission determines that the rent owing by Mr. Dawson to Mr. Tanton is $1,500.00.

During the hearing Mr. Dawson did not raise the matter of the damage deposit referred to in his handwritten letter attached to his notice of appeal, and did not offer any testimony or support for this claim.

On the matter of the extra $200.00 paid on the car, Mr. Dawson stated during the hearing that he accepts the explanation of Mr. Tanton and no longer believes he paid more than $1,000.00 for the car.  In reviewing the evidence filed the Commission cannot find any evidence that Mr. Dawson paid any more than the agreed $1,000.00 for the car.

Mr. Tanton indicated the car arrangement was an effort to help Mr. Dawson, however it has led to some confusion on the part of the tenant.  The Commission does note, by way of advice, that while Mr. Tanton attempted to ensure the two matters, rent and car payments, were differentiated it would have been more appropriate to ensure they were treated as two completely separate and unrelated matters.  The Commission considered this issue only as it related to the rent payments.

On the matter of the water damage to clothing, Mr. Dawson stated to the Commission he did not wish to pursue any compensation and abandoned this claim.

That leaves the issue of the refrigerator.  The Commission notes that the matter of compensation for food damage was not raised at the original hearing.  It is also noted that a new refrigerator was installed in 1998, and Mr. Dawson continued to occupy the apartment until June 2000.  No claim for loss of food was made prior to the new refrigerator being installed, and Mr. Dawson says there were no problems after that time. In the absence of any evidence to support the claim of damaged food, and given the lapsed time (two years)  and the fact no claim for damages was made at that time, the Commission denies the claim for compensation for lost food.

The other matter raised by Mr. Dawson was a desire to have the apartment repaired.  Since Mr. Dawson has not occupied the apartment for over six months, and did not file any complaints during the time he occupied the unit,  the Commission is not in a position to deal with this matter.

 Based on the above reasons the Commission denies the appeal and confirms the decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property.

Order

WHEREAS Harvey Dawson filed an appeal dated January 2, 2001 against a decision of the Director of Residential Rental Property ;

AND WHEREAS the Commission heard the appeal in Summerside on January 22, 2001;

NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons given in the annexed Reasons for Order;

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 1.  The appeal is denied;

 2.  Order LD00-217 is confirmed, and the Lessee will pay the Lessor rent in the amount of $1,500.00; and

3.  Payment in full or arrangement for payment satisfactory to the Lessor must be made on or before February 15, 2001.

DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 25th day of January, 2001.

BY THE COMMISSION:

Maurice Rodgerson, Panel Chair
 Jim Carragher, Commissioner
Arthur Hudson, Commissioner

NOTICE

Sections 26.(2), 26.(3), 26.(4) and 26.(5) of the Rental of Residential Property Act provide as follows:

26.(2) A lessor or lessee may, within fifteen days of the decision of the Commission, appeal to the court on a question of law only.

(3) The rules of court governing appeals apply to an appeal under subsection (2).

(4) Where the Commission has confirmed, reversed or varied an order of the Director and no appeal has been taken within the time specified in subsection (2), the lessor or lessee may file the order in the court.

(5) Where an order is filed pursuant to subsection (4), it may be enforced as if it were an order of the court.