A White Rock mother says her landlords – Oviedo Developments – haven’t given her proper notice to vacate the house she has been renting, which is due to be demolished as part of the site of a temporary sales centre for the company’s planned multi-storey development on Finlay Street.
And while Misty Fredericks has no doubt that the house, at 1569 Maple St., will soon be coming down – and that she will need to find a new home for herself, her children and their two cats – she wants due process to be observed.
But that, Oviedo CEO Kanwar Dhamrait insists, is just what has happened.
“We have given her everything as per regulations, including the proper two months notice,” he told Peace Arch News Tuesday, adding that he and the company have tried to work with Fredericks, even finding her temporary accommodation for several months – which she refused – while she looked for a new home.
Disputing what she calls a “demoviction,” Fredericks is taking her case to the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) in a hearing scheduled for today (Wednesday).
Meanwhile, Oviedo has applied to the city for a temporary-use permit for the sales centre – to occupy 1569 Maple St., 1589 Maple St. and 15630 North Bluff Rd. – which will be used to promote the 13-storey Altus development at Finlay and Russell.
That application is to be considered by White Rock council at its March 5 regular meeting.
Fredericks said that when she moved into the four-bedroom home in November 2016, she understood from Dhamrait that while it was part of an anticipated development proposal, it would likely take two or more years before the project would actually get underway.
Dhamrait disputes that assertion.
“That conversation never happened,” he said. “The agreement was for a month-to-month rental from day one. She seemed like a good person. We told her she could stay until the development was approved, at a low monthly rent of $1,100.”
On Oct. 5 last year, Fredericks said, she received verbal notice from Dhamrait that “the plans had changed” and that she would have to vacate the property.
“I told him I would have to have something in writing,” she told PAN, interviewed in the kitchen of her well-kept home, where artwork hung in the living room gives proud testament to her First Nations heritage.
“I’m a good tenant. I paid my rent on time and did upkeep of the house and the property.”
Fredericks, who suffers from a disability, formerly worked as a legal secretary. She has been forced to move due to a demolition before, she said, and this time she has been sure to prepare a neatly organized sheaf of papers pertaining to her claim.
In her understanding of Section 49 of the Residential Tenancy Act, she said, the landlord is obligated to give her two months written notice before she must vacate and is only allowed to end the tenancy for the purposes of demolition if all the necessary permits and approvals are in place.
When she received verbal notice that she would have to move, she said, she telephoned city hall the next day and was told that no demolition permits had been issued for the property.
“From Oct. 5 to Nov. 29, I kept asking him to present something in writing,” she said. “He gave two months (written) notice to me on Nov. 29, but he was asking me to leave on Dec. 15 – 16 days later. On Nov. 30, I returned to the city and they told me that there were still no demolition permits issued or approved, and no applications to do anything.”
“In the notice (form) he gave me, he checked the box that the landlord has all the necessary permits,” Fredericks said, adding that she understands that Dhamrait applied for the demolition permit on Dec. 8.
She had filed for a RTB hearing two days before, sending Dhamrait a copy on Dec. 7.
“Once I filed for a hearing, the notice is suspended,” she said.
Dhamrait, however, disputes Fredericks’ version, saying that all permit procedures have been followed and he had only given her verbal notice at first on the basis of what had been – to that point – a friendly relationship.
“I was talking to her in October to start looking for a place, and she said she was looking. She accepted my text messages and I thought that was enough. But when she said she needed something in writing, I gave her the notice for two months – until the end of January.”
Fredericks said she has felt harassed after being advised of a potential lawsuit for $35,000 and BC Hydro being told to cut off the power on Feb. 1 (an order she said she was able to have overturned by explaining to BC Hydro it was without her consent).
Every other day, she said, Oviedo representatives are on the property or parked outside.
But Dhamrait denies there has been any harassment.
“We are still co-operating with her and helping her – we have given her reference letters to get other accommodation,” he said.
“When you try to help people, these things hurt.”
He added that the order to cut off the power was placed before he knew Fredericks had gone to the RTB, and that the $35,000 represents costs that are accruing because the delay is throwing off the project schedule.
“If I have to work on one end of the property first… it will affect the overall construction schedule,” he said, adding that whether he seeks further redress will depend on the RTB ruling.
Fredericks acknowledges that Dhamrait offered her another unit to rent while she looked for other accommodation.
“It was $1,800 per month and he said they would pay the $700 difference to what we are paying now. But we would have to move again in three months. His last proposal to me was that we could live at a house on Finlay Street free of rent for three months.
“I’m sure they felt these were very generous offers, but I didn’t accept either of them – why should I go to all the trouble of moving into these other places, only to have to move again?”
Meanwhile, the ongoing dispute has only aggravated her condition, Fredericks said, and has created stress for herself and threatens to disrupt the education of her nine-year-old daughter, who attends Peace Arch Elementary, and 17-year-old son, who is in Grade 12 at Earl Marriott Secondary.
“I had hoped we’d be able to stay in this home until he had his graduation. With what’s happening, he tells me he’s thinking he’ll have to go to live with a friend.
“I’ve been so occupied dealing with this, I haven’t had time to look for a new home properly. I wanted myself and my children to stay in the community, but I don’t know where I can go with pets and with the lack of availability and the way the price of rentals is going.”
For his part, Dhamrait said he is prepared to abide by an RTB ruling.
“Whatever they decide, we will follow that. If we are wrong, and we have to give her another notice, we will follow that – it will only be until the end of April.”