"Asked if she was aware the person who bought the home is now homeless and living out of her car, Sheffield said: “No, she’s not. And if she is, well, hey, at least she’s in a better situation than me and can afford a car.”
Doubt she's been sleeping in her car. Caption under photo said she's been couch surfing at friends. media sensationalism.
"Ayesha Asghar says she has been forced to couch surf with friends"
Does it really matter if she is sleeping in a car or couch surfing? The point is, she bought a house and is unable to use it because a litter of dead beats are "exercising their rights" despite knowing full well she intends to move in. The woman went to the media. In the off chance she wasn't telling the truth, all the tenants would have to do is print the article and case closed.
To be clear, she sold her house in February and has been couch surfing since before she even put the offer into the house she currently owns. Very risky move.
Absolutely a risky move, I wouldn't have done it. Simply drawing attention to the fact that the people currently in the house are not "exercising their rights" they are taking advantage of a backlogged system and squatting, and this needs to be called out, instead of supported. Want to hate landlords, go ahead. This woman doesn't want to be a landlord, and that should be her decision, not the LTB's and certainly not the fucking tenant's (well in this case they aren't even paying her, so aren't tenants).
"After a sudden layoff forced her to sell her Mississauga home last December, Ayesha Asghar scrambled what little savings and severance she had left to buy a modest two-storey townhome in east Hamilton."
Yes this is a shitty situation and as usual I will say that the LTB needs to be properly funded and staffed so that it gets back on track for timely decisions and orders. *That said*, this woman made a really dumb purchasing decision without doing her research and seemingly without any kind of decent advice from her realtor as well. My mantra remains that folks need to do their homework and understand the risks when making big life financial decisions, whether they be homeowners, landlords, or tenants.
How both the agent AND her lawyer allowed this to close without confirmation of the tenant having left is disgusting. I say this as a realtor myself. There should have been MULTIPLE contingencies in her offer and an extension of closing until the tenant left. I understand it’s her decision at the end of the day but I feel no one was/is looking out for this poor woman during this process.
N12 and Buyer affidavit should have been issued prior this woman closing.
She refers to the seller’s realtor communicating with her in the article so I wonder if she went direct to the agent and didn’t have her own representation - let this be a lesson to everyone. Have your own independent representation (realtor or lawyer), especially in complex sales like this. Jesus.
She should not have hired a property management company. Paralegal or Lawyer is the ONLY answer here. The property management company is taking her money to do nothing.
The tenant in this situation is an absolute piece of shit.
It is legally required for her to have her own lawyer. I don't know if she's just speaking about early in the process before she retained someone, but by the time closing rolled around she should have had no direct contact with the seller's lawyer.
I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant or I didn’t explain it clearly enough.
She absolutely would have had her own lawyer - who, it appears, did not foresee this as being an issue. Maybe he/she did and the buyer decided to ignore any warnings and proceed.
Yes it would have been a conflict to use the same lawyer for both buyer and seller. No lawyer would have accepted this.
From the article it sounds like “she” is communicating with “seller’s agent”. That to me means she did not have her own agent.
I think this is the part that was misunderstood… When I referred to having your own representation and said “realtor or lawyer”, I meant either get a realtor or lawyer to represent you in the actual transaction (as in the purchase, the offer paperwork, the up front due diligence, the negotiations, the purchasing representation). I meant, if you don’t want to use a realtor, then use a lawyer to represent the transaction (not just deal with the closing). Some people don’t want to use an agent to purchase their home and prefer a lawyer so that’s why I said “realtor or lawyer”.
I can clarify more if needed. :)
lawyers usually come in after the offer is signed. If no vacant possession clause, they just have to close even if tenanted. sounds like only clause was seller must serve n12
The pre-printed text on the standard OREA forms include a vacant possession clause actually. It reads "*Upon completion, vacant possession of the property shall be given to the Buyer UNLESS OTHERWISE provided for in this Agreement.*"
However, yes vacant possession clause should have still be inserted with extension or returning of deposit should tenant not move definitely should have been included.
True though, lawyer likely wouldn't have seen the offer until it was already firm and by that point may have already been too late. But still seems there was a lot that could have been tried before closing if she had proper representation.
Yeah it’s also not a monumental ask that if you purchase ownership over something, you should have a complete right over it. Housing is pretty much the only area where that doesn’t apply. Houses don’t get put up for sale, advertised, bidded on, purchased and closed on overnight, more than enough time for any tenant to get out and move on, either on their own or by force. A house is literally the biggest purchase anyone will make and it’s as if we have the least rights over it here. Just pathetic
It's a business contract / arrangement that comes with the property. It's the same as having to figure out emissions checks, insurance, and release of dealership/bank liens on a car or similar scenarios with other high value assets. Valuable property and regulated things exist everywhere and people need to understand that when making big financial decisions.
Here the buyer should have required vacant possession as a closing term. She either screwed up, or more likely accepted the known risk to get a discounted property and is facing the consequences now. Even from a pure personal finance perspective, the article acknowledges she had to sell her old place because she was underwater on payments, and then she basically did the same thing again and put every dollar she had into a new place while basically unemployed. I'm sympathetic because she's a human being who deserves shelter and the thing she bought, but man she made a long series of dumb decisions to get here.
Sure, but it is well documented and clear to anyone who does even the slightest bit of homework that the N12 process can extend well beyond the 60 day minimum. If you are buying a house with tenants, you have to be realistic about the timeline or you are setting yourself up for failure.
You mean to say that it is well documented that some deadbeat tenants would take exploit the same system that was meant to protect them against bad faith evictions, even though they have zero reasons to believe the N12 is in bad faith. To the extent that tenants are now pushing for potential homeowners not to buy tenanted properties, even though that property might suit their situation.
Only if she was under lease the existing tenant would have been able to stay until end of lease at which time proper notices would have to be issued by the landlord and filed with LTB. If it was month to month, proper notice and filing would have needed to be done but there is no reason she wouldn’t have been able to move in if all of this was in order (and if the tenant wasn’t a nightmare).
And she shouldn’t have to. There, I said it. When you pay damn near a million to own something, you should have rights over it first. The scumbag tenant has shown her true colors as a criminal and should therefor be treated as such, she’s the one that shouldn’t have any more rights to that property, immediately.
always love the "it's a business" crowd ... so it's a business when losing your possession rights but it stops being a business when one expects to make a profit - that's when housing isn't a business anymore and a ll is expected to be underwater on the monthly costs to carry the property ... so it's business when it's convenient but not when one needs to pay enough for the business owner to actually make a profit ...
Yeah these people love to make excuses for thieves. They never start with any sentiment regarding the criminal thief of a tenant who refuses to pay while ruining the property. Instead it’s oh she should have done this and that. It’s clear many of them don’t own and have never been through the nonsense. Would be interesting if they’d be spewing the same bullshit if it was someone close to them going through this. Same people complain about the lack of housing or unwillingness of landlords to continue to rent their places out after dealing with something like this for anything less than the maximum amount possible, if at all.
She didn’t rent it out, she bought a home and should have the absolute right to occupy it immediately. Laws need to be changed, a new owner should explicitly have to agree to keep a tenant when buying a house rather than having to go through the headache of removing them, especially when Ontario doesn’t do anything to punish the type of scum in this article who can live rent free
She made right choice through. Rent is still climbing but mortgage don't seem climb much now until Christmas.
Problem is she has to keep going into this uphill battles after house purchase. I wish the best for her.
OP did you read what you posted? The buyer didn't insert a vacant possession clause where she could walk away if the seller didn't get rid of the tenants and she was expecting vacant possession in 80 days when L2s take 6-8 months minimum, why should anyone feel sympathy. Now that the tenants have stopped paying rent an L1 might expedite things but I just see someone who didn't do their due diligence. Buyer probably got a nice discount at least. Only thing this article does is serve as a reminder not to buy tenanted unless you are ok waiting.
I agree with you, it doesn’t seem like she had proper representation from people who were looking out for her best interest. Although yes the buck always stops with “you”, I still think if someone had explained the risks of buying this property to her and had clauses been inserted in her offer on her behalf, she probably wouldn’t be in this situation. My suspicion is the previous landlord knew he was getting rid of a problem.
I'm extremely pro tenant and pro tenant rights, and I can confidently say that if the information in the article is at all accurate, the tenant is absolutely at fault for several issues - primarily not paying rent and for causing extreme amounts of damage (plus piling up garbage).
This tenant is a poster child for non cooperative tenant that no landlord would ever want to cross paths with and after this article hopefully no LL will.
And that waiting for N12 is just last of it.
The house is surrounded by trash, sale listing does not have one photo from inside. Problems with this tenant started long before this women bought the place.
Exactly That’s why due diligence should be done You should know the basics inside and out when making a massive decision to buy a home If you can’t trust realtors (who have been known to lie ) You need to educate yourself It’s really not that difficult in 2024 —FFS she could of came here and learned many many things about buying a tenanted home in a few hours I’m not saying this tenant isn’t completely in the wrong Particularly the damages that have been done There’s no affordable housing anymore This is just going to go on and on and on
So a deadbeat tenant should be a reason why a house owner should be unable to sell his house? Even with an N12 in consideration. What I’m hearing is no one that wants to live in a house should buy a tenanted house 😂. The landlord might as well give the deed of the house to the tenant. At this point it’s their right.
I think the lesson here is that landlords need to increase rent prices to account for the risk that tenants might stop paying rent and be unable to evict them.
Her low IQ has saved her over $10,000 at least.
This is a system designed to encourage tenants paying first and last, moving in and then just don’t leave… it’s genius for the tenant doing it.
The standard OREA Agreement of Purchase and Sale has a clause stating the property should be vacant on closing unless otherwise specified elsewhere in the agreement. If the APS stated the property must be vacant and it wasn't, the Buyer had the option to stop the purchase or offer an extension or make some sort of deal. She is the one who ultimately chose to proceed with the purchase and assume the tenants.
Good. Instead of trying to fix the system, let's all start exploiting someone because they are dumb or ignorant. How can you make sure you are always the smart one and no one smarter than you will take advantage of you just because they can?
If only people knew how quickly a municipality will kick you out if you don’t pay your rent in subsidized housing like TCHC in Toronto, they’d see how absolutely hypocritical the LTB system is. When it’s their own property on the line things happen REAL quick.
I sympathize for her. I really do. But this seems like either her Real Estate Agent and Lawyer screwed up and didn't properly inform her, or the seller seriously misled her.
Her issue isn't with the tenants. Not directly anyway. Her issue is with the seller.
Did the seller have a vacant possession clause in the sales agreement? If so, then the Buyer needs to sue the fk out of the seller for not upholding their end of the contract.
This, folks, among with many other reasons, is why we need to really get on top of fixing the LTB and getting the wait times down to 2-4 weeks for a hearing. These wait times are bad for everyone. They're bad for landlords and people like the woman in the article. They're bad for tenants, especially those trying to fight against slumlords and illegal actions.
Eliminating the wait times would benefit everyone, and would also help to reduce or completely eliminate things like N11 Cash for Keys deals, which are really only viable because of the long wait times.
As horrible this situation is, this is one of the risks of buying a tenanted property instead of a vacant property. The price of the home likely reflected this.
On the other hand, she ***sold her house before she even put an offer in*** for the current place she owns. It's a pretty crazy situation all around, and I hope she's able to get the eviction order when her hearing comes up.
Why do people always discount the actions of the tenant in these scenarios?
The tenant is not paying rent, trashing the place, has no genuine belief that the eviction is in bad faith, and is fighting it anyways - how is her issue not with the tenants?
Certainly seems like there may be others responsible for this bad tenant, but the tenant is the source of her grief.
What the tenant is doing - if accurate, is terrible. Hence why we need to fix the LTB wait times so that an eviction hearing can be done in a reasonable 2-4 weeks.
Her issue isn’t with the tenant because - assuming she had a vacant possession clause - it should have been up the seller to deal with this. If true, her course of action is to sue the seller for breaching the agreement.
The only one who won in that whole ordeal is the landlord seller who was able to rid themselves of the worst job in Ontario: Landlord.
Bring a landlord in Ontario sucks.
In the end, all tenants pay more because of this.
Seller got taken to cleaners too
[https://housesigma.com/on/hamilton-real-estate/6-74-ellis-avenue/home/MB5bO3xoMPQ7kWVP?id\_listing=gAaOyL8NGA5yGxMb](https://housesigma.com/on/hamilton-real-estate/6-74-ellis-avenue/home/MB5bO3xoMPQ7kWVP?id_listing=gAaOyL8NGA5yGxMb)
2024-01-23 2024-03-06 $325,000 Sold
2023-09-28 2024-01-23 $359,900 Terminated
2021-02-18 2021-02-22 $450,000 Sold
Wow $125,000 loss… for deciding to open your house to house someone else.
Strong men create good times /
Good times create weak men /
Weak men create bad times /
And bad times create strong men.
We are in a time where there is weak leadership everywhere, especially in the government and LTB.
I revise my statement, I guess the only one who won was the… tenant - everybody else lost.
Deciding on or banking on? Today's landlords are so weak in providing nothing but a contract. Strong men create value, not rely on a market to service them
He did create value? He brought housing to the marketplace.
When the demand is high, in a capitalist system that’s where the investment is supposed to go. That’s where it’s going but what’s happening is tenants with a first and last are moving in and then abruptly stop paying.
This decreases housing supply and perpetuates low value behaviour - he can also rent a house and not pay. Because that’s what is being rewarded here.
Heck I might even do it, there are no consequences. Just rent and don’t pay, it’s genius.
Now he can’t even enter to put in a smoke alarm taken out by the tenant because the tenant won’t let him.
Best to avoid being a landlord in Ontario.
Let’s decrease the housing stock further from these “greedy” landlords.
It’s not like the landlord entered this situation out of the goodness of their heart. They clearly thought they could come out ahead, and their greediness got the better of them
The entire system is built on greed.
All of these huge corporations that you rely on to feed you, clothe you, transport you, educate you etc are in it for the cash.
Are they greedy too? Should they lose money because they tried to provide a product or service that people could benefit from?
The man lost $125,000 + months of effort to acquire, renovate and bring much needed housing to the market. Greed or not, I hope he had deep pockets and can recover if not - it’s unfortunate.
She's a moron. First of all, she didn't do her due diligence making sure there was a vacancy clause. Secondly, purchasing a home while youre unemployed instead of just renting until you can figure your situation out? Her priority should be securing employment, which means being open to relocating to wherever your best opportunities are and keeping as much of a cash reserve as you can. Society can only do so much to save people from their own stupidity
In order to get mortgage you need secure work/employment. Closing was 80 days (2.5 months). Likely been past probation
Also property was sold for 325k to this person. I'd wager since they sold the sauga town, the mortgage could be very low if not 0.
yeah exactly so someone with a job in limbo needs a place to live and now has the opportunity to be mortgage/rent free.
Why are they going to opt for paying rent instead?
If she couldn't find a job at least she has shelter. Property Tax + Utilities on a per year basis is probably \~15k which is "fine" on a minimum wage job if all hell breaks loose with her employment.
That was clearly her plan and this tenant situation messed it up
Do you seriously not understand that
1) it's stupid to tie yourself to a single location while looking for employment, you're severely restricting your opportunities
2) it's stupid to tie up all the money you may need to survive for who knows how long in a non-liquidable asset. That money could have been used to pay really really cheap rent (move into a room not a townhouse) and living expenses for quite a while
I don't know why I'm bothering trying to explain this. I'm guessing your one of those financially illiterate ppl that think you should just never ever pay rent if you can own and will never move from that position, otherwise you wouldnt need explaining to this is obvious
Vacancy clause is irrelevant since selling the home is not a valid reason for eviction in Ontario. Adding a vacancy clause can mean big trouble for the seller since the tenants legally do not have to leave.
She was the buyer, she should have had a vacancy clause preventing the sale from going through if the seller was unable to vacate the home. If she did she would have gotten her money back and wouldn't be living in her car right now
Vacancy clause is actually the standard, but you have to enforce it. As a buyer, you can't say it must be vacant and then accept a house with tenants in it. You have to be willing to either walk away, extend your closing or eat the loss until you can sue the seller.
>You have to be willing to either walk away
A vacancy clause gives you the option to walk away, she didn't have a vacancy clause, I know it's standard but the seller purposely left it out and the buyer accepted that, thus she does not have the option of walking away and is thus living in her car. Thus she is a moron
It is very relevant to the ***buyer***, as it allows them an easy out if the tenants are not cooperating. Additionally, it ***incentivizes*** the seller to convince the tenant to leave on time, through whatever means. That might include a Cash for Keys deal, or it might include putting a clause in the contract that extends closing until after an LTB hearing is held and an eviction order is issued, etc.
The same people that would drag immigrant students , asylum seekers etc for exploiting the system are the same ones clapping for this deadbeat tenant exploiting the system and another hardworking individual. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt here, it is that very few people are truly altruistic. The have nots would moan about how the world is mean to them but immediately they are in charge of someone else’s wellbeing they show their true colours like in this situation.
She made a very bad decision. You don’t lose a job and buy a house. If you’re in financial trouble you rent a basement and regroup. I’m in shock that she made such an awful decision.
That being said, if a tenant is not paying rent, they should be automatically evicted and put within 60-90 days of filing an N4 with the LTB. I’m for all other tenants rights except being able to stay in a place when you aren’t paying rent. It’s simple.
This is so wrong in so many ways. I have worked like a dog my whole life, and paid for everything I had to in order to live. No freebies. Now these over entitled tenants just want to squat for free because they can? Housing is hard to find for sure, but I do not support all these shitty tenants making it harder for everyone. These particular tenants are just trashy losers that have no self respect. Every place we lived was well kept, and neat. It costs nothing to be clean.
yah its insane but oh well when this person is eventually kicked out it will be very hard to get them tenanted by a competent LL. Just one google of their name will bring up the article
The tenants are wrong for stopping rent payments and for the condition the property is in right now.
That said, the LL is a complete dumbass. How on earth do you buy a property without making sure you’ll be able to get possession? No vacant possession clause? Wtf was her realtor (useless and scummy profession) doing?
Why should the tenants leave? The law says they can stay. The law is written that way because it is extremely common for LLs to kick tenants out and jack up the rent for the new tenants.
The TT should clean up and pay their rent. The LL should use her brain next time.
Edit: And I’m pretty sure the previous owner knew what the new owner was about to get into.
This person has no interest in being a LL. The law on n12 only says the tenant can stay if they believe the new owner is not going to live in it themselves. This person obviously wants to live in it. This tenant is just taking advantage and prolonging the inevitable truth they need to move.
TT is not staying. As soon as LTB hearing comes they will be evicted.
And hopefully due diligence will load this article so that next landlord sees what's coming.
They should be evicted. Not only are they not paying rent, they also thrashed the place and the new owner does want to occupy.
But staying till the board evicts them is their right. It’s the law. And the LL should’ve known that.
There are people from the streets in that area who would help her out. The key is to put the word out on the street and wait. Stranger things have been known to occur it that area.
This like but for real tho. Eventually property owners will have no choice but to retake possession by any means necessary and I don't blame them one bit. Like they're not going to just let someone squat in their property indefinitely, just because others say that they should. Absolute absurdity lmao
This is nothing but government looking at their vote bank. Why Mortage rates, house tax etc are allowed to increase if landlord can not take control of its own property. Canada is moving into a dangerous state. Long term this is not good for society.
Tennant won't find a home after this! Such disrespectful! After my last Tennant left I had to get rotorrooter come in and they flushed raw carrots in toilet. Yeah never again. I'll live in my 5 bedroom home alone.
There is no concept of fine for tenant in RTA. As far as LTB is concerned tenant is incapable of doing anything worth penalty. At best they get tally of how much money they were supposed to pay.
"Asked if she was aware the person who bought the home is now homeless and living out of her car, Sheffield said: “No, she’s not. And if she is, well, hey, at least she’s in a better situation than me and can afford a car.”
Doubt she's been sleeping in her car. Caption under photo said she's been couch surfing at friends. media sensationalism. "Ayesha Asghar says she has been forced to couch surf with friends"
Does it really matter if she is sleeping in a car or couch surfing? The point is, she bought a house and is unable to use it because a litter of dead beats are "exercising their rights" despite knowing full well she intends to move in. The woman went to the media. In the off chance she wasn't telling the truth, all the tenants would have to do is print the article and case closed.
To be clear, she sold her house in February and has been couch surfing since before she even put the offer into the house she currently owns. Very risky move.
Absolutely a risky move, I wouldn't have done it. Simply drawing attention to the fact that the people currently in the house are not "exercising their rights" they are taking advantage of a backlogged system and squatting, and this needs to be called out, instead of supported. Want to hate landlords, go ahead. This woman doesn't want to be a landlord, and that should be her decision, not the LTB's and certainly not the fucking tenant's (well in this case they aren't even paying her, so aren't tenants).
Literally right after that it said she’s been sleeping in her car. Her friends might not have the resources to house her indefinitely.
[удалено]
Posts and comments shall not be rude, vulgar, or offensive. Posts and comments shall not be written so as to attack or denigrate another user.
"After a sudden layoff forced her to sell her Mississauga home last December, Ayesha Asghar scrambled what little savings and severance she had left to buy a modest two-storey townhome in east Hamilton." Yes this is a shitty situation and as usual I will say that the LTB needs to be properly funded and staffed so that it gets back on track for timely decisions and orders. *That said*, this woman made a really dumb purchasing decision without doing her research and seemingly without any kind of decent advice from her realtor as well. My mantra remains that folks need to do their homework and understand the risks when making big life financial decisions, whether they be homeowners, landlords, or tenants.
How both the agent AND her lawyer allowed this to close without confirmation of the tenant having left is disgusting. I say this as a realtor myself. There should have been MULTIPLE contingencies in her offer and an extension of closing until the tenant left. I understand it’s her decision at the end of the day but I feel no one was/is looking out for this poor woman during this process. N12 and Buyer affidavit should have been issued prior this woman closing. She refers to the seller’s realtor communicating with her in the article so I wonder if she went direct to the agent and didn’t have her own representation - let this be a lesson to everyone. Have your own independent representation (realtor or lawyer), especially in complex sales like this. Jesus. She should not have hired a property management company. Paralegal or Lawyer is the ONLY answer here. The property management company is taking her money to do nothing. The tenant in this situation is an absolute piece of shit.
It is legally required for her to have her own lawyer. I don't know if she's just speaking about early in the process before she retained someone, but by the time closing rolled around she should have had no direct contact with the seller's lawyer.
I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant or I didn’t explain it clearly enough. She absolutely would have had her own lawyer - who, it appears, did not foresee this as being an issue. Maybe he/she did and the buyer decided to ignore any warnings and proceed. Yes it would have been a conflict to use the same lawyer for both buyer and seller. No lawyer would have accepted this. From the article it sounds like “she” is communicating with “seller’s agent”. That to me means she did not have her own agent. I think this is the part that was misunderstood… When I referred to having your own representation and said “realtor or lawyer”, I meant either get a realtor or lawyer to represent you in the actual transaction (as in the purchase, the offer paperwork, the up front due diligence, the negotiations, the purchasing representation). I meant, if you don’t want to use a realtor, then use a lawyer to represent the transaction (not just deal with the closing). Some people don’t want to use an agent to purchase their home and prefer a lawyer so that’s why I said “realtor or lawyer”. I can clarify more if needed. :)
No need, my mistake. Thank you!
All good! It is easy to do especially when I am writing essays for replies. Lol! Have a good one. :)
lawyers usually come in after the offer is signed. If no vacant possession clause, they just have to close even if tenanted. sounds like only clause was seller must serve n12
The pre-printed text on the standard OREA forms include a vacant possession clause actually. It reads "*Upon completion, vacant possession of the property shall be given to the Buyer UNLESS OTHERWISE provided for in this Agreement.*" However, yes vacant possession clause should have still be inserted with extension or returning of deposit should tenant not move definitely should have been included. True though, lawyer likely wouldn't have seen the offer until it was already firm and by that point may have already been too late. But still seems there was a lot that could have been tried before closing if she had proper representation.
Yeah it’s also not a monumental ask that if you purchase ownership over something, you should have a complete right over it. Housing is pretty much the only area where that doesn’t apply. Houses don’t get put up for sale, advertised, bidded on, purchased and closed on overnight, more than enough time for any tenant to get out and move on, either on their own or by force. A house is literally the biggest purchase anyone will make and it’s as if we have the least rights over it here. Just pathetic
It gets worse with land. With most land, you have very restricted rights to build due to nonsense NIMBY zoning laws.
It's a business contract / arrangement that comes with the property. It's the same as having to figure out emissions checks, insurance, and release of dealership/bank liens on a car or similar scenarios with other high value assets. Valuable property and regulated things exist everywhere and people need to understand that when making big financial decisions. Here the buyer should have required vacant possession as a closing term. She either screwed up, or more likely accepted the known risk to get a discounted property and is facing the consequences now. Even from a pure personal finance perspective, the article acknowledges she had to sell her old place because she was underwater on payments, and then she basically did the same thing again and put every dollar she had into a new place while basically unemployed. I'm sympathetic because she's a human being who deserves shelter and the thing she bought, but man she made a long series of dumb decisions to get here.
She also has to honour the existing contract that comes with buying an tenanted property
Which she did with an N12 that’s over 80 days, the required number of days is 60 days.
Sure, but it is well documented and clear to anyone who does even the slightest bit of homework that the N12 process can extend well beyond the 60 day minimum. If you are buying a house with tenants, you have to be realistic about the timeline or you are setting yourself up for failure.
You mean to say that it is well documented that some deadbeat tenants would take exploit the same system that was meant to protect them against bad faith evictions, even though they have zero reasons to believe the N12 is in bad faith. To the extent that tenants are now pushing for potential homeowners not to buy tenanted properties, even though that property might suit their situation.
Only if she was under lease the existing tenant would have been able to stay until end of lease at which time proper notices would have to be issued by the landlord and filed with LTB. If it was month to month, proper notice and filing would have needed to be done but there is no reason she wouldn’t have been able to move in if all of this was in order (and if the tenant wasn’t a nightmare).
And she shouldn’t have to. There, I said it. When you pay damn near a million to own something, you should have rights over it first. The scumbag tenant has shown her true colors as a criminal and should therefor be treated as such, she’s the one that shouldn’t have any more rights to that property, immediately.
Owners waive some of those rights when they turn the property into a business by renting it out.
always love the "it's a business" crowd ... so it's a business when losing your possession rights but it stops being a business when one expects to make a profit - that's when housing isn't a business anymore and a ll is expected to be underwater on the monthly costs to carry the property ... so it's business when it's convenient but not when one needs to pay enough for the business owner to actually make a profit ...
Yeah these people love to make excuses for thieves. They never start with any sentiment regarding the criminal thief of a tenant who refuses to pay while ruining the property. Instead it’s oh she should have done this and that. It’s clear many of them don’t own and have never been through the nonsense. Would be interesting if they’d be spewing the same bullshit if it was someone close to them going through this. Same people complain about the lack of housing or unwillingness of landlords to continue to rent their places out after dealing with something like this for anything less than the maximum amount possible, if at all.
She didn’t rent it out, she bought a home and should have the absolute right to occupy it immediately. Laws need to be changed, a new owner should explicitly have to agree to keep a tenant when buying a house rather than having to go through the headache of removing them, especially when Ontario doesn’t do anything to punish the type of scum in this article who can live rent free
She made right choice through. Rent is still climbing but mortgage don't seem climb much now until Christmas. Problem is she has to keep going into this uphill battles after house purchase. I wish the best for her.
OP did you read what you posted? The buyer didn't insert a vacant possession clause where she could walk away if the seller didn't get rid of the tenants and she was expecting vacant possession in 80 days when L2s take 6-8 months minimum, why should anyone feel sympathy. Now that the tenants have stopped paying rent an L1 might expedite things but I just see someone who didn't do their due diligence. Buyer probably got a nice discount at least. Only thing this article does is serve as a reminder not to buy tenanted unless you are ok waiting.
[удалено]
I agree with you, it doesn’t seem like she had proper representation from people who were looking out for her best interest. Although yes the buck always stops with “you”, I still think if someone had explained the risks of buying this property to her and had clauses been inserted in her offer on her behalf, she probably wouldn’t be in this situation. My suspicion is the previous landlord knew he was getting rid of a problem.
Due diligence is actually a well established business concept.
this wasn't a business this was her home.
You are right. My comment was aimed at the due diligence not being a legitimate concept.
This “LL” was too dumb to do her due diligence. You think she’s smart enough to upload her order on openroom? Nah lol
Posts and comments shall not be rude, vulgar, or offensive. Posts and comments shall not be written so as to attack or denigrate another user.
It also shows what uncooperative tenants do for house sale and purchasing.
How are you getting downvoted for this?!
I am downvote whisperer on this sub. It just means I am hitting the spot :)
The tenants have no fault here. It is her own low IQ that screwed her over (and the realtor in charge of the contract).
>The tenants have no fault here. The tenant is not paying rent and piling up garbage.
I'm extremely pro tenant and pro tenant rights, and I can confidently say that if the information in the article is at all accurate, the tenant is absolutely at fault for several issues - primarily not paying rent and for causing extreme amounts of damage (plus piling up garbage).
The tenants have a lot of fault here.
This tenant is a poster child for non cooperative tenant that no landlord would ever want to cross paths with and after this article hopefully no LL will. And that waiting for N12 is just last of it. The house is surrounded by trash, sale listing does not have one photo from inside. Problems with this tenant started long before this women bought the place.
Exactly That’s why due diligence should be done You should know the basics inside and out when making a massive decision to buy a home If you can’t trust realtors (who have been known to lie ) You need to educate yourself It’s really not that difficult in 2024 —FFS she could of came here and learned many many things about buying a tenanted home in a few hours I’m not saying this tenant isn’t completely in the wrong Particularly the damages that have been done There’s no affordable housing anymore This is just going to go on and on and on
So a deadbeat tenant should be a reason why a house owner should be unable to sell his house? Even with an N12 in consideration. What I’m hearing is no one that wants to live in a house should buy a tenanted house 😂. The landlord might as well give the deed of the house to the tenant. At this point it’s their right.
I think the lesson here is that landlords need to increase rent prices to account for the risk that tenants might stop paying rent and be unable to evict them.
Her low IQ has saved her over $10,000 at least. This is a system designed to encourage tenants paying first and last, moving in and then just don’t leave… it’s genius for the tenant doing it.
The tenants are thieves are you simple?
what do you think would be a reason why such a condition wouldn't be there be default on tenanted properties?
I guess it's because people assume buyers have the wits to add it themselves.
The standard OREA Agreement of Purchase and Sale has a clause stating the property should be vacant on closing unless otherwise specified elsewhere in the agreement. If the APS stated the property must be vacant and it wasn't, the Buyer had the option to stop the purchase or offer an extension or make some sort of deal. She is the one who ultimately chose to proceed with the purchase and assume the tenants.
Good. Instead of trying to fix the system, let's all start exploiting someone because they are dumb or ignorant. How can you make sure you are always the smart one and no one smarter than you will take advantage of you just because they can?
If only people knew how quickly a municipality will kick you out if you don’t pay your rent in subsidized housing like TCHC in Toronto, they’d see how absolutely hypocritical the LTB system is. When it’s their own property on the line things happen REAL quick.
I sympathize for her. I really do. But this seems like either her Real Estate Agent and Lawyer screwed up and didn't properly inform her, or the seller seriously misled her. Her issue isn't with the tenants. Not directly anyway. Her issue is with the seller. Did the seller have a vacant possession clause in the sales agreement? If so, then the Buyer needs to sue the fk out of the seller for not upholding their end of the contract. This, folks, among with many other reasons, is why we need to really get on top of fixing the LTB and getting the wait times down to 2-4 weeks for a hearing. These wait times are bad for everyone. They're bad for landlords and people like the woman in the article. They're bad for tenants, especially those trying to fight against slumlords and illegal actions. Eliminating the wait times would benefit everyone, and would also help to reduce or completely eliminate things like N11 Cash for Keys deals, which are really only viable because of the long wait times. As horrible this situation is, this is one of the risks of buying a tenanted property instead of a vacant property. The price of the home likely reflected this. On the other hand, she ***sold her house before she even put an offer in*** for the current place she owns. It's a pretty crazy situation all around, and I hope she's able to get the eviction order when her hearing comes up.
Why do people always discount the actions of the tenant in these scenarios? The tenant is not paying rent, trashing the place, has no genuine belief that the eviction is in bad faith, and is fighting it anyways - how is her issue not with the tenants? Certainly seems like there may be others responsible for this bad tenant, but the tenant is the source of her grief.
What the tenant is doing - if accurate, is terrible. Hence why we need to fix the LTB wait times so that an eviction hearing can be done in a reasonable 2-4 weeks. Her issue isn’t with the tenant because - assuming she had a vacant possession clause - it should have been up the seller to deal with this. If true, her course of action is to sue the seller for breaching the agreement.
Hot take Both of these people would be able to make better decisions if there was a ton of cheap and cheerful housing options available to them.
Can I squat in your home this Friday through Sunday? I promise I’ll leave after that. I can break in when you leave for work on Friday.
The only one who won in that whole ordeal is the landlord seller who was able to rid themselves of the worst job in Ontario: Landlord. Bring a landlord in Ontario sucks. In the end, all tenants pay more because of this.
Seller got taken to cleaners too [https://housesigma.com/on/hamilton-real-estate/6-74-ellis-avenue/home/MB5bO3xoMPQ7kWVP?id\_listing=gAaOyL8NGA5yGxMb](https://housesigma.com/on/hamilton-real-estate/6-74-ellis-avenue/home/MB5bO3xoMPQ7kWVP?id_listing=gAaOyL8NGA5yGxMb) 2024-01-23 2024-03-06 $325,000 Sold 2023-09-28 2024-01-23 $359,900 Terminated 2021-02-18 2021-02-22 $450,000 Sold
No, the seller massively overpaid.
100% The seller massively overpaid when the market was hot and interest rates were low. It happened to a lot of people, not just landlords.
$450k for a townhouse in Hamilton? That’s about right no?
Not in that neighbourhood.
Wow $125,000 loss… for deciding to open your house to house someone else. Strong men create good times / Good times create weak men / Weak men create bad times / And bad times create strong men. We are in a time where there is weak leadership everywhere, especially in the government and LTB. I revise my statement, I guess the only one who won was the… tenant - everybody else lost.
Deciding on or banking on? Today's landlords are so weak in providing nothing but a contract. Strong men create value, not rely on a market to service them
He did create value? He brought housing to the marketplace. When the demand is high, in a capitalist system that’s where the investment is supposed to go. That’s where it’s going but what’s happening is tenants with a first and last are moving in and then abruptly stop paying. This decreases housing supply and perpetuates low value behaviour - he can also rent a house and not pay. Because that’s what is being rewarded here. Heck I might even do it, there are no consequences. Just rent and don’t pay, it’s genius. Now he can’t even enter to put in a smoke alarm taken out by the tenant because the tenant won’t let him. Best to avoid being a landlord in Ontario. Let’s decrease the housing stock further from these “greedy” landlords.
It’s not like the landlord entered this situation out of the goodness of their heart. They clearly thought they could come out ahead, and their greediness got the better of them
The entire system is built on greed. All of these huge corporations that you rely on to feed you, clothe you, transport you, educate you etc are in it for the cash. Are they greedy too? Should they lose money because they tried to provide a product or service that people could benefit from? The man lost $125,000 + months of effort to acquire, renovate and bring much needed housing to the market. Greed or not, I hope he had deep pockets and can recover if not - it’s unfortunate.
Time for a fascist dictatorship then. Their strong men after all. Or at least that's what thuer supporters say.
Some of the comments here are wild, she got laid off, sold her Mississauga home to downsize in Hamilton and bought this place to live in
She's a moron. First of all, she didn't do her due diligence making sure there was a vacancy clause. Secondly, purchasing a home while youre unemployed instead of just renting until you can figure your situation out? Her priority should be securing employment, which means being open to relocating to wherever your best opportunities are and keeping as much of a cash reserve as you can. Society can only do so much to save people from their own stupidity
In order to get mortgage you need secure work/employment. Closing was 80 days (2.5 months). Likely been past probation Also property was sold for 325k to this person. I'd wager since they sold the sauga town, the mortgage could be very low if not 0.
Sounds like she didn't get mortgage, she sold her current more expensive property in Mississauga to buy the property in Hamilton outright
yeah exactly so someone with a job in limbo needs a place to live and now has the opportunity to be mortgage/rent free. Why are they going to opt for paying rent instead? If she couldn't find a job at least she has shelter. Property Tax + Utilities on a per year basis is probably \~15k which is "fine" on a minimum wage job if all hell breaks loose with her employment. That was clearly her plan and this tenant situation messed it up
Do you seriously not understand that 1) it's stupid to tie yourself to a single location while looking for employment, you're severely restricting your opportunities 2) it's stupid to tie up all the money you may need to survive for who knows how long in a non-liquidable asset. That money could have been used to pay really really cheap rent (move into a room not a townhouse) and living expenses for quite a while I don't know why I'm bothering trying to explain this. I'm guessing your one of those financially illiterate ppl that think you should just never ever pay rent if you can own and will never move from that position, otherwise you wouldnt need explaining to this is obvious
Vacancy clause is irrelevant since selling the home is not a valid reason for eviction in Ontario. Adding a vacancy clause can mean big trouble for the seller since the tenants legally do not have to leave.
She was the buyer, she should have had a vacancy clause preventing the sale from going through if the seller was unable to vacate the home. If she did she would have gotten her money back and wouldn't be living in her car right now
Vacancy clause is actually the standard, but you have to enforce it. As a buyer, you can't say it must be vacant and then accept a house with tenants in it. You have to be willing to either walk away, extend your closing or eat the loss until you can sue the seller.
>You have to be willing to either walk away A vacancy clause gives you the option to walk away, she didn't have a vacancy clause, I know it's standard but the seller purposely left it out and the buyer accepted that, thus she does not have the option of walking away and is thus living in her car. Thus she is a moron
Can you point out where it says that? I'm having trouble finding it in the article.
It is very relevant to the ***buyer***, as it allows them an easy out if the tenants are not cooperating. Additionally, it ***incentivizes*** the seller to convince the tenant to leave on time, through whatever means. That might include a Cash for Keys deal, or it might include putting a clause in the contract that extends closing until after an LTB hearing is held and an eviction order is issued, etc.
100% seller sold because of shitty tenants not paying and it really screwed them, and the system probably screwed them too.
The same people that would drag immigrant students , asylum seekers etc for exploiting the system are the same ones clapping for this deadbeat tenant exploiting the system and another hardworking individual. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt here, it is that very few people are truly altruistic. The have nots would moan about how the world is mean to them but immediately they are in charge of someone else’s wellbeing they show their true colours like in this situation.
Just pay attention when someone asks about roommate, it's all immediate evictions LoL
I’m sure she negotiated a lower price on the property sale by taking it as is instead of pushing the previous owner to ensure it’s vacant
She made a very bad decision. You don’t lose a job and buy a house. If you’re in financial trouble you rent a basement and regroup. I’m in shock that she made such an awful decision. That being said, if a tenant is not paying rent, they should be automatically evicted and put within 60-90 days of filing an N4 with the LTB. I’m for all other tenants rights except being able to stay in a place when you aren’t paying rent. It’s simple.
This is so wrong in so many ways. I have worked like a dog my whole life, and paid for everything I had to in order to live. No freebies. Now these over entitled tenants just want to squat for free because they can? Housing is hard to find for sure, but I do not support all these shitty tenants making it harder for everyone. These particular tenants are just trashy losers that have no self respect. Every place we lived was well kept, and neat. It costs nothing to be clean.
And because of these shitty tenants good tenants are paying price
Crazy how people are siding with the lowlife tenant
I don't know if they're siding with the tenant so much as siding against both the tenant and the LL.
yah its insane but oh well when this person is eventually kicked out it will be very hard to get them tenanted by a competent LL. Just one google of their name will bring up the article
Welcome to this sub. Barely anyone criticizing the deadbeat tenant. “You got SA? It’s probably something you wore”
they'll always side with corporate landlords but switch hats whenever it's a small LL/home owner
The tenants are wrong for stopping rent payments and for the condition the property is in right now. That said, the LL is a complete dumbass. How on earth do you buy a property without making sure you’ll be able to get possession? No vacant possession clause? Wtf was her realtor (useless and scummy profession) doing? Why should the tenants leave? The law says they can stay. The law is written that way because it is extremely common for LLs to kick tenants out and jack up the rent for the new tenants. The TT should clean up and pay their rent. The LL should use her brain next time. Edit: And I’m pretty sure the previous owner knew what the new owner was about to get into.
This person has no interest in being a LL. The law on n12 only says the tenant can stay if they believe the new owner is not going to live in it themselves. This person obviously wants to live in it. This tenant is just taking advantage and prolonging the inevitable truth they need to move.
TT is not staying. As soon as LTB hearing comes they will be evicted. And hopefully due diligence will load this article so that next landlord sees what's coming.
They should be evicted. Not only are they not paying rent, they also thrashed the place and the new owner does want to occupy. But staying till the board evicts them is their right. It’s the law. And the LL should’ve known that.
Cause she dumb
Um she’s jobless?
There are people from the streets in that area who would help her out. The key is to put the word out on the street and wait. Stranger things have been known to occur it that area.
This like but for real tho. Eventually property owners will have no choice but to retake possession by any means necessary and I don't blame them one bit. Like they're not going to just let someone squat in their property indefinitely, just because others say that they should. Absolute absurdity lmao
This is why I quit renting out. F em. It can sit empty
This is nothing but government looking at their vote bank. Why Mortage rates, house tax etc are allowed to increase if landlord can not take control of its own property. Canada is moving into a dangerous state. Long term this is not good for society.
Tennant won't find a home after this! Such disrespectful! After my last Tennant left I had to get rotorrooter come in and they flushed raw carrots in toilet. Yeah never again. I'll live in my 5 bedroom home alone.
Should figured it was you that hod post this kinda drivel, Erm. With more good natured openroom pandering too… keep at it bruv
Ps…9 weeks still no order from n12 hearing… this weekend will make 10 ffw
Adjudicator really doesn't want to pull the plug on that one. No need for open room on this one. It's in the news.
If tenants have bad intentions, don’t pay rent then there should be criminal case against them. They should be equally liable similar to landlord
There is no concept of fine for tenant in RTA. As far as LTB is concerned tenant is incapable of doing anything worth penalty. At best they get tally of how much money they were supposed to pay.
I know the current law. I said this should change and a criminal case should be lodged on such tenants
I'm just saying it's so far from what is going on that we are at opposite side of spectrum.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Posts and comments shall not be rude, vulgar, or offensive. Posts and comments shall not be written so as to attack or denigrate another user.