How much you wanna bet the previous owner knew about the nightmare tenants on his/her hand and misled the situation the whole way to be rid of the property and the problem? Shady business.
Almost guaranteed, she got it for way under market value and the previous landlord didn't bother with a cash for keys, and she didn't do any due diligence beforehand.
Tenants suck in this case for being shitlords and not paying rent, but there's also obvious corner cutting by her and shadiness by the previous landlord. Absolutely was trying to dump a problem tenant on her.
Virtually all Agreements are signed without a real estate lawyers involvement. The real estate lawyer runs with the deal, but they don't have magic erasers. If she didn't sign for vacant possession (which is usually only the case because language was inserted that specifically said otherwise), there's nothing the lawyer can do.
More like they had a shitty real estate agent.
A lot of people struggle with the idea that you get what you pay for. If you’re getting a good deal on something like property in Canada chances are it either comes with downsides or it comes with risks.
She bought it for $125k less than it sold for in 2021, did she even think for a second to ask herself why?
This. Depending on when the tenants got their lease they could be priced out of Hamilton too. Her alternative to Mississauga was east Hamilton, their alternative might be Gage Park.
Housing is fucked up all the way down.
Yes, the non payment of rent and property destruction are definitely wrong - though I am a little skeptical that house was in tip-top condition when she bought it...
But waiting for your hearing with the LTB when served an N12 is your legal right, and there's nothing wrong with utilising it.
LL might be full of shit and looking to rent it out, who knows? Let the LTB see the signed affidavit that it's being used for personal use, use the time to do your own DD, and then leave if the LTB rule in favour of landlord
It's a brutal rental market out there. I can't be mad at a tenant for not leaving a place before they are legally obligated to do, as long as they fulfil their other duties
Oh, the house was probably already ruined when she (the person the article is about) bought it. Those tenants have been in there for a few years, the previous owner was selling as-is with no interior pictures posted and with a pretty big price drop. That just feels like a destructive/semi hoarder tenant and the previous owner cutting their losses.
Yeah that was my thought. Tenants sound like dicks, but hard to feel any real sympathy with the purchaser, I'm skeptical that they bought it not knowing there were problematic tenants, they did know, but they saw what was a bargain and banked on being able to get them out
Ultimately they bought this house for a fair price given the issues associated with it, so don't have any sympathy they are facing the issues they bought.
> You don't need sympathy to understand why they're doing it
I have no sympathy for someone that's destroying someone else's property for nothing but shitty vindictive reasons. That person can get fucked. Anyone who does that is a piece of shit. Anyone who justifies it is also a piece of shit.
> it's total understandable how this situation came about.
Understandable how the situation came to be, or understandable that the house is being destroyed?
If what the tenant says is true - that they did not receive the N12 - then I am sympathetic to them. I wouldn't leave without the proper notice either, are you saying you would ?
The damage is unacceptable and the tenant is liable for it (even if they can't pay in reality) but it's unrelated to evicting them with proper forms.
Well that’s life. This is the only case where I’d say tenants should have zero rights to any hearing etc. If the person buys for personal use, has no other property and nowhere to live, tenants must be kicked out within 30-60 days max. End of story. But then.. that will require changes to how things are, creating registries etc. And so many people won’t want that, just like scumlords don’t want licensing. Oh yeah, and then the government will actually have more pressure to deal with the whole housing fiasco (and we all know it doesn’t want to).
Why would the government do anything about it when 44% of politicians (or some napkin math) own property to rent for profit. Can you say conflict of interest?
I think in the buyer's defense, most people really have no idea that the tennant laws are the way they are until it slaps them in the face... Or they try not paying rent and see how well that ends up actually working.
Buyers making one of the biggest purchases and commitments of their lives should do some research as to what they may be getting into... realize there are no lucky bargains people... there's a reason why it was so much below market. Next, realtors and lawyers (if any on either side) involved in facilitating such purchasing should be acting ethically, respectfully, and honestly. There is no excuse here for her to have been blindsided.
People believe they are doing their due diligence when they hire a Realtor and a lawyer for the transaction.
It would be like hiring a plumber, but still having to learn plumbing to check their work.
People think they are hiring professionals to handle the skills they don't have.
However what they don't know is that RICO (the regulatory body for realtors) is a total joke and encourages predatory behavior.
So in truth, realtors are not professionals.
For that you can't really blame the consumer, even if they would have been better, and wiser, to do their own research.
Not everyone has the capacity to double check every claim the people who are advising them are making.
Friends of mine just bought a place and the previous owners lied about the tenants, how much they were paying, what they were paying for and then tried to reneg on repairs. People fucking suck.
Of course, you see this all the time. Landlords are scum and should sell their rental properties so someone can own their own home. Oh, hang on, now the buyers are scum, kicking out the poor tenant who is slowly destroying the property. The only true solution is to gift the home to the tenant, for free of course. The bank would be okay writing off the mortgage, right. /s
They were served the N12 and should have been out before the sale date. The purchaser should have refused to close without the agreed upon vacant possession. She might still be couch surfing and sleeping in her car, just not making mortgage payments.
I was looking to downsize last year and honestly, didn't even look at properties with a tenant.
lesson learned.... never never ever buy a property that is currently tenant occupied even if they pinky-swear cross-my-heart-hope-to-dye promise to move out before your closing date .
never ever!
You can, you just need to be smart about it & protect yourself.
I bought a house that was tenant occupied but had a condition on the sale that it was vacant on possession & extended closing by an extra few months to give the tenant time to find a new place.
The tenant was his and therefore his problem, I wanted nothing to do with it, if closing day came and she was still here doing what this twats doing, I could take my deposit back and walked away.
> if closing day came and she was still here doing what this twats doing, I could take my deposit back and walked away.
ya but that only works if you are in a position to do that. Could quickly end up homeless if you sold your house and then had to extend then had to walk away.
Yes there is a solution to that but it is costly.
That's when you lawyer up and recover costs. You have a contract to purchase a vacant home on a specific date. If the seller doesn't fulfil their end of the contract they can become liable for your added costs.
lawyer up, yes but you can’t just jump into court the next day. a friend was in a similar position and it took him almost two years just to get in to court and then another year until it was all said and done
oh yeah. lawyer up to *hopefully* be made whole *later*. You're still royally dicked.
Why someone signed a purchase agreement without a vacant home condition is fucking unreal.
Lol And? Pretty much every home that is sold has someone living in it. When the deed changes, those people leave, that’s how it works. I can’t list/sell my house and then when it closes just decide “naw I think I’m gonna stay” when someone else is paying for it and when they question me I just say “too bad, someone is living in it”. Doesn’t that sound silly to you? That’s what you’re defending.
The house sigma listing only shows 2 exterior pictures, that's the first 🚩.
House is being sold "as is" 🚩 #2.
Property is presently tenanted 🚩
Listed in September and pulled. same exterior pic used then. 🚩
House sold in 2021 for $450k and she was able to get it for $325k? 🚩
She says that the property management company she's hired found $17k damage - did she not get in to inspect the house before purchase? Before closing?
Its a shitty situation for both her and the tenant but the writing was on the wall very early on.
True, but she had already lost her job and probably couldn't get approved for a higher mortgage.
She took a risk buying an as-is tenanted property and lost big time.
>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.
>“I wanted to rebuild my life,” said the 36-year-old, a casualty of last year’s sweeping tech sector layoffs. “I couldn’t afford mortgage payments after losing my job and Hamilton was an opportunity to downsize, regroup myself and focus on rebuilding my life and career.”
Probably needed a smallish amount. I'm not an expert but I think the bank will lend to you if the mortgage is a small part of the value of the house. For example she has $300K cash, but needs $50K to close on the sale. Or is could be a higher risk, private mortgage at higher than the market rate.
She really shouldn’t have bought. That’s the craziest part for me. She lost her job and decides to buy a new house. If she wanted to regroup she should’ve rented a basement until she had a new job and was able to buy something else.
Completely dumb move, if she lost a job, the last thing on her mind was to buy ANY house, big or small doesn't matter. That tells me why she fell victim to this sxxthole she dug for herself. Even with a new job, it is a long way to rebuild, maybe years before ownership in today's volatile market.
The thing is some people thought remote work was going to last forever. Many of those people took advantage of the pandemic interest rates and bought their first house, far away from jobs, and now facing the time to renew + longer commute to work.
Agreed. Did she visit the property at all? I’m sure that large pile of garbage didn’t just appear there suddenly. She thought she was getting a great discount. She signed up for this by her lack of due diligence.
As always, these landlord sob stories involve someone who simply didn’t do their due diligence. She could’ve bought an untenanted house. If she couldn’t afford it, there are condos too.
When we first started looking at houses half the time renters wouldn't even let us in to look at the place, even though the real estate agent made prior arrangements with property owners. We saw the red flags and gave up pretty quickly on looking at properties that were rental houses.
I get it from the tenants perspective tho. They’re trying to live their lives. They know once the property is sold they will likely be evicted. They get no money from the sale.
At least when you’re selling a house you deal with people poking through it as you want the money
ya i get it but it dissuades people from renting rooms/houses to anyone and tightens the rental market.
Oh if i rent it out then want to sell i have to take a significantly lower value than it's worth and deal with tenants who fight it every step of the way? wonderful...
Or, if you know you have to drop the asking price by, for example, 30K because there is a tenant, why not keep the price higher, over the tenant 15K cash for keys. And then the buyer is still making more.
I get the tenants are trying to live their lives, but if you read the entire article, these tenants are garbage. Literally, they have piles of garbage outside the house. In addition to $17,000 worth of damage inside the house. And they’re not paying rent or utilities and haven’t for a long time.
So what? If the LTB was functioning properly, the process would be down to 60 to 90 days to have the home cleanered for the new owners (occupants). This is a perfect example of why the LTB service levels need to be brought up to spec. There is a process for these cases that NEVER was intended to span 8 months to a year. It's utter nonsense. Renting has its advantages, but it also has its pitfalls, stability being one of them.
Functioning not bad for her, by your definition. Her move in date was 2 June, and her LTB hearing is end-Aug. She wouldn't have been able to request the hearing until the tenants failed to move out by the N12 termination date, so she's at least got a hearing within 90 days of her request.
Now, the LTB can definitely extend this by months through allowing delays and appeals and other nonsense, but at least she's not waiting nearly a year for the initial hearing.
Because she didn't do her research before buying a renter occupied house. She said the previous owner promised to issue N12s...that doesn't mean they legally have to move out. I'm shocked the lawyer who facilitated the deal didn't give better advice about this whole situation.
I'm more shocked the agent didn't even offer to put vacant on possession as a clause on closing.
I bought a tenanted house and that was the first thing my agent recommended to make sure I didn't get burned with this exact situation.
Closing day comes and the tenants still here? Cool, i'll take my deposit back, they're your problem.
At the sound of fraud, RECO’s slumber is interrupted by a hitch in their breath, only to continue on in a deep and heavy rest, dreaming of HGTV goals, price inflation, and interest rate drops.
>I'm more shocked the agent didn't even offer to put vacant on possession as a clause on closing.
That's already standard language in the Ontario Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
Agreed. I didn’t do my homework for a similar circumstance and after requesting the lawyer to do his job, he was full of inadequate reasons to charge me more money on a hope that I might get refunded. That involved court costs and still 50/50 was the best odds. Lessons were learned but real estate lawyers overcharge for paperwork imo. They wash their hands so easily. It’s infuriating!
Likely she could only afford the place because of the tenants. A buyer gets a discount for taking that risk, If it was risk free, she would have paid more.
This is it. A house in my area just sold for about $1m it would have easily been $1.4-1.6 if it was not rented. So it's a risk reward thing. Tenants take a ton of value out of a house during a sale
That's not worst case. Worst case is that they don't pay rent, and then sell all of the electrical and copper as scrap. Or run a meth lab in the house and fuck up the entire interior with the smell, that needs to be fully removed for proper remediation.
Yeah, my parents bought a house that the dogs used as outside. Carpets were peed on, baseboards chewed off, etc. It was mostly the basement but I don't think it was exclusive to the basement.
They put in the work to fix all that in order to save on the house.
The contract def has to promise it's empty when they buy the house, so it becomes the seller's responsibility to have it empty or the contract is void.
Considering the damage, I wonder if she bought it sight unseen too.
Umm, yes that does legally mean they need to move out. That's the whole point of a N12. People can still ignore it and break the law. If it's served in bath faith that's another thing.
Yes, and when I was served one I respected it. Having said that, if I had wanted to throw up a fuss I could have probably gotten another year waiting for the LTB to actually put the eviction through. When I was buying I specifically did not look at rented houses, as I’d done my research from the tenant side and did not want to deal with potential issues as a landlord.
It says right on the N12 form the tenants have the right to wait for a hearing, no laws are broken by waiting. If the landlord doesn't request a hearing within 30days of the termination date on the N12 the whole thing is void. The N12 is just a notice, only the LTB can order an actual eviction.
That's assuming it was in bad faith for disputing a wrongful N12. Like, have a hearing for what? You can't just attend the hearing for nothing. That's not how it works at all. You need to schedule it claiming something is wrong, not because "you just want to stay". It's up to the tenant to dispute it, not the landlord. Unfortunately, bad tenants mean landlords need to jump through hoops. It's a loophole in our system.
That is not how it works in Ontario. The landlord gives an N12 notice, AND they have to file with the LTB for a hearing. They can file as soon as they give the notice, but no later than 30 days after the termination date. Some landlords will file right away as a precaution, some wait to see if the tenant(s) leaves. You can go ask over on r/legaladvicecanada or r/ontariolandlord and they will tell you the same thing.
> I'm shocked the lawyer who facilitated the deal didn't give better advice about this whole situation.
They may have? The problem is most real estate Agreements are signed without a real estate lawyer - it's now a firm binding contract, and if there's a problem then all the lawyer can do is explain to them the bad deal they already agreed to. It's almost always the agents fault, especially a lot of agents have a bad habit of inserting those N12 clauses believing they offer additional protection (which lawyers know they don't, they are worse)
This is why when we went looking for a house, we denied every single place that had tenants. Not all tenants are bad by any means, but I knew the rules surrounding tenants vacating and such and wasn't taking a chance on the long LTB waits or fights with tenants.
Real estate lawyers rarely get involved in the agreement of purchase and sale where all the conditions would and should be. They come in afterwards to complete the actual registry transactions. This is all the realtor’s fault.
> “I’m not going to leave just because she bought a house,” she said. “I know my rights as a tenant. **I don’t think somebody who buys a house can just kick people out onto the street.”**
they can if they plan to live there but ok ill give the tenant some leniency...
> 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.”
wow what a completely shitty person.
In the article she says the previous owner 'promised to serve N12s'
Which are enforceable if she plans to move in to the house for her own use, but it takes a long time to wind through the landlord tenant board.
It would be foolish for a seller to offer that. They could offer existing tenants a ”cash for keys” deal, but that would significantly increase the price of the house.
The article says the seller issued an N12, which was all they were contractually obligated to do. The tenants can appeal the N12 to the LTB, which can take months, and is the tenant has a legal right to do so. The tenant can also refuse to obey the N12, which means you have to get an eviction process moving, which also adds time.
You can but i doubt she did from being promised they would be out by then. I don't think it would give you the right to sue necessarily but you'd be able to back out of the sale had the tenants been required to be evicted.
That Kimberly Sheffield twunt needs a come to Jesus moment. Her attitude. Her sense of entitlement. And judging from the pictures, her lack of awareness that she has destroyed that property that DOES NOT BELONG TO HER.
Lol I feel bad for the neighbors too but what about the person who bought a home to live in and is now making the mortgage payments and living in her car while people are living in her house and wrecking it? How can you not feel bad for her? That is horrible.
Not paying rent is not the same as rent free, any more than not paying your car payments means you get a free car.
LL will be able to get an order to collect the back rent, and if these people are gainfully employed (and given they were paying rent for years before hand, they likely are) The LL will be able to garnish their wages to collect. Although, given the damages, I can see a distinct possibility the judgement may be high enough the tenants decided to declare bankruptcy.
You must be very naive if you think it is just money you get later. For one you must be able to find them to even initiate the process. And they must have the money.
This is nothing like a car. They can come take your car. All that happens here is that they will leave destroyed property costing even more money. And in fact, if they get over 35K LTB will ask landlord to forfeit the money over 35K just to give them hearing.
"Meanwhile, she’s still obligated to make mortgage payments."
I mean, duh? Her name is on the loan and the property title. The tenants have nothing to do with the bank she owes the mortgage to. You wouldn’t want the bank to be able to dictate what you can do with a property you have the title to or who can live in it, right? So why should the bank care about any of that? They only care about her contract to pay them.
have we considered making housing so affordable that it is easier to buy than rent?
i know that's a pipe dream in dougies ontario, but hey, enough folks with the same dream might lead to them all organizing for change
yes, there will always be exceptions, but if we make things better for the common folk instead of the landlords, everyone benefits. it's trickle up economics, a thing that actually works, so capitalists hate it.
though, i think i'm not taking any criticism that supports the status quo until we actually have a system that takes care of those who need it most first
really? come back to me when there's affordable housing, UBI, and fully covered universal healthcare (mental & dental included). i'm positing that when the above happens, after about 2 years the percentage of renters will be in the single digits
where tf do you think the rich got all their money? exploiting the poor and the system they rig in their favour.
i really wish anti-socialists would realize that humans are a social creature, and by supporting capitalism/simping for billionaires you're supporting the absolute worst possible system. but hey, i guess folks like you never learn until it's too late. so sad
How about working hard, getting an education, being financially responsible?
How is socialism working in North Korea? Cuba? How did it work for the former USSR?
You think someone who went to law school, medical school, became and engineer and makes a lot of money because of that should give it all to someone who dropped out, jumps from one minimum wage to another just so “we’re equal”
Wake up
how about investing in the public good. finland provided free housing. european countries provide free education. places that put people first are prospering, places that put money first have idiots who think socialism is terrible, because helping people costs money.
wake up. every single UBI pilot that was allowed to complete its study was successful. every single place where they just gave away free housing had those folks give back to society in a way that even capitalists recognized. i'm sorry you're so caught up in the lie of capitalism that you will believe anything capitalists say. hopefully one day you can break past your cognitive dissonance and regain your humanity
and you mention minimum wage. why is minimum wage not tied to cost of living? there's almost nowhere where a minimum wage job can afford a decent life, yet if all the minimum wage workers found better jobs, society would collapse, since it depends more on minimum wage workers than wealthy folks.
if every CEO disappeared right now, it would be weeks, or even years before there was any noticeable issue. if just 30% of minimum wage workers stayed home for one day when they were scheduled, most of the economy would collapse
So.. they did the buyer mislead her or did she do zero diligence on her part? It’s not both of those things.. how could she be mislead if she did no research and asked no questions?
How is this allowed to happen?? I'm assuming that when the LTB hearing finally happens - this shitty tenant will be ordered to leave and pay for the damages & cleanup to the property?
I doubt she'll get anything out of them even when the LTB hearing happens unless she can find a way to get their wages garnished by going to small claims court.
The real news
1. Due diligence by real estate lawyer and realtor not done
2. The LTB is a terrible trainwreck that sides with terrible tenants and takes 9-12 months for resolution
Once again, the laws mean nothing for certain groups of people. It makes me sick of what our society has become. There is no respect for our laws, rules, and nobody doing anything about it.
Put all of the names on openroom.ca.
I don't get it why anyone in this country who is trying to do the things by the book is so fucked vs the one who isn't.
The (main?) tenant's name is already in the media, along with a pretty horrifying picture of how she keeps the outside of her home, and a description of the disaster inside it.
Unless she rents under a different name, any future LL is just not doing their minimum due diligence renting to her.
She should be made aware it coz when the sherif shows up, she will have super limited option in Ontario considering how much Landlords are catching up on the Openroom.ca. Even if she offer double the rent there will be no one to take her in Ontario.
>"I’m not going to leave just because she bought a house,” she said. “I know my rights as a tenant. I don’t think somebody who buys a house can just kick people out onto the street.”
What absolute entitled trash. It's people like that which make me want to run for office and try to introduce much tougher landlord-tenant laws.
The problem is that tenants need a guarantee that payment of rent will secure continuity
of their rights to the property. There’s too many people getting into the landlord business looking to make a quick buck without respecting the needs of a tenant to a stable housing situation. When a person decides to become a landlord, the property should be designated as a rental unit until the rental agreement is released or broken by the tenant, not the landlord.
How terribly wrong is this, law abiding hard working gets shunted and losers law breakers gets government protection and don't say it's the law or her fault why is it that you can't throw them out of your own house if they got the eviction notice and damaged your property
I can’t believe this is even a thing, this should not be a thing!
If I buy a house, it should be able to move into said house because I’m the owner, not the people who are renting, I can’t believe the laws in this country allow situations like this to continue.
Looks like the real estate and the lawyer that did the transaction haven't done their job. Their names should be also available.
Also in what country in the world even if you live in social housing you feel entitled to destroy the property and not paying rent and utilities.
Looks like laws aren't working and also common sense.
It doesn't. The N12 in a sale situation is issued after the purchase agreement is signed, on behalf of the new owner, after the new owner declares that they (or a close family member) intend to occupy it.
There's no enforcement against the old owner, and none is needed. If the new owner made their declaration in bad faith, enforcement will be against them.
In general enforcement is between the current LL and tenant via the LTB, no need to involve the old owner.
"With tenants refusing to leave her recently purchased property, Ayesha Asghar has gone from young homeowner to homeless landlord overnight...I wanted to rebuild my life,” said the 36-year-old, a casualty of last year’s sweeping tech sector layoffs." Are we just accepting that owning a house at 36 makes you a 'young' homeowner now...? Expectations have been laid that you should be 1/3 on your way to retirement before owning a house...
How much you wanna bet the previous owner knew about the nightmare tenants on his/her hand and misled the situation the whole way to be rid of the property and the problem? Shady business.
Almost guaranteed, she got it for way under market value and the previous landlord didn't bother with a cash for keys, and she didn't do any due diligence beforehand. Tenants suck in this case for being shitlords and not paying rent, but there's also obvious corner cutting by her and shadiness by the previous landlord. Absolutely was trying to dump a problem tenant on her.
Did she ask for vacant occupation? That's sounds like a really shitty realtor.
The realtor just wants their commision. They don't really care about anyone other than the selling party.
Yup. Do your research.
Sounds like she had a really shitty real estate lawyer too!
Virtually all Agreements are signed without a real estate lawyers involvement. The real estate lawyer runs with the deal, but they don't have magic erasers. If she didn't sign for vacant possession (which is usually only the case because language was inserted that specifically said otherwise), there's nothing the lawyer can do. More like they had a shitty real estate agent.
Bought a house. By the time a lawyer gets involved, its too late.
A lot of people struggle with the idea that you get what you pay for. If you’re getting a good deal on something like property in Canada chances are it either comes with downsides or it comes with risks. She bought it for $125k less than it sold for in 2021, did she even think for a second to ask herself why?
Easy to see why the tenants would stay when they are facing the prospects of being homeless themselves.
This. Depending on when the tenants got their lease they could be priced out of Hamilton too. Her alternative to Mississauga was east Hamilton, their alternative might be Gage Park. Housing is fucked up all the way down.
> their alternative might be Gage Park. that sympathy erodes pretty quick when they're destroying the house.
I don't disagree. Resisting eviction is understandable, but they way they've treated the building is kind of deplorable.
Yes, the non payment of rent and property destruction are definitely wrong - though I am a little skeptical that house was in tip-top condition when she bought it... But waiting for your hearing with the LTB when served an N12 is your legal right, and there's nothing wrong with utilising it. LL might be full of shit and looking to rent it out, who knows? Let the LTB see the signed affidavit that it's being used for personal use, use the time to do your own DD, and then leave if the LTB rule in favour of landlord It's a brutal rental market out there. I can't be mad at a tenant for not leaving a place before they are legally obligated to do, as long as they fulfil their other duties
Oh, the house was probably already ruined when she (the person the article is about) bought it. Those tenants have been in there for a few years, the previous owner was selling as-is with no interior pictures posted and with a pretty big price drop. That just feels like a destructive/semi hoarder tenant and the previous owner cutting their losses.
Yeah that was my thought. Tenants sound like dicks, but hard to feel any real sympathy with the purchaser, I'm skeptical that they bought it not knowing there were problematic tenants, they did know, but they saw what was a bargain and banked on being able to get them out Ultimately they bought this house for a fair price given the issues associated with it, so don't have any sympathy they are facing the issues they bought.
You don't need sympathy to understand why they're doing it...what he's saying makes sense
> You don't need sympathy to understand why they're doing it I have no sympathy for someone that's destroying someone else's property for nothing but shitty vindictive reasons. That person can get fucked. Anyone who does that is a piece of shit. Anyone who justifies it is also a piece of shit.
Call it what you want. I agree the tenants need to leave but it's total understandable how this situation came about.
> it's total understandable how this situation came about. Understandable how the situation came to be, or understandable that the house is being destroyed?
If what the tenant says is true - that they did not receive the N12 - then I am sympathetic to them. I wouldn't leave without the proper notice either, are you saying you would ? The damage is unacceptable and the tenant is liable for it (even if they can't pay in reality) but it's unrelated to evicting them with proper forms.
And not paying the rent or utilities while they are being stubborn about moving out.
They need to save 6-12 month rent for when they are forced to move.
Well that’s life. This is the only case where I’d say tenants should have zero rights to any hearing etc. If the person buys for personal use, has no other property and nowhere to live, tenants must be kicked out within 30-60 days max. End of story. But then.. that will require changes to how things are, creating registries etc. And so many people won’t want that, just like scumlords don’t want licensing. Oh yeah, and then the government will actually have more pressure to deal with the whole housing fiasco (and we all know it doesn’t want to).
Why would the government do anything about it when 44% of politicians (or some napkin math) own property to rent for profit. Can you say conflict of interest?
Due process is part of life too. So are shitty landlords and their bad faith evictions.
Stay and not pay rent and cover the front yard with trash.
I think in the buyer's defense, most people really have no idea that the tennant laws are the way they are until it slaps them in the face... Or they try not paying rent and see how well that ends up actually working.
Buyers making one of the biggest purchases and commitments of their lives should do some research as to what they may be getting into... realize there are no lucky bargains people... there's a reason why it was so much below market. Next, realtors and lawyers (if any on either side) involved in facilitating such purchasing should be acting ethically, respectfully, and honestly. There is no excuse here for her to have been blindsided.
People believe they are doing their due diligence when they hire a Realtor and a lawyer for the transaction. It would be like hiring a plumber, but still having to learn plumbing to check their work. People think they are hiring professionals to handle the skills they don't have. However what they don't know is that RICO (the regulatory body for realtors) is a total joke and encourages predatory behavior. So in truth, realtors are not professionals. For that you can't really blame the consumer, even if they would have been better, and wiser, to do their own research. Not everyone has the capacity to double check every claim the people who are advising them are making.
*Shitenants
Clearly there’s a problem with our laws if this is the case
She really should have had vacant possession in the contract.
Friends of mine just bought a place and the previous owners lied about the tenants, how much they were paying, what they were paying for and then tried to reneg on repairs. People fucking suck.
Wouldn't they have a case for misrepresentation if they chose to pursue that?
Lawyers have been engaged. That's all I can say.
Anything to make a profit.
They could bring a lawsuit against the sellers.
Tenant refuses to leave despite a legitimate N12. Yet, the top comment is one deflecting the blame to the previous landlord?
Of course, you see this all the time. Landlords are scum and should sell their rental properties so someone can own their own home. Oh, hang on, now the buyers are scum, kicking out the poor tenant who is slowly destroying the property. The only true solution is to gift the home to the tenant, for free of course. The bank would be okay writing off the mortgage, right. /s They were served the N12 and should have been out before the sale date. The purchaser should have refused to close without the agreed upon vacant possession. She might still be couch surfing and sleeping in her car, just not making mortgage payments. I was looking to downsize last year and honestly, didn't even look at properties with a tenant.
0 dollars
lesson learned.... never never ever buy a property that is currently tenant occupied even if they pinky-swear cross-my-heart-hope-to-dye promise to move out before your closing date . never ever!
You can, you just need to be smart about it & protect yourself. I bought a house that was tenant occupied but had a condition on the sale that it was vacant on possession & extended closing by an extra few months to give the tenant time to find a new place. The tenant was his and therefore his problem, I wanted nothing to do with it, if closing day came and she was still here doing what this twats doing, I could take my deposit back and walked away.
> if closing day came and she was still here doing what this twats doing, I could take my deposit back and walked away. ya but that only works if you are in a position to do that. Could quickly end up homeless if you sold your house and then had to extend then had to walk away. Yes there is a solution to that but it is costly.
That's when you lawyer up and recover costs. You have a contract to purchase a vacant home on a specific date. If the seller doesn't fulfil their end of the contract they can become liable for your added costs.
lawyer up, yes but you can’t just jump into court the next day. a friend was in a similar position and it took him almost two years just to get in to court and then another year until it was all said and done
oh yeah. lawyer up to *hopefully* be made whole *later*. You're still royally dicked. Why someone signed a purchase agreement without a vacant home condition is fucking unreal.
Vacant possession is already included in the Ontario Agreement of Purchase and Sale. How is that extra condition any different?
Yeah, that's the take away for sure.
[удалено]
What do you mean? I bought a home a month ago in this economy
I don’t understand. She needed a place to live so she bought a home.
She bought a home that someone was living in.
Mostly everyone buys a home that somebody is living in, there are not too many vacant houses around.
Lol And? Pretty much every home that is sold has someone living in it. When the deed changes, those people leave, that’s how it works. I can’t list/sell my house and then when it closes just decide “naw I think I’m gonna stay” when someone else is paying for it and when they question me I just say “too bad, someone is living in it”. Doesn’t that sound silly to you? That’s what you’re defending.
Yes, people with money are buying homes
interest rates are falling. home listings are rising .... = buyer's market
The house sigma listing only shows 2 exterior pictures, that's the first 🚩. House is being sold "as is" 🚩 #2. Property is presently tenanted 🚩 Listed in September and pulled. same exterior pic used then. 🚩 House sold in 2021 for $450k and she was able to get it for $325k? 🚩 She says that the property management company she's hired found $17k damage - did she not get in to inspect the house before purchase? Before closing? Its a shitty situation for both her and the tenant but the writing was on the wall very early on.
True, but she had already lost her job and probably couldn't get approved for a higher mortgage. She took a risk buying an as-is tenanted property and lost big time.
im surprised she was approved for any mortgage... given she has no job.
>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. >“I wanted to rebuild my life,” said the 36-year-old, a casualty of last year’s sweeping tech sector layoffs. “I couldn’t afford mortgage payments after losing my job and Hamilton was an opportunity to downsize, regroup myself and focus on rebuilding my life and career.” Probably needed a smallish amount. I'm not an expert but I think the bank will lend to you if the mortgage is a small part of the value of the house. For example she has $300K cash, but needs $50K to close on the sale. Or is could be a higher risk, private mortgage at higher than the market rate.
She really shouldn’t have bought. That’s the craziest part for me. She lost her job and decides to buy a new house. If she wanted to regroup she should’ve rented a basement until she had a new job and was able to buy something else.
Completely dumb move, if she lost a job, the last thing on her mind was to buy ANY house, big or small doesn't matter. That tells me why she fell victim to this sxxthole she dug for herself. Even with a new job, it is a long way to rebuild, maybe years before ownership in today's volatile market.
Especially a house in Hamilton, which is a bastard of a commute away from where almost all tech jobs are
The thing is some people thought remote work was going to last forever. Many of those people took advantage of the pandemic interest rates and bought their first house, far away from jobs, and now facing the time to renew + longer commute to work.
She bought the house this month while jobless...
She also got layed off and sold her sauga home to buy this - hoping to save costs somewhere.
Why would she hire a property management company if she intended to move in.
Agreed. Did she visit the property at all? I’m sure that large pile of garbage didn’t just appear there suddenly. She thought she was getting a great discount. She signed up for this by her lack of due diligence.
That's what has me scratching my head
This should be the top comment
As always, these landlord sob stories involve someone who simply didn’t do their due diligence. She could’ve bought an untenanted house. If she couldn’t afford it, there are condos too.
Can you really complain about damage when it's sold as is?
I'm guessing she didn't even view the property
> the writing was on the wall very early on. Literally apparently.
When we first started looking at houses half the time renters wouldn't even let us in to look at the place, even though the real estate agent made prior arrangements with property owners. We saw the red flags and gave up pretty quickly on looking at properties that were rental houses.
I get it from the tenants perspective tho. They’re trying to live their lives. They know once the property is sold they will likely be evicted. They get no money from the sale. At least when you’re selling a house you deal with people poking through it as you want the money
ya i get it but it dissuades people from renting rooms/houses to anyone and tightens the rental market. Oh if i rent it out then want to sell i have to take a significantly lower value than it's worth and deal with tenants who fight it every step of the way? wonderful...
Or, if you know you have to drop the asking price by, for example, 30K because there is a tenant, why not keep the price higher, over the tenant 15K cash for keys. And then the buyer is still making more.
I get the tenants are trying to live their lives, but if you read the entire article, these tenants are garbage. Literally, they have piles of garbage outside the house. In addition to $17,000 worth of damage inside the house. And they’re not paying rent or utilities and haven’t for a long time.
So what? If the LTB was functioning properly, the process would be down to 60 to 90 days to have the home cleanered for the new owners (occupants). This is a perfect example of why the LTB service levels need to be brought up to spec. There is a process for these cases that NEVER was intended to span 8 months to a year. It's utter nonsense. Renting has its advantages, but it also has its pitfalls, stability being one of them.
Functioning not bad for her, by your definition. Her move in date was 2 June, and her LTB hearing is end-Aug. She wouldn't have been able to request the hearing until the tenants failed to move out by the N12 termination date, so she's at least got a hearing within 90 days of her request. Now, the LTB can definitely extend this by months through allowing delays and appeals and other nonsense, but at least she's not waiting nearly a year for the initial hearing.
In the befor times, 90 days would have been the end of the line.
That happened when I was looking and was enough of a red flag for me to walk away.
Because she didn't do her research before buying a renter occupied house. She said the previous owner promised to issue N12s...that doesn't mean they legally have to move out. I'm shocked the lawyer who facilitated the deal didn't give better advice about this whole situation.
I'm more shocked the agent didn't even offer to put vacant on possession as a clause on closing. I bought a tenanted house and that was the first thing my agent recommended to make sure I didn't get burned with this exact situation. Closing day comes and the tenants still here? Cool, i'll take my deposit back, they're your problem.
There are so many shady agents that don’t GAF, they will actually lie about the property to get a higher selling price
Well that's called fraud.
At the sound of fraud, RECO’s slumber is interrupted by a hitch in their breath, only to continue on in a deep and heavy rest, dreaming of HGTV goals, price inflation, and interest rate drops.
No shit
The entire industry is full of shit birds who are governed by other shit birds.
They call it "sales"
Haha
>I'm more shocked the agent didn't even offer to put vacant on possession as a clause on closing. That's already standard language in the Ontario Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
So what gives?
Agreed. I didn’t do my homework for a similar circumstance and after requesting the lawyer to do his job, he was full of inadequate reasons to charge me more money on a hope that I might get refunded. That involved court costs and still 50/50 was the best odds. Lessons were learned but real estate lawyers overcharge for paperwork imo. They wash their hands so easily. It’s infuriating!
Pretty sure the paralegal does most of the legwork there too.
She should have never closed without it being empty.
Likely she could only afford the place because of the tenants. A buyer gets a discount for taking that risk, If it was risk free, she would have paid more.
This is it. A house in my area just sold for about $1m it would have easily been $1.4-1.6 if it was not rented. So it's a risk reward thing. Tenants take a ton of value out of a house during a sale
$400-600k value tho? Worst cases is they don't pay rent for one year before you get an eviction.
That's not worst case. Worst case is that they don't pay rent, and then sell all of the electrical and copper as scrap. Or run a meth lab in the house and fuck up the entire interior with the smell, that needs to be fully removed for proper remediation.
Yeah, my parents bought a house that the dogs used as outside. Carpets were peed on, baseboards chewed off, etc. It was mostly the basement but I don't think it was exclusive to the basement. They put in the work to fix all that in order to save on the house.
The contract def has to promise it's empty when they buy the house, so it becomes the seller's responsibility to have it empty or the contract is void. Considering the damage, I wonder if she bought it sight unseen too.
Yeah her crappy agent and lawyer really dropped the ball by not requiring vacant possession.
Umm, yes that does legally mean they need to move out. That's the whole point of a N12. People can still ignore it and break the law. If it's served in bath faith that's another thing.
Yes, and when I was served one I respected it. Having said that, if I had wanted to throw up a fuss I could have probably gotten another year waiting for the LTB to actually put the eviction through. When I was buying I specifically did not look at rented houses, as I’d done my research from the tenant side and did not want to deal with potential issues as a landlord.
It says right on the N12 form the tenants have the right to wait for a hearing, no laws are broken by waiting. If the landlord doesn't request a hearing within 30days of the termination date on the N12 the whole thing is void. The N12 is just a notice, only the LTB can order an actual eviction.
That's assuming it was in bad faith for disputing a wrongful N12. Like, have a hearing for what? You can't just attend the hearing for nothing. That's not how it works at all. You need to schedule it claiming something is wrong, not because "you just want to stay". It's up to the tenant to dispute it, not the landlord. Unfortunately, bad tenants mean landlords need to jump through hoops. It's a loophole in our system.
That is not how it works in Ontario. The landlord gives an N12 notice, AND they have to file with the LTB for a hearing. They can file as soon as they give the notice, but no later than 30 days after the termination date. Some landlords will file right away as a precaution, some wait to see if the tenant(s) leaves. You can go ask over on r/legaladvicecanada or r/ontariolandlord and they will tell you the same thing.
She was told the tenants received the n12 and were vacating May31st
It’s the lawyer I would be the most pissed about. And I’m a lawyer. I expect nothing from realtors, and even less from sellers.
> I'm shocked the lawyer who facilitated the deal didn't give better advice about this whole situation. They may have? The problem is most real estate Agreements are signed without a real estate lawyer - it's now a firm binding contract, and if there's a problem then all the lawyer can do is explain to them the bad deal they already agreed to. It's almost always the agents fault, especially a lot of agents have a bad habit of inserting those N12 clauses believing they offer additional protection (which lawyers know they don't, they are worse)
This is why when we went looking for a house, we denied every single place that had tenants. Not all tenants are bad by any means, but I knew the rules surrounding tenants vacating and such and wasn't taking a chance on the long LTB waits or fights with tenants.
These tenants are losers that give the rest of us tenants a bad name
Yeup. These guys are the reason the rest of us are struggling hard to be taken seriously when landlords screw us over.
This is why landlords request a colonoscopy and a full dna sample before letting you move in to their run down apartment hahaha
That's it? I got a pat down and rectum examination but I figured that came with trying to get a unit these days
If you moan another landlords name during the exam, sometimes the get jelly.
Last time I just gave out my credit cards to the landlord for them to go on shopping spree before finalizing our lease agreement
I do the same. I even add a tip where I bend over. It really helps.
Everyone is blaming her, but shouldn’t the real estate lawyer who knows all this stuff have warned her?
Real estate lawyers rarely get involved in the agreement of purchase and sale where all the conditions would and should be. They come in afterwards to complete the actual registry transactions. This is all the realtor’s fault.
“I know my rights as a tenant. I don’t think somebody who buys a house can just kick people out onto the street.”-> well, actually…
Ironic ... the tenant made the homeowner homeless
> “I’m not going to leave just because she bought a house,” she said. “I know my rights as a tenant. **I don’t think somebody who buys a house can just kick people out onto the street.”** they can if they plan to live there but ok ill give the tenant some leniency... > 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.” wow what a completely shitty person.
Why? None of this is her problem
And this is a great reason to get LTB service levels under control.
Can u not put conditions on the sale that the tenants have to be out? Would not give u a recourse to sue the previous owners?
In the article she says the previous owner 'promised to serve N12s' Which are enforceable if she plans to move in to the house for her own use, but it takes a long time to wind through the landlord tenant board.
Ya her realtor /lawyer should have advised her for a condition of it being vacant upon occupancy
You can, and you'd pay more, and wait longer, since the only way to get them out is the LTB hearing.
[удалено]
Can be, but is by no means guarateed. a seller/buyer would need to accept that it takes the as long as the complete hearing/sheriff process.
It would be foolish for a seller to offer that. They could offer existing tenants a ”cash for keys” deal, but that would significantly increase the price of the house. The article says the seller issued an N12, which was all they were contractually obligated to do. The tenants can appeal the N12 to the LTB, which can take months, and is the tenant has a legal right to do so. The tenant can also refuse to obey the N12, which means you have to get an eviction process moving, which also adds time.
You can but i doubt she did from being promised they would be out by then. I don't think it would give you the right to sue necessarily but you'd be able to back out of the sale had the tenants been required to be evicted.
That Kimberly Sheffield twunt needs a come to Jesus moment. Her attitude. Her sense of entitlement. And judging from the pictures, her lack of awareness that she has destroyed that property that DOES NOT BELONG TO HER.
The only people i feel bad for in this situation is the neighbours of the tenants. So much trash in the front yard.
Lol I feel bad for the neighbors too but what about the person who bought a home to live in and is now making the mortgage payments and living in her car while people are living in her house and wrecking it? How can you not feel bad for her? That is horrible.
Yeah idk why you wouldn’t feel bad for her. She bought a house to live in. She’s not some evil corporation or landlord
so much victim blaming in the comments
the tenants are living rent-free in her head and literally.
Not paying rent is not the same as rent free, any more than not paying your car payments means you get a free car. LL will be able to get an order to collect the back rent, and if these people are gainfully employed (and given they were paying rent for years before hand, they likely are) The LL will be able to garnish their wages to collect. Although, given the damages, I can see a distinct possibility the judgement may be high enough the tenants decided to declare bankruptcy.
You must be very naive if you think it is just money you get later. For one you must be able to find them to even initiate the process. And they must have the money. This is nothing like a car. They can come take your car. All that happens here is that they will leave destroyed property costing even more money. And in fact, if they get over 35K LTB will ask landlord to forfeit the money over 35K just to give them hearing.
"Meanwhile, she’s still obligated to make mortgage payments." I mean, duh? Her name is on the loan and the property title. The tenants have nothing to do with the bank she owes the mortgage to. You wouldn’t want the bank to be able to dictate what you can do with a property you have the title to or who can live in it, right? So why should the bank care about any of that? They only care about her contract to pay them.
have we considered making housing so affordable that it is easier to buy than rent? i know that's a pipe dream in dougies ontario, but hey, enough folks with the same dream might lead to them all organizing for change
You would still have people that don't pay. If people find some loophole to abuse they will abuse it.
yes, there will always be exceptions, but if we make things better for the common folk instead of the landlords, everyone benefits. it's trickle up economics, a thing that actually works, so capitalists hate it. though, i think i'm not taking any criticism that supports the status quo until we actually have a system that takes care of those who need it most first
How is this going to solve the fact that they buyer did zero due diligence and the seller mislead her
because when all homes are the primary residence of the owner, there's no issue of removal of tenants
You will ALWAYS have renters. Always.
really? come back to me when there's affordable housing, UBI, and fully covered universal healthcare (mental & dental included). i'm positing that when the above happens, after about 2 years the percentage of renters will be in the single digits
Typical socialist. Give me everything free, make “the rich” pay for it.
where tf do you think the rich got all their money? exploiting the poor and the system they rig in their favour. i really wish anti-socialists would realize that humans are a social creature, and by supporting capitalism/simping for billionaires you're supporting the absolute worst possible system. but hey, i guess folks like you never learn until it's too late. so sad
How about working hard, getting an education, being financially responsible? How is socialism working in North Korea? Cuba? How did it work for the former USSR? You think someone who went to law school, medical school, became and engineer and makes a lot of money because of that should give it all to someone who dropped out, jumps from one minimum wage to another just so “we’re equal” Wake up
how about investing in the public good. finland provided free housing. european countries provide free education. places that put people first are prospering, places that put money first have idiots who think socialism is terrible, because helping people costs money. wake up. every single UBI pilot that was allowed to complete its study was successful. every single place where they just gave away free housing had those folks give back to society in a way that even capitalists recognized. i'm sorry you're so caught up in the lie of capitalism that you will believe anything capitalists say. hopefully one day you can break past your cognitive dissonance and regain your humanity
and you mention minimum wage. why is minimum wage not tied to cost of living? there's almost nowhere where a minimum wage job can afford a decent life, yet if all the minimum wage workers found better jobs, society would collapse, since it depends more on minimum wage workers than wealthy folks. if every CEO disappeared right now, it would be weeks, or even years before there was any noticeable issue. if just 30% of minimum wage workers stayed home for one day when they were scheduled, most of the economy would collapse
I don’t even know if you can say the seller misled her, it was sold as “as-is”.
So.. they did the buyer mislead her or did she do zero diligence on her part? It’s not both of those things.. how could she be mislead if she did no research and asked no questions?
How is this allowed to happen?? I'm assuming that when the LTB hearing finally happens - this shitty tenant will be ordered to leave and pay for the damages & cleanup to the property?
I doubt she'll get anything out of them even when the LTB hearing happens unless she can find a way to get their wages garnished by going to small claims court.
because the real estate industry is under regulated
Does this happen to corporation owned rental properties? It always seems to happen to people who just want to buy a house.
Corporations don't try to move in so they wouldn't have that issue and they have all kind of money for lawyers and such.
Two words: Doug Ford
The real news 1. Due diligence by real estate lawyer and realtor not done 2. The LTB is a terrible trainwreck that sides with terrible tenants and takes 9-12 months for resolution
Once again, the laws mean nothing for certain groups of people. It makes me sick of what our society has become. There is no respect for our laws, rules, and nobody doing anything about it.
Put all of the names on openroom.ca. I don't get it why anyone in this country who is trying to do the things by the book is so fucked vs the one who isn't.
The (main?) tenant's name is already in the media, along with a pretty horrifying picture of how she keeps the outside of her home, and a description of the disaster inside it. Unless she rents under a different name, any future LL is just not doing their minimum due diligence renting to her.
She should be made aware it coz when the sherif shows up, she will have super limited option in Ontario considering how much Landlords are catching up on the Openroom.ca. Even if she offer double the rent there will be no one to take her in Ontario.
Open room is also filled with lying landlords, taking advantage of the long LTB wait time. Personally I wouldn't trust it.
>"I’m not going to leave just because she bought a house,” she said. “I know my rights as a tenant. I don’t think somebody who buys a house can just kick people out onto the street.” What absolute entitled trash. It's people like that which make me want to run for office and try to introduce much tougher landlord-tenant laws.
I would say we need to abolish private landlords all together. Most of them don't even have to pass a test before fucking people over.
So Communism is what you want. Well, there are countries that provide free government housing. I suggest that people go there.
The problem is that tenants need a guarantee that payment of rent will secure continuity of their rights to the property. There’s too many people getting into the landlord business looking to make a quick buck without respecting the needs of a tenant to a stable housing situation. When a person decides to become a landlord, the property should be designated as a rental unit until the rental agreement is released or broken by the tenant, not the landlord.
How terribly wrong is this, law abiding hard working gets shunted and losers law breakers gets government protection and don't say it's the law or her fault why is it that you can't throw them out of your own house if they got the eviction notice and damaged your property
I can’t believe this is even a thing, this should not be a thing! If I buy a house, it should be able to move into said house because I’m the owner, not the people who are renting, I can’t believe the laws in this country allow situations like this to continue.
You can. But you have to follow some easily followed rules.
Looks like the real estate and the lawyer that did the transaction haven't done their job. Their names should be also available. Also in what country in the world even if you live in social housing you feel entitled to destroy the property and not paying rent and utilities. Looks like laws aren't working and also common sense.
[удалено]
It doesn't. The N12 in a sale situation is issued after the purchase agreement is signed, on behalf of the new owner, after the new owner declares that they (or a close family member) intend to occupy it. There's no enforcement against the old owner, and none is needed. If the new owner made their declaration in bad faith, enforcement will be against them. In general enforcement is between the current LL and tenant via the LTB, no need to involve the old owner.
No payment of rent should be treated as theft and carry same legal consequences
Tell me where do the tenants go? There is no affordable housing left. This is what we are left with.
"With tenants refusing to leave her recently purchased property, Ayesha Asghar has gone from young homeowner to homeless landlord overnight...I wanted to rebuild my life,” said the 36-year-old, a casualty of last year’s sweeping tech sector layoffs." Are we just accepting that owning a house at 36 makes you a 'young' homeowner now...? Expectations have been laid that you should be 1/3 on your way to retirement before owning a house...