When Stacey Glover's father-in-law, Laurance Glover, needed to move out of his Langford rental unit and into a long-term care home, she expected some trouble getting his security deposit back.
"I was skeptical when he was moving out on whether or not we're gonna get the damage deposit back, because you hear all kinds of chatter," she said.
She was right. The landlord, Cherish at Central Park, didn't give them the deposit back. The Glovers took the matter to the Residential Tenancy Branch, which ruled in their favour. It ordered Cherish to return double the deposit for a grand total of $2,741.25.
Apparently, the Glovers are not alone in their concerns with Cherish. The senior's independent living community is being taken to court by several former tenants or their families for not paying back thousands of dollars in security deposits – even after the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) ordered the money be paid. Family members of four of these residents all told Black Press Media similar stories.
Meanwhile, BC Senior's Advocate Dan Levitt is fighting for better protection for seniors at facilities like this one, and announced on Thursday (July 11) that the government has committed to implementing his recommendations to provide better rent protections for seniors.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing confirmed that Cherish has been ordered to pay back roughly $34,000 in total to six former tenants, and that the facility is currently under investigation by the RTB's compliance and enforcement unit.
Cherish CEO Micky Fleming defended the company's actions on Wednesday (July 10).
“At Cherish, proudly Victoria’s first Age-In-Place residence, we always return damage deposits within 15 days," Fleming said in a statement provided by the company. "In the case where there has been damage, we have to retain some or all of the damage deposit to repair the damage, as agreed in our contract.”
According to court documents and from emails and other evidence provided to Black Press Media, Fleming uses the argument that Cherish is a "health facility" and thereby exempt from the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). But according to decisions in these cases, and according to the Housing ministry spokesperson, this is not true.
In one decision by an RTB adjudicator, an inspection of the facility is cited as having concluded Cherish is classified as "independent living senior's apartments," and not "assisted living," which would be considered a health facility.
A day in court
Many of the people who say they are owed money by Cherish did not realize there were others in the same situation until July 3, when several showed up on the same day for hearings at the Western Communities courthouse in Colwood.
"And those are only the people who took it to the residential tenancy branch," said Greg Stewart, who was there that day and is owed $5,164.
Stewart has battled Cherish over this issue for almost two years, and is now working to organize people who say they are owed money by Cherish, while also trying to draw public attention to the issue.
His mother has since passed away. Because Cherish is housing for seniors, this is not an uncommon experience. Family members must then fight for their money, while also grieving and taking care of estate details.
"When my dad passed away, you got 1,000 things to do," said Andrew Jackson, whose family is owed $6,446.66 by Cherish as a result of an RTB dispute hearing. "And you get a cheque, Cherish saying 'here's the rest of your damage deposit and what we deducted.'"
Jackson expected problems when he was moving his family out because he'd heard stories too. Problems began before his parents even left. When he told Cherish he was moving furniture out, he said he was asked for another $1,000 in case the elevator got scratched.
He responded that this was not legal according to the RTB. He said he was told the RTB rules don't apply, and "It's Micky's building, she can do whatever she wants."
His family had already paid a full month's rent as a deposit, even though RTB rules say a half-month's rent is the maximum that can be collected.
So he worked to get the unit "as pristine as it could possibly be," even going so far as to patch holes from picture frames and tighten the hinges on the cupboards.
"And sure enough, they found $1,300 worth of damage in the place," he said.
Similarly to Stewart and Jackson, problems began for Glover before her father-in-law moved out. When he first moved into long-term care, she tried to get reimbursed for a meal service he was being charged for, but no longer needed. Glover managed to argue for a small rebate initially, but as soon as she gave notice he was moving out for good, the reimbursements stopped.
Then she was told that to move his furniture, she was required to hire a professional mover — costing another $600. And when it finally came time to get the deposit back, almost $1,000 was deducted.
"They are taking advantage of seniors and families who are in crisis," Glover told an official at the RTB.
But it's Kathy Hunt's family that seems to have the biggest amount owed. Like Jackson's parents, her mother was charged a full month's rent for security, and is now owed double because it went to the dispute process, bringing the total to $11,198.13.
According to Hunt, Cherish was trying to charge her for some fairly extensive renovations.
"They replaced the carpet with vinyl flooring," she said. "Charging me to lower all the baseboard in the apartment because when you take carpet out and put flooring in, you have to lower the baseboard."
With all of these complaints, the RTB began an investigation. Many of these people have given statements to the investigator. The result could be an administrative penalty, which would need to be paid to the government by Cherish, with added penalties for lateness.
But for the tenants it is not so simple, and it's turning out to be difficult to get paid. Cherish has so far refused to abide by the RTB decisions, and the families are all stuck going to court to try to recoup their money. But even that has yet to be successful.
"They've had court orders from small claims," Jackson said. "And Cherish has ignored those."
Jackson said he thinks the company is just trying to wear people down, hoping they are scared away by the process.
"I think that's what Cherish is banking on," he said.
