Want to rent a place? Avoid the TAL
Some landlords are blacklisting potential tenants if they have ever gone to the rental board, never mind how justified their complaint. They want people they can bully and manipulate without consequences.
-
Kate
Reply
Ian 09:29 on 2024-07-29 Permalink
Being a landlord should require a license.
Ephraim 16:34 on 2024-07-29 Permalink
This isn’t new. I thought it was well known. It’s the same principle as those who pay more for household insurance. Making a claim on insurance makes you more likely to make another claim, and you your insurance rates increase.
dhomas 04:47 on 2024-07-30 Permalink
As a landlord, I do check TAL history of my tenants. I don’t really care if there’s a dossier at the TAL. But if the the potential tenant has had 5 encounters with the TAL in the past 5 years at multiple different addresses, I might think twice. As the saying goes, if you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, there’s a good chance you’re the asshole.
Ian 15:40 on 2024-07-30 Permalink
To be fair a tenant can also check if their potential landlord has had complaints against them. I still think that being a landlord should require a license.
bob 16:14 on 2024-07-30 Permalink
So a couple of takeaways:
There are evidently people, like Martin Messier, who think that a complaint against a landlord for a predatory rent hike or fixing a hole in the roof vitiates any right to shelter. Maybe he and Galen Weston Jr. could start a club, and deny people the right to food as well. When someone figures out how to commercialize air, that too.
Corporate landlords have nothing to do with this housing crisis, nope, not at all, and they certainly are not using shady tactics to jack up rents. It’s all these shady tenants who pay 60% of their income to a faceless, tax evading holding company that takes a year to fix a broken toilet, but serves a TAL complaint for non-payment at 12:01am on the 2nd of the month.
@Ephraim – The logic does not hold, though. It’s like saying if you get hit by lightning, then you are more likely to be hit by lightning twice, because everyone who has been hit by lightning a second time has been hit by lightning a first time. You did not make yourself get hit by lightning. Assuming you don’t climb steeples in thunderstorms. The real logic is this – the increase is punishment for filing a claim, so that people are less likely to file a claim. A “disincentive”.