| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:55 am Post subject: RENT - Don't BUY! See our all new BEST PRACTICE GUIDE |
 |
|
Our Consumer Best Practice Guide:
Don't buy a condo - rent!
Since we began this website in the summer of 2003, back when the leaky condo crisis was already old news, our collective investigation has focused on consumer protection -- how to protect buyers from landing a leaker and how to get the biggest bang for your repair buck once the all-powerful strata council decides to go ahead with a building envelope reconstruction. Here are the results of that investigation in summary:
The durability chasm: still no answers from building pros or the insurance industry
We still have no satisfactory answers from building pros regarding the yawning gap between home warranty periods and CSA S478-95 Guideline on Durability (Buildings). (For more on this crucial document, including our request of the Vancouver Public Library to stop hiding it, search 'durability' anywhere at the site). Nor has the insurance industry been in any way forthcoming. Why not, we wonder? We've had no definitive answer even regarding the role of energy-saving provisions in the National Building Code left over from the late '70s, which at least one engineer claims is the primary source of the problem.
... and STILL no legislative reforms!
In addition, the province, like the two useless Barrett Inquiries of 1998 and 2001, has ignored the pressing need for reforms, such as:
| Quote: | (a) a publicly accountable tracking system of leaky condos by the building professions to document and study similarities among their failures as well as their repair experiments just as the medical establishment tracks health epidemics;
(b) mandatory registration on title of technical building audits and building maintenance plans for the condo's estimated service life; and
(c) an admission that communiism has failed as dismally here as it has everywhere else. The legislative scheme as it stands today requires a buyer to enter into a unique ownership relationship with strangers, who have virtually no management or reporting obligations. Does this sound like good business practice? There must be an inspection, maintenance and repair strategy laid down in the legislation for owners and strata councils to follow especially when there are problems, including guidelines and a standard form for reporting problems to ensure that defects are discovered and placed on the record in a timely manner. How many of us lost our right to sue negligent sellers and strata corporations for conveniently underreporting damage or omitting any mention of it altogether? Why should reading a strata corporation's minutes require so much detective work, especially when the buyer has no authority to inspect much of the property for which s/he is assuming responsibility?
(d) a reconsideration of the unanimous vote required for a block sale when the cost of repairs represents a significant portion of the property's value. Why should the majority have the power to bankrupt an unwilling minority with a special levy, especially when repair technologies remain questionable at best, but no authority to force a block sale? |
On the contrary, rather than expanding condominium legislation, the Liberal government all but ignored it and even gutted the Real Estate Superintendent's Office so that it became impossible for owners to get even an oral response to a question regarding the statute.
More on the Supt.'s refusal to enforce the Strata Property Act, a responsibility for which he has sole authority.
Equally painful to us is the fact that CMHC's Condo Buyer's Guide, for goodness sake, still refers to reserve fund studies, an effective consumer protection feature in Ontario law but one that B.C. has never even considered despite our many protests. So much for the federal response, which is doubly insulting when really the whole country is paying for B.C.'s debacle.
Conclusion:
In view of the above, we conclude that B.C. simply does not have the quality of infrastructure either politically or professionally necessary to support condominium ownership, nor is the picture likely to change anytime soon. It's that simple. All we can do is keep asking the question, Who benefits from this scenario? Hint: It's not consumers.
But renting is expensive...
Rents, especially on the Lower Mainland are high, but who can afford equity in a toxic wet mess managed by a group of strangers, who have virtually no management or reporting obligations? Nor is there any public office to contact when you have questions or conflicts over the myriad issues that arise under common ownership, including bylaws that sounded good on paper when you bought but that aren't enforced.
Consider, on the other hand, the many tenant protections available when you rent. Click here to view the excellent responses we received from the two Residential Tenancy Offices on the Lower Mainland when we asked whether it was prudent for owners to let their leaky units.
Here is the e-mail we sent to that office recently in praise of the excellent service provided there:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca [mailto:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: March 1, 2005 11:03 AM
To: SG Residential Tenancy Office SG:EX
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Subject: NO ACTION REQUIRED - Praise for the Residential Tenancy Office
Hello pleasant staffers at the RTO,
Just a quick note to say that we sing your praises at our Watchdog Forum and wish you ran a similar outfit for condos. A very impressive team and we say so. Please, for goodness sake, if Campbell and his filthy few ever make any plans to cut you, let us know and we will do everything we can to assist. We may scream until the rafters fall about substandard housing construction in this province but we are just as quick to acknowledge excellent service, which you provide. On behalf every former leaker owner turned tenant, thank you for making the experience less of the humiliating ordeal we anticipated.
Cups up!
Editor@bccondos.ca
http://www.bccondos.ca
Tracking leaky condos worldwide because those responsible won't.
|
Note the characteristic snappy response:
| Quote: | From: SG Residential Tenancy Office SG:EX
To: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: NO ACTION REQUIRED - Praise for the Residential Tenancy Office
Thank you for the pleasant thoughts.
Duty Officer |
Link to this entry
using http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=657#657
Last edited by editor on Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:20 pm; edited 25 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look who agrees with us, though not for the same reasons
That's right! Even the Economist in the Mar. 5/05 issue asserts in a caption at p. 11, "Today it is often much cheaper to rent than to buy a house." Here are a few excerpts from that article to explain:
| Quote: | House prices are currently at record levels in relation to rents in many parts of the world and it now makes more financial sense -- especially for first-time buyers -- to rent instead.
Homebuyers tend to underestimate their costs. Once maintenance costs, insurance and property taxes are added to mortgage payments, total annual outgoings now easily exceed the cost of renting an equivalent property, even after taking account of tax breaks...The snag is that the typical first-time buyer keeps a house for less than five years, and during that time most mortgage payments go on interest, not on repaying the loan. And if prices fall, it could wipe out your equity. In any case, a renter can accumulate wealth by putting the money saved each year from the lower cost of renting into shares. These have, historically, yielded a higher return than housing. Putting all your money into a house also breaks the basic rule of prudent investing: diversify.
...The myth that buying is always better grew out of the high inflation era of the 1970s and 1980s. First-time buyers then always ended up better off than renters, because inflation eroded the real value of mortgages even while it pushed up rents. Mortgage-interest tax relief was also worth more when inflation, and hence nominal interest rates, was high. With inflation now tamed, home ownership is far less attractive.
...Someday prices will fall relative to rents and wages. After they do, it will make sense to buy a home. Until they do, the smart money is on renting. (emphasis ours) |
We will continue to provide posts at this buying v. renting query. Please send us any comments and questions. We're always happy to hear from visitors.
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=658#658
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:54 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are the editors nuts?
Barron's article actually advises readers to trade in a good house for two condos
Imagine our letter to the editor when we saw the story, The Boomer Bust, by Peter Francese at p. 34 of the Feb. 21/05 issue of Barron's, an influential financial publication, advising readers to sell their good, dry houses and buy not just one condo but two! Guess whose advice the author was taking? That's right - realtors. Here's a particularly revealing excerpt, describing suggested strategies for the economically lean time to come for aging baby boomers:
| Quote: | The danger to the economy is that a significant portion will start to do what any sensible person facing leaner times would do: cut expenditures and sell some assets. The hit to the two-thirds of the economy that's consumer spending would not be a pretty sight. And the key asset the boomers might sell, of course, would be their high-priced house in the suburbs.
That house has approximately doubled in value over the past five years and since the kids are either about to leave or have left, it makes sense to sell and move into a smaller condo or something like it. In fact, there are real estate agents now suggesting that the cash from a $1 million house in the suburbs can be re-invested in two $400,000 condominiums, one for summer and fall and one for the winter and spring, leaving a little nest egg of $200,00. (indignant emphasis ours) |
No doubt the merchant classes are in favor of this nonsense, and, sadly, there is never a shortage of lambs to the slaughter. As the great P.T. Barnum said, "There's one born every minute."
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=659#659
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Barron's changes its tune
Housing bubble to burst - and soon - market analyst predicts
| Quote: | She (Darren Pollock of Cheviot Value Management, Inc. See her guest commentary of May 1/05, Irrational Exuberance Moves Home, at Prudentbear.com) points out that among the spurs to the recent swift rise in home prices, besides the collapse of the stock market that sent investors scurrying to real estate, were the Fed's unyielding push to drive down rates; lax, to put it mildly, mortgage lending standards; novel and problematic financing (interest-only loans and the like), and speculation, not only by the usual suspects but foreign punters, as well.
The bubble market in housing, she warns, is "fraught with peril." As housing prices skyrocketed, homeowners cashed out their rising equity at a dizzying rate; between 2001 and 2003, homeowners with conventional loans, Darren reports, took out a cool $341 billion. That mass turning of homes into ATMs worked wonders for the economy, but the price of such continual leveraging can be stiff, even catastrophic, when prices turn down.
And prices will go down. When they do, the story will be too familiar, Darren comments.
The confidence of homeowners and eagerness of would-be buyers alike will shrivel. The pain of leverage will begin to make itself felt. The supply of houses for sale will expand slowly and then exponentially. Foreclosures will rise sharply and banks will anxiously dump those foreclosed houses, as banks are prone to do, further depressing a reeling market. (Excerpt from Up and Down Wall Street by Alan Abelson in Barron's Online May 23/05). |
Our e-mail to Darren Pollock:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: contact@cheviotvalue.com
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: Factoring in the cost of housing defects
Hello Darren Pollock,
We're a leaky condo consumer/advocacy website from Vancouver, Canada, and we were most interested in your comments recently at Prudentbear.com, Irrational exhuberance moves home, which were also discussed in Barron's Online (see links above).
Because we track similar housing failures/defects and the various legislative responses worldwide, we couldn't help noticing the U.S. group, HADD, and some revealing California legislation. We're trying to get a handle on how effective the California legislation is but, in the meantime, do you know if there is any gov't department or advocacy group tracking California housing failures? Any idea how much housing construction defects may be costing the state and the country each year? How do such stats feature in your housing bubble analysis, if at all?
Despite our many protests to all levels of gov't, architects/engineers, the building designers, do not seem to view a construction crisis the same way the comparatively responsible medical professionals view an outbreak of disease. Nor are the building elite subject to the sort of investigations and penalties, say, lawyers attract when they are the subject of a complaint of negligence.
Thanks for your kind attention. We look forward to hearing from you.
Editor@bccondos.ca
http://www.bccondos.ca
Tracking housing failures worldwide because those responsible won't. |
The courteous and timely reply:
| Quote: | From: "contact" <contact>
To: <editor>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Factoring in the cost of housing defects
Hello,
I'm glad you found my piece on the housing market of interest.
Unfortunately, I do not have any answers to your questions. I work as an analyst for a money management firm that invests client money in the stock and bond market. With soaring residential real estate prices, in the past few years, our clients are increasingly tempted to invest in this market. As a result, I have surveyed the housing market for the last couple of years to get a historical perspective on the prices paid for homes, the cyclicality of those prices, and all relevant factors that cause prices to be what they are at any given time. Our conclusion was that prices are so overvalued, especially in our local market (southern California) that we were compelled to warn our clients of the residential market being a potential disaster for today's investors. (emphasis added)
I wish I could be of help. I admire what you are doing with the leaky condo advocacy group and I wish you all the best in continuing your work to help buyers and owners of property.
Best regards,
Darren Pollock
P.S. Of miniscule importance... I'm a male and not female as Alan Abelson incorrectly stated in this week's Barron's. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=667#667
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:57 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Homebuyers 'better off putting your money into government bonds and paying the landlord with the interest,' says The Economist special issue Summer, 2005
| Quote: | So much for the textbooks. In Australia, Britain and parts of America, house prices have become detached from the rents that ought to anchor them. In the United States, the ratio of house prices to rents is about 30% above its historical average, according to recent calculations by The Economist; in both Britain and Australia, it is 60% above or more.
The implication is that people are overpaying for the privilege of being their own landlord. Home-buying has become an expensive way to avoid paying a lowish annual rent. You would often be better off putting your money into government bonds and paying the landlord with the interest you earn. (Excerpt from the story, To rent or to buy? Homebuyers are paying too much to be their own landlord, by Simon Cox in the Intelligent Life issue of The Economist, Summer, 2005, at p. 124). |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=671#671
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:59 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even the Sun, our local real estate ad flier, is asking if the bubble is about to burst:
Here's the excerpt of a news story we found on the web June 24/05:
| Quote: | Is the real estate bubble about to burst?
Canada's housing boom has turned real estate into juicy bits of conversation around the summer barbecue -- but many homeowners are asking whether a price bubble is about to burst. (From the Vancouver Sun online at Canada.com) |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=676#676
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A renters' market? Editor, what brand of B.C. bud are you cultivating this season?
| Quote: | From: Ray B.
To: <editor>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:43 PM
Subject: Some thoughts on considering buying leaky condo
Hello;
I'm considering a leaky condo. Realtor has advised that vendor will pay pending assessment. Address is 4113 Fraser St. I am sorry Idon't know developer nor builder....I just thought it was a cool-looking building from the start.
I believe the reason some people will buy a leaky condo are:
1) Some of us will never be able to afford the $250,000 condos out here, let alone a house.
2) Some of us can't stand living in so-so rental apartments: mice, leaky pipes, ugly floors, etc. Yes ,we can save money doing so, but no, we never invite anyone over, and we hate every morning looking at a chewed up, stained bathroom door...gross.
3) Some of us realize that yes, it is a gamble, but we gamble that even if the repairs eat up the equity, if we got the place for cheap, we are in effect, borrowing money to buy the place at the value it will be after repairs. We have seen most leaky condos that were repaired increase in value.
4) Some of us believe the mold danger to healthy humans is over-rated. (Yes, children and the elderly are susceptible, but we breathe in more exhaust walking to work than any mold....and how long is anyone home these days anyways)?!
5) Eventually the place will be paid off and we'll be able to live omewhere for free. Accelerated amortization will help this.
6) Some of us will justify it as I do, but what other option do we have? Yes, renting...but if your rent is double a mortgage payment, ($1,200/mo for a nice place) even with a repair, you have ownership. Renting, you have no security...and no, it's not a tenant's market. We lived in a place where I cried because it was so ugly but that's all that was available for under $750 back in 1998. We still pay about the same, but we are ground floor, tenants on top floor pay $1,200 for a two-bedroom. And no, it doesn't leak, but the floor is slowly caving in, and our toilet is at a 15- degree angle...
So, I will read what you say, and I appreciate your site, but what do you suggest we do? I looked at three places today (to buy) and all were leaky or potentially leaky...one place in one building just sold for $80,000. That's a good deal for Vancouver, even with a $75,000 leaky bill! (Not sure what the repair bill will be, am finding out later from a good realtor, who told me up front). But if vendor pays assessment, if building leaks later, anyone could be a victim, as you either buy something, or you don't, and if it leaks, well, you also lost the gamble. My other option is: nothing...all other deals out there have been "no subject" offers, I'm not kidding! So, I would much rather be in a $120,000 leaker that will be worth $195,000 after even $1,000,000 in total repairs that may or may not be required, than a new, $240,000, 400 sq.ft. apt in a Bosa tower that might leak five years from now and cost $6 million to repair.
Yes, I know better than to buy a leaky condo....so why am I considering it? Because I have no choice...I will never own an apartment in this market unless I buy a damaged one. It's like anything else: like buying a car. I spent $9,000 on a used one eight years ago, and guess what? I spent $3,000 in repairs to it last month. A sister's sailboat cost $20,000 last year, and six months later...spent $5,000 on engine repairs. My friend's Jeep: paid $8,000 for it: eight months later spent $1,000 on repairs. See, there's a pattern, and an apartment is just a larger part of the pattern. Yes, however, Buyer Beware, no matter what. And I take full responsibility for my actions.
Thank you for listening.
Ray |
Our reply:
| Quote: | From: <editor>
To: Ray B.
Cc: <editor>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Name of Complex
Hello Ray,
Fair enough, but do check out our Residential Tenancy Act s. 10 riff (scroll down), which sets out the standard of habitability landlords must meet. The law changed about a year ago but the same tenets still apply. The Residential Tenancy Office website also provides helpful instruction guides (unlike the guides to the Strata Property Act), which explain when a tenant may engage a contractor for a repair and then deduct it from the next month's rent.
When your condo unit needs repair, however, you are not similarly at liberty to hire a contractor. Rules vary between stratas, but generally, you must first notify the strata council, which may have to acquire several estimates from different contractors and also ensure that proper notice is given to other owners. This is because walls and pipes are usually shared as common property, for which all owners as a whole are responsible.
While tenants may suffer from inattentive landlords, they have more than a few enforceable rights of which condo inmates may only dream. The case of Wright v. Strata Plan No. 205 from Victoria is a good illustration.
Hope this is helpful.
Ed. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=681#681
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:00 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stop the presses!
Maybe a rental would be preferable to a leaky condo at ITC Group's Cambria Terrace
| Quote: | From: Ray B.
To: <editor>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:03 PM
Subject: Name of Complex
Hello again;
I just wrote you a rambling e-mail about why I should buy a leaky condo....ok, maybe I won't...I just found out the name of the project is Cambria Terrace, it was built by ITC Group, HK Architects designed, and it won a Georgie....but I got the bad shivers when I read all this as the building obviously has problems, and I want nothing to do with it. After a few minutes of analysis, I have talked myself out of it....ok, I listened!
Ray |
GO RAY
Way to escape from a toxic leaker!
| Quote: | From: <editor>
To: Ray B.
Cc: <editor>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Name of Complex
Ray -
Good for you. Yes, a Georgie Award is pretty much the kiss of death in the condo market, in our view. We hope you go forth with a new consumer confidence and that you freely raise the bar on the housing construction industry.
Prospective buyers should be able to submit a strata corporation's technical building audit and signed letters of assurance to an independent building pro, who might then determine if various 'new technologies and materials' are:
(a) appropriate for that type of construction and in that combination, and
(b) that each has been properly tested for durability according to S-478-95 - Guideline on Durability (Buildings), the definitive text on the maintenance-free service life of buildings, published by the Canadian Standards Association in 1995. This publication more than any other should be listed as the condo buyers' bible.
We're concerned at the moment that these important 'guidelines' may come under attack by our lax housing industry as simply too rigorous. The repair and reconstruction treadmill is, after all, extremely financially rewarding for certain players, so consumers must be extra vigilant.
We'd like the guidelines adopted as standards in both the National and provincial Building Codes. Similarly, if the development and construction of leakers became a strict liability offence in the Criminal Code (one that does not require lengthy and complex civil litigation), you can bet the industry from the architects and engineers right on down the line would start policing their work. Sadly, too many of us continue to be misled both by our municipalities and by the professional building associations that this is already being done. Clearly, this is not the case.
Please send us any questions you have regarding condos. We learn best from the queries we receive.
Ed. |
| Quote: | Note: We were very disturbed to discover that ITC Group's website - more of a fansite, really - actually includes Cambria Terrace among its 'achievements' (see links above) but absent any mention of the fact that it leaks. Don't they know? We thought it would be appropriate here to list three relevant legal tests considered in Cope v. Morton, a Victoria 'leaky condo' trial decision by Wilson, J. in 2004, beginning at para. 31:
| Quote: | [31] Mr. Cope claims against Mr. Morton on three grounds:
1. fraudulent misrepresentation;
2. negligent misrepresentation; and
3. breach of contract.
[32] To succeed in his claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation, Mr. Cope must prove four elements.
[33] First, Mr. Cope must prove that Mr. Morton made a representation to Mr. Cope. This element is not contentious. Mr. Morton represented to Mr. Cope that he, Mr. Morton, was aware that the unit and common property had isolated leakage or unrepaired damage, as seen in undefined strata minutes.
[34] Second, Mr. Cope must prove that the representation was false in fact.
[35] This element has been proved. "Isolated" means, "untypical"; "exceptional".[1]
[36] At 11 July 2001, there was leakage, and there was unrepaired damage, the magnitude of which was not defined in the minutes provided, or any of them. The minutes provided did not present a complete history of the leakage or unrepaired damage. Significantly missing were the minutes of the special meeting on the Hardy report. Accordingly, it was a false statement to say that the leakage and unrepaired damage was "isolated" as seen in "strata minutes".
[37] Third, Mr. Cope must prove that Mr. Morton knew that the representation was false when it was made. Or, that Mr. Morton made the representation recklessly, not knowing if it was true or false.
[38] There is a subjective element in the tort of fraud or deceit. Professor Fridman makes the following observation:[2]
... Liability for deceit or fraud is based upon the idea that to lie or deceive are morally wrong acts which merit legal sanction, when they result in harm suffered by the victim. Actual fraud and not just misrepresentation must be proved.
Falsehood therefore entails a deliberate, wilful, conscious distortion of the truth. It will not suffice that the maker of the deceptive statement is inaccurate unless he is also aware of the inaccuracy (or is so reckless that he does not care whether or not he is speaking the truth). He must lack honest belief in the truth of what he is stating.
[39] Mr. Cope has not met that test. He has not proved that Mr. Morton knew the magnitude of the problem as defined in the Hardy reports. Or, that Mr Morton was recklessly blind to the systemic nature of the problem at the time he completed the disclosure statement in July 2001.
[40] In result, Mr. Cope's claim in fraudulent misrepresentation fails.
[41] To succeed on the second ground, of negligent misrepresentation, Mr. Cope must prove five elements.
[42] First, that there was a duty of care owed by Mr. Morton to Mr. Cope, based on a special relationship. This element is proved. There was a special relationship between these two gentlemen of prospective vendor and prospective purchaser.
[43] The second element Mr. Cope must prove is that the representation in question was untrue, inaccurate or misleading. This element is proved for the reasons given above. There was leakage at July 2001. There was unrepaired damage to the structure in July 2001. Neither of those phenomena were isolated; they were systemic.
[44] The third element Mr. Cope must prove is that Mr. Morton must have acted negligently in making the misrepresentation to Mr. Cope. This element is proved.
[45] On 11 July 2001, there existed a systemic structural problem with the condominium building in which Mr. Morton's unit was located. That problem was defined in the Hardy reports of 1991.
[46] The temporary solution of surface treatment, did not repair the damage. Mr. Morton was aware of a report which had precipitated the special meeting of 1991, which resulted in the adoption of the waterproofing committee solution. Mr. Morton knew the history of the building from the time he took occupancy. He was in a position to get his facts right before he made the representation. He was negligent in not doing so.
[47] However, Mr. Morton argued that referencing the minutes was sufficient compliance with his duty to Mr. Cope. He says the onus was on Mr. Cope to make the further inquiries indicated by the minutes provided. Sask v. Brooke[3] is the authority cited in support of this proposition.
[48] Sask was a case with remarkably similar facts to this case. There, a disclosure statement and minutes of meetings of the strata council were held to be sufficient to alert the purchaser to the need for further inquiries. This information provided the prospective purchaser with the history of the leakage problems in the complex in question. In result, the purchaser's claim, based on negligent misrepresentation, was dismissed.
[49] Put another way, Mr. Morton is arguing that the systemic problem was a patent defect. It is up to the purchaser, Mr. Cope, goes the argument, to ascertain the extent of that defect, either by inspection or inquiry. It is an example of the application of the doctrine of caveat emptor.
[50] The doctrine does not apply in this case. And Sask is distinguishable on the facts. Mr. Cope and Mr. Morton, by their agreement, allocated the burden of inquiry to Mr. Morton. There was an obligation assumed by Mr. Morton to "provide ... at [his] expense ...", among other things, "A copy of the Building Envelope Inspection Report, or any Remediation Reports, and all related documents". At 10 August 2001, that documentation was available.
[51] It is now clear that the Hardy reports would have defined the systemic problem in the condominium building in which the unit was located. It was Mr. Morton's duty to produce those reports to Mr. Cope. Not Mr. Cope's duty to inquire further. The parties altered the common law obligations by their agreement.
[52] The fourth element Mr. Cope must prove has two components. First, that he relied on Mr. Morton's representation. And second, that his reliance, in the circumstances, was reasonable.
[53] Mr. Cope testified that he did rely upon the representations contained in the property disclosure statement about the leakage and unrepaired damage. As well, he relied on the information contained in the minutes.
[54] Mr. Morton testified that he anticipated that the representations he made in the disclosure statement would be relied upon by prospective purchasers. Accordingly, the first component has been proved.
[55] Mr. Morton contends that it was not reasonable for Mr. Cope to rely upon the information contained in the disclosure statement. This is so because Mr. Cope obtained a building inspection report. That report, goes the argument, negates reliance on representations by Mr. Morton. Gallagher v. Pettinger[4] is urged as authority for this proposition.
[56] The proposition is stated, at paragraph 63:
Absent fraudulent representations or concealment, when a professional home inspector's report is obtained then reliance has shifted to the home inspector.
[57] The facts in this case belie that conclusion.
[58] The building inspector reported to Mr. Cope that no indications of deterioration due to moisture were found on the examination. However, the inspector included the following in his report:
Further examination for damp penetration is referred to a building envelope specialist.
[59] Mr. Morton had promised to provide the report of a building envelope specialist. He did not provide that report. Further, Mr. Morton identified himself as the chair of the strata council. It was, therefore, reasonable for Mr. Cope to rely on Mr. Morton's representations about the leakage and unrepaired damage.
[60] Fifth, and finally, Mr. Cope must prove that the reliance on Mr. Morton's representations was detrimental to him in the sense that damages resulted.
[61] Manifestly, Mr. Cope was seeking to buy a unit in a condominium building which did not leak. He relied upon Mr. Morton's representations that the building did not leak. He bought the unit and now finds that it is in a building which does leak. Mr. Cope is now faced with the expense of rectifying the building so that his condominium unit will be in a building that does not leak.
[62] In result, Mr. Morton is liable to Mr. Cope for negligent misrepresentation. With that finding, it is not necessary to address the third ground, breach of contract. |
Yes, plaintiff Cope won the day and was awarded $54,200 in damages. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=682#682
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail to ITC Group Feedback:
(We copied the contents of the e-mail we sent to our Inbox moments after we clicked Submit).
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:34 PM
Hello ITC Group,
One of our visitors informed us this week that Cambria Terrace is a leaker, yet you don't disclose this at your site. See above posts.
It's clear that you're not tracking the performance of your buildings, which is unthinkable in view of B.C.'s infamous condo fiascos, but we're also very concerned that out-of-town buyers (and locals) who are not familiar with B.C.'s temporary housing/standards crisis (not even close to S-478-95 Durability Guideline (Buildings)) will get the impression that the complex is still problem-free.
Furthermore, it places all the developments listed at your site under suspicion.
We are sending this message to the appropriate federal and provincial authorities to demonstrate the hurdles, shall we say, B.C. condo consumers face.
Ed. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=683#683
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail to appropriate federal and provincial authorities:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca ; premier@gov.bc.ca ; Robert.Duffus@gems9.gov.bc.ca ; ida.chong.mla@leg.bc.ca ; john.les.mla@leg.bc.ca ; Fontana.J@parl.gc.ca ; Cotler.I@parl.gc.ca ; Goodale.R@parl.gc.ca
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:32 AM
Subject: When is it just plain fraud?
cc: B.C. Attorney General http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/contacts/emailag.htm
Hello Mr Premier and Ministers federal and provincial,
Please find enclosed the message we sent last night to one of that infamous band of brothers called B.C. home builders. This particular member continues to represent at its website a condominium complex in East Vancouver called Cambria Terrace without any disclosure of the fact that it leaks. A prospective buyer visiting our site contacted us in this regard.
We'd like to know if there is a duty of care in B.C. on advertisers regarding the disclosure of defective products? In other words, are B.C. home builders at liberty to market their leakers the same as they would an untested model? Do they have any disclosure obligations beyond the building designer's letters of assurance, documents to which prospective buyers have no access?
Similarly, are there any obligations on designers and builders to conduct ongoing performance reviews of their buildings, especially in view of a housing market that is literally flooded with leakers ? (See Under Tarps and Watchdog Forum for more on the hurdles faced by consumers in the shark-infested waters of B.C.'s real estate market).
Have you any plan to provide a public database listing housing failures? Has the construction industry taken the intiative yet to track failures and repairs the same way the medical establishment tracks health epidemics?
Is there yet some mechanism by which a member of the public may lodge a complaint with a designer/builder's professional association that might lead to investigation and possibly penalty not unlike the complaints procedure followed the law society? If not, why not? Surely there is some way beyond caveat emptor for the public to distinguish between a competent builder/designer and a practitioner whose buildings have failed.
We are frankly puzzled by the reluctance of the local judiciary to find fraud in these circumstances as set out in Cope v. Morton, a 2004 leaky condo decision by Wilson, J., who described the legal test as follows:
| Quote: | [38] There is a subjective element in the tort of fraud or deceit. Professor Fridman makes the following observation:[2]
... Liability for deceit or fraud is based upon the idea that to lie or deceive are morally wrong acts which merit legal sanction, when they result in harm suffered by the victim. Actual fraud and not just misrepresentation must be proved.
Falsehood therefore entails a deliberate, wilful, conscious distortion of the truth. It will not suffice that the maker of the deceptive statement is inaccurate unless he is also aware of the inaccuracy (or is so reckless that he does not care whether or not he is speaking the truth). He must lack honest belief in the truth of what he is stating. (emphasis ours) |
If ITC Group's advertising of Cambria Terrace has not met Prof. Fridman's test, would you kindly explain your reasoning?
As ever,
Editor@bccondos.ca
Still tracking the leaky condo crisis because those responsible won't.
Enclosure: E-mail to ITC Group (see above post) |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=687#687
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:03 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail to the B.C. Real Estate Council:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: rfawcett@recbc.ca ; lbuttress@recbc.ca
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:29 PM
Subject: Realtors Shouldn't Take the Rap for Leaky Condo Fiascos
Hello Real Estate Council,
Just a quick note for the record to let you know that we've sent a message to various federal and provincial housing authorities with our usual concerns regarding leaky condos. You'll note that realtors were not mentioned anywhere in the message. This is for two reasons:
1. Realtors acting for buyers and sellers are salespeople, not developers, building designers or tradesmen. The importance of a salesperson's 'disclosure' of defects latent or patent is therefore very limited, in our view.
2. Nor do we envy the salesperson's position on either side of a leaky condo transaction. We have not forgotten that it was a watchdog realtor, Nancy Bain, who wrote the Leaky Condo Re-Sales: Did the Buyer Know? report for CMHC not that long ago. (Search the title anywhere at this website for more on that report). We also hasten to mention excellent leaker advocacy on behalf of consumers by realtor Carmen Maretic of CASH.
We see that you've added a number of lawyers to the council recently, no doubt a reaction to the increased disclosure burden on realtors with respect to leaky condos. We hope you will join our ongoing effort to place responsibility for tracking, fixing and preventing housing failures squarely on the shoulders of those who design and build them. The business of selling goes much better for everyone when the product being sold is dependable.
Ed.
Enclosure: Message to authorities and to ITC Group (see both above). |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=689#689
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TD Bank Financial Group predicts Vancouver, Victoria housing bubble:
We note with interested the report, Real estate 'bubble warning' for Vancouver, Victoria posted July 26/05 at CBC.ca. Here's an excerpt:
| Quote: | | A new report by the TD Bank Financial Group says Vancouver and Victoria are the two Canadian cities at greatest risk of a potential housing bubble. The report by TD economist Carol Gomez says speculative buyers and investors are driving up prices in beyond justifiable levels in the two B.C. cities. And he says a key Vancouver indicator shows that it's now cheaper to rent than to own a benchmark property – a townhouse – in the city. (emphasis added) Gomez's report says the city's geographical location and the expected economic benefits from the 2010 Olympics are driving up Vancouver housing prices. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=700#700
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The government replies:
| Quote: | From: AG LSB CSD Mail AG:EX
To: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Your E-mail Received July 14, 2005 (#292085)
Dear Editor:
I am writing in reply to your e-mail dated July 14, 2005, addressed to Premier Gordon Campbell and others, and copied to the Attorney General.
I note your concerns about a home builder who advertised a condominium complex on a Web site without disclosing problems with water damage.
With respect to your question about the duty of care on advertisers regarding the disclosure of defective products, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority of British Columbia (BPCPA) is responsible for oversight of business practices and consumer protection in British Columbia. For more information, including how to contact the BPCPA, you can access their official Web site at: www.bpcpa.ca.
Regarding your questions related to the government’s response to the leaky condo situation, those questions should be directed to the Honourable Rich Coleman, Minister of Forests and Range and Minister responsible for Housing. Therefore, I am forwarding copies of your e-mail and this response to Mr. Coleman for his consideration.
An answer to your question whether Professor Fridman’s comments regarding the tort of fraud or deceit are applicable to the ITC’s advertising of Cambria Terrace would involve a legal opinion. The role of the Attorney General as a legal adviser is to provide legal advice to government, not to private individuals.
If you need legal advice, you may consider contacting a lawyer in private practice. In that regard, you may wish to call the Lawyer Referral Service at: 1 800 663-1919. This service, provided by the Canadian Bar Association, can refer you to a lawyer in your area who will meet with you for up to thirty minutes for a fee of twenty-five dollars plus GST and PST. Information about the Lawyer Referral Service is available from the Canadian Bar Association – British Columbia Web site at: www.cba.org/BC/Initiatives/main/lawyer_Referral.aspx.
Thank you for writing.
Yours truly,
Robert G. W. Lapper
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
pc: The Honourable Gordon Campbell
The Honourable Rich Coleman |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=705#705
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Business 2.0
Magazine Subscription
The next real estate boom
In the coming 25 years, the biggest
wave of development since World
War II will turn America's major metro
areas into giant "megapolitans" teeming
with opportunity. Want to get in?
We've found some strategies that are
already paying dividends.
By Paul Kaihla
November, 2005
beginning at p. 84
It sounds to us like a lot of fast, not high-quality development, nor do we note any indication that universal design and accessibility principles are an architectural priority. Will there be at least some affordable housing in these merged city-states, we wonder? Doesn't look like it from our reading. Here's an excerpt from p. 86:
| Quote: | Robert Lang, an urban planning professor at Virginia Tech, and researchers at the Brookings Institution, similar growth scenarios will play out in nine other major metro areas around the country, forming what Lang calls the new "megapolitan" regions of the United States...
As America makes room for 70 million more people during the next two decades, these supercities represent the biggest long-term business opportunities since the end of World War II. In Oregon and Washington, growth trends see Portland and Seattle merging by 2030 into a single megaregion Lang has dubbed Cascadia. In the South, Atlanta and Raleigh-Durham stand at opposite ends of a 400-mile stretch of Interstate 85, but emerging hubs in transportation, banking, and biotech will knit them together. "There's a spectacular phenomenon here that people have ignored," says Amando Carbonell, co-chairman of planning and development at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, Mass. "Everybody is so focused on whether the real estate market is headed up or down, they can't see what's down the road." (emphasis added) |
Oh, we can see it alright. Our problem is that real people with real housing issues - mass building failures and the need for healthy mold-free, affordable and accessible housing - have no voice on municipal planning councils.
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=719#719
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Vancouver Sun
Once proud Canadian daily
reduced in stature by chain ownership
Hot market draws mortgage scams
By Derrick Penner
Nov. 12/05:
| Quote: | Independent mortgage lender Gordon Altman thought he was simply closing another deal last year when he gave an elderly White Rock man a $250,000 mortgage against a $500,000 house he said he planned to sell.
The man and his identification had already been verified by a lawyer who provided legal advice, and by a mortgage broker known to Altman.
It wasn't until Altman checked with the White Rock realtor who was handling the listing that he discovered the man didn't own the house and had fooled them all in a brazen scam known as title fraud, a crime that is becoming more common in B.C.'s hot real estate market. (Opening paragraphs from the front page story continued under Identity Theft at p. A9) |
...and the so-called surge in title fraud is in no way linked to any nsurance bid to sell title insurance, right?
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=722#722
Last edited by editor on Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:07 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
