Date Issued: February 5, 2020

File: SC-2019-007108

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Gold v. Henderson, 2020 BCCRT 143

Between:

CATHARINA GOLD

Applicant

And:

MELISSA HENDERSON

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Catharina Gold, owns a cabin that she rents out. The applicant contracted with the respondent, Melissa Henderson, to manage certain aspects of the cabin rentals on her behalf. The applicant says Ms. Henderson broke the contract. The applicant claims $4,900.00 for breach of contract, including cleaning costs, loss of income from cancelling a rental, and refunds of commissions paid to Ms. Henderson.

2.      Ms. Henderson denies breaking the contract and says she is not responsible for the claimed losses, if any.

3.      The parties are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the tribunal must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

5.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions only. Despite some differences in the parties’ characterization of events, I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

6.      The tribunal may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The tribunal may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform its elf in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

8.      The applicant originally named a second respondent, Doug Allen, in this dispute. However, later all parties agreed Mr. Allen was no longer a party to this action. Given the applicant’s withdrawal of her claims against Mr. Allen, I have amended the style of cause above to show only Ms. Henderson as a named respondent.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent owes the applicant $4,900.00 in damages for breach of contract, including cleaning fees, loss of rental income, and commission refunds.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proving her claim, on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions, but I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

11.   According to the respondent, Ms. Henderson, the applicant’s cabin is part of a 32-cabin strata. The respondent provides rental administration services for some of the cabin owners in the strata.

12.   The parties signed a rental authority agreement in January 2019. The agreement allowed Ms. Henderson to arrange rentals of the applicant’s cabin on her behalf in the summer of 2019. The applicant and respondent disagree about whether the respondent broke the agreement, and the costs associated with the alleged breach.

13.   The stated purpose of the written rental authority agreement was to authorize the respondent to arrange rentals of the applicant’s cabin. The respondent was entitled to a commission of $300 for each rental. The respondent was to deduct the commission from the payments she collected from renters on the applicant’s behalf. The agreement had no provision for refunding commissions after they were collected.

14.   The rental authority agreement required the respondent to provide a cleaning checklist to the renters. The agreement stated that renters were required to wash and replace items, not the respondent. If the renters failed to do this, the applicant’s cleaning staff would correct deficiencies, not the respondent. Any excess charges for cleaning or damage were to be paid out of the renters’ damage deposits or charged to their credit card imprints. However, the agreement did not specify who would collect any extra charges from renters for cleaning or damage. Further, the agreement provided that the applicant, not the respondent, was responsible for any approved costs paid by the respondent to keep the cabin in rentable condition.

15.   The applicant says the respondent also verbally agreed to other responsibilities, including looking after the cabin, looking after the renters, applying charges against renters’ damage deposits for extra cleaning or damage, doing walk-through inspections with renters, and refunding damage deposits to renters. There is no other evidence before me demonstrating that the respondent agreed to these additional verbal terms, and she denies verbally agreeing to additional work. On balance, I find there was no additional verbal agreement, and the contract consists only of the written rental authority agreement. Although the respondent may have performed some additional tasks from time to time, I find she was not required to do so.

16.   I now turn to the circumstances of this dispute. The respondent arranged several rentals of the applicant’s cabin, including for the last full week of July 2019 with a July renter. The respondent collected the full rental price from the July renter before the rental period began, and deducted her $300 commission.

17.   There was no walk-through inspection of the cabin during this rental. Regardless, immediately after the rental period the applicant discovered that it had not been left in a sufficiently clean condition. The applicant informed the respondent, who discussed the cabin’s condition with the July renter and inspected the cabin. After this investigation, the respondent did not believe that an extra charge for cleaning and damage was warranted. The applicant disagreed and said the July renter owed an extra $300. The applicant declined to collect the $300 from the July renter.

18.   The applicant considered the respondent’s refusal to collect the $300 to be a breach of the rental authority agreement. The applicant then terminated the rental authority agreement with the respondent and obtained the $300 directly from the July renter.

19.   The applicant says the respondent broke the agreement by not performing a walk-through inspection with the July renters and failing to charge them $300 for extra cleaning costs. As noted above, I find the respondent did not agree to perform walk-through inspections. Even without a walk-through inspection, the applicant became aware of the cabin’s condition immediately after the July rental. Further, while the evidence suggests the respondent was authorized to collect extra cleaning charges from renters, the rental authority agreement did not require her to do so. In any event, the applicant collected the extra cleaning charge directly from the July renter, so she suffered no loss from the respondent’s refusal to collect. I find the respondent did not break the rental authority agreement by not performing a walk-through inspection and not collecting an extra cleaning charge.

20.   The applicant claims several amounts that she says result from the respondent’s alleged breaches of their rental authority agreement. The applicant’s submitted statement says these amounts total $6,550.00, although she only claims $4,900.00 in this dispute. I find the applicant has abandoned her claim to amounts over $4900.00.

21.   First, the applicant seeks a total of $2,400.00 in cabin cleaning and repair fees following the July rental. As noted above, the respondent is not responsible for any cleaning or repair costs under the rental authority agreement, and there is no evidence that she personally caused any of the alleged damage or uncleanliness. I find she is not liable for those alleged cleaning and repair costs. Even if the respondent had been liable, the applicant has not proven on balance that the applicant owes or actually paid the claimed amounts for cleaning and repair. I dismiss this aspect of the applicant’s claim.

22.   Second, the applicant claims a refund of two $300 commissions for rentals in the month following the July rental. The parties do not dispute that those rentals were fully paid, and the commissions deducted, before the applicant terminated the rental authority agreement. As discussed above, there is no provision for commission refunds in the rental authority agreement, including when a rental is cancelled and its cost refunded. Further, the respondent fulfilled her responsibilities of obtaining rental contracts and full payment from these future renters. The applicant terminated the rental authority agreement before any of the future renters arrived, so the respondent had no additional responsibilities for those rentals under the agreement. I find the $300 commissions retained by the respondent were properly paid, and she owes no refund to the applicant. I dismiss this aspect of the applicant’s claim.

23.   The applicant claims $2,050.00 in lost income for the cancellation of the August 10-17, 2019 cabin rental arranged by the respondent. The respondent says, and the correspondence in evidence confirms, that the applicant rescinded its signed and paid rental contract with the August 10-17, 2019 renter. The applicant then asked the renter to sign a new rental agreement for an additional $300, to cover the commission paid to the respondent. The renter refused the new higher-priced agreement and requested a refund.

24.   The applicant says she told the August 10-17, 2019 renter she would provide a refund after completing litigation against the respondent. There is no evidence that the applicant refunded the renter’s payment, so the applicant has not proven any damages resulted from rescinding the rental agreement. More importantly, the applicant has not provided any compelling reason why the respondent is liable for the applicant rescinding the rental agreement with the renter, or why the respondent should pay the same amount the applicant has already retained from that renter. Even if I had found the applicant broke the rental authority agreement or owed a commission refund, that issue is between the applicant and the respondent, and does not involve the August 10-17, 2019 renter. Given this, I find the respondent was not responsible for the applicant rescinding the August 10-17, 2019 rental agreement, or any resulting losses. I dismiss this aspect of the applicant’s claim.

25.   The applicant also claims $1,800.00 in lost income for August 10-17, 2019 because she did not have time to re-rent the cabin following her rescission of the August 10-17, 2019 rental agreement. As above, I find the respondent was not responsible for the applicant rescinding the August 10-17, 2019 rental agreement, including any resulting failure to re-rent the cabin for that period. I dismiss this claim.

26.   In summary, I conclude the respondent did not break the rental authority agreement and is not responsible for the claimed losses. I dismiss the applicant’s claims for damages and commission refunds.

27.   Under tribunal rules, usually only a successful party’s fees and expenses are paid. I see no reason in this case not to follow this general practice. As the applicant was unsuccessful in this dispute, I dismiss her claim for tribunal fees. No dispute-related expenses were claimed.

ORDER

28.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.