Date Issued: October 27, 2021

File: SC-2021-003282

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Benson v. Parsons, 2021 BCCRT 1141

Between:

CHELSEA BENSON

Applicant

And:

KATELIN PARSONS

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the furniture in a rented room. The applicant, Chelsea Benson, rented a room in a shared house. Ms. Benson then moved to a different city. Ms. Benson advertised the room for rent, and the respondent, Katelin Parsons, responded and moved in. Ms. Benson says that the parties agreed that Ms. Parsons could use furniture that Ms. Benson left behind in the room until she picked it up at a later date. Ms. Benson says that despite her demands, Ms. Parsons has not allowed her to pick up the furniture or paid for it. Ms. Benson claims $2,000 for bedroom furniture and travel costs, missed work, and hotels for an unsuccessful trip to pick up the furniture. Ms. Benson also claims an additional $1,000 for missed work and travel costs for that same trip.

2.      Ms. Parsons says the rental was for a furnished room, and Ms. Benson confirmed that she was not taking any of the disputed furniture. Ms. Parsons denies that she agreed Ms. Benson could pick up the furniture before the end of the room rental, and says Ms. Benson abandoned it, so Ms. Parsons owes nothing and does not have to return it.

3.      The parties are each self-represented in this dispute.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Some of the evidence in this dispute amounts to a “she said, she said” scenario. The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly where there is conflict, cannot be determined solely by the test of whose personal demeanour in a courtroom or tribunal proceeding appears to be the most truthful. The assessment of what is the most likely account depends on its harmony with the rest of the evidence. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. I also note that in Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, at paragraphs 32 to 38, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized the CRT’s process and found that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is an issue.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT 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 CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

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

ISSUES

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did Ms. Benson abandon her furniture, or could she demand its return or payment for it at some point?

b.    Is Ms. Parsons responsible for the costs of travel, accommodation, and missed work for Ms. Benson’s unsuccessful trip to retrieve the furniture?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Ms. Benson must prove her claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

Did the parties agree that Ms. Benson could demand the furniture’s return or payment for it?

10.   Ms. Benson moved out of the rented room in the shared house in December 2020. It is undisputed that while Ms. Benson lived in that room, she owned the mattress, dresser, nightstand, and television located there. Ms. Benson left those items behind when she moved out.

11.   Although she was not the landlord, Ms. Benson advertised the room for rent just before she moved out. I infer that she likely accepted responsibility for finding a replacement tenant for the room. The undisputed online advertisement for the room contained a photo showing a bed and mattress, dresser, nightstand, and television in a bedroom. The advertisement said the room for rent was the master bedroom of the house, and that “all furniture is staying in the room so you don’t need anything besides your own belongings.” On the face of it, I find that Ms. Benson’s advertisement was for a furnished room where all furnishings, including the furnishings shown in the photo, would be available during the rental. No rental end date was specified, and the advertisement did not say what would happen to the furniture after the room rental.

12.   Ms. Benson says that at the time Ms. Parsons rented the room in late 2020, the parties verbally agreed that Ms. Parsons could temporarily use the room’s furniture for an unspecified length of time, and that Ms. Benson would pick it up shortly before or during the following summer. Ms. Benson emailed Ms. Parsons on April 1, 2021 that she would pick up the furniture on April 23, 2021, unless Ms. Parsons paid her $300 for it. Ms. Parsons refused, and said that neither she nor her roommates permitted Ms. Benson to enter onto the house property.

13.   Ms. Parsons says there was no agreement to return the furniture. Ms. Parsons says that when she rented the room, Ms. Benson said she would not be needing the furniture at her new accommodations. Ms. Parsons says that she rented the room specifically because it was furnished, and she never would have agreed to rent it without furnishings. She also says that by confirming the furniture would be available for use with the room rental, Ms. Benson essentially abandoned the furniture. I find the first evidence that Ms. Benson demanded the furniture back from Ms. Parsons was an April 1, 2021 email, nearly 4 months after Ms. Parsons first rented the room.

14.   Agreements do not have to be in writing, or signed, to be enforceable contracts. However, proving the existence of an unwritten contract can be difficult. Ms. Benson says that she made a mistake by not having the alleged agreement for the furniture’s return in writing, and that she relied on her verbal communications with Ms. Parsons.

15.   Other than Ms. Benson’s submissions, which I find are entirely unsupported by other evidence, nothing before me shows that the parties agreed Ms. Benson could repossess the furniture before the end of Ms. Parsons’ room rental, or demand payment from Ms. Parsons for it. As noted, Ms. Parsons says there was no such agreement, and that Ms. Benson agreed to leave the furniture for her use. However, unlike Ms. Benson’s version of events, Ms. Parsons’ version is supported by Ms. Benson’s undisputed room advertisement, which clearly stated that “all furniture is staying in the room.” So, given that it is supported by evidence from around the time of the room rental, I prefer Ms. Parsons’ account of the parties’ furniture arrangement. I find that Ms. Benson agreed, either verbally or by implication, to leave the furniture for the duration of Ms. Parsons’ rental, in return for Ms. Parsons agreeing to rent the room. I find the parties did not come to an agreement about what would happen to the furniture after the room rental.

16.   Given that the parties agreed Ms. Parsons was entitled to use the furniture in return for renting the room advertised by Ms. Benson, I find that Ms. Parsons does not owe Ms. Benson anything further for using the furniture during the rental period.

17.   As noted, there was no agreement about what would happen to the furniture after the room rental. I find that under the parties’ verbal agreement, Ms. Parsons became what is known in law as a “bailee” of the furniture, meaning a person who stores or possesses goods for another person. I find that as a bailee, Ms. Parsons would be required to care for the furniture and relinquish it at the end of the room rental. However, Ms. Benson says, “I do not want the items back at this point.”

18.   Given that Ms. Parsons did not agree to purchase the furniture from Ms. Benson, Ms. Benson was not yet entitled to repossess it in April 2021 when she demanded its return, and Ms. Benson no longer seeks its return, I find Ms. Benson has now effectively abandoned it. This means she has given up any rights in the furniture (see Jackson v. Honey, 2007 BCSC 1869 at paragraphs 29 and 30). I make no findings about who owns the furniture now, other than noting Ms. Benson has given up her ownership.

19.   Having weighed the evidence, I find that Ms. Benson has not proven that Ms. Parsons must pay anything for the mattress, television, dresser, and nightstand.

Is Ms. Parsons responsible for Ms. Benson’s costs of travel, accommodation, and missed work?

20.   In early April 2021, Ms. Benson notified Ms. Parsons that unless she paid $300 for the bedroom furniture, Ms. Benson would travel to the house and pick it up on April 23, 2021. I find that Ms. Parsons told Ms. Benson several times before April 23, 2021 that she would not be returning the furniture on that date and that Ms. Benson was not allowed on the house property.

21.   Despite Ms. Parsons’ warnings, Ms. Benson says that she and a friend traveled to the city where the house is located. Ms. Benson says that because she was not permitted to retrieve the furniture, she made a police complaint while in that city. Ms. Parsons questions whether Ms. Benson actually made this trip, because she did not actually see Ms. Benson and the travel expense receipts in evidence seem to be inaccurate. Given the outcome of my decision below, nothing turns on this.

22.   Ms. Benson says that because Ms. Parsons did not agree to provide the furniture, Ms. Parsons is responsible for her travel costs and missed work. Ms. Benson claims a total of $3,000 for the bedroom furniture, travel costs, and missed work, but did not provide a complete breakdown of that amount. In her submissions, Ms. Benson claims $300 for gas costs, $150 for a hotel, and $500 in missed work. She provided payment card statement excerpts showing $153.85 in gas payments and $384.75 in food payments. She also submitted a $119.31 hotel receipt, but no receipts or other evidence about her income and whether she missed work around April 23, 2021. I find the evidence fails to prove Ms. Benson missed any work.

23.   I found above that Ms. Parsons was not required to let Ms. Benson retrieve the furniture in April 2021, or to purchase it. Ms. Benson undertook the trip despite Ms. Parsons’ clear warnings that it would not result in any furniture retrieval or payment. I find Ms. Benson chose to travel regardless. So, I find that Ms. Parsons is not responsible for any of Ms. Benson’s travel expenses or for the unproven work she missed during the trip.

24.   I dismiss Ms. Benson’s claims.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

25.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I find Ms. Benson was unsuccessful in her claims, and that Ms. Parsons paid no CRT fees. Neither party claimed CRT dispute-related expenses. So, I order no reimbursements.

ORDER

26.   I dismiss Ms. Benson’s claims, and this dispute.