These would be the fourth and fifth Order to Comply written by Property Standards against 97-99 East Ave S, as a result of three complaints by me.
That brings the total to 20 days of entry on 9 separate Notices of Entry, and the repairs aren’t even close to finished.
There have been 5 hearings at the LTB, and three visits from HPS.
So far, this disagreement with our landlord had used up 3.1 hours of hearing time at the LTB, in 2 hearings, one by telephone, one in person (counting the Case Management Hearing as a hearing). It has also resulted in one response by HPS to a complaint (by the tenants). I’ll keep a running tally.
Finally, we got our day in court (or so we thought at the time). This was a merits hearing for SOT-77864-17, the T2 Application About Tenant Rights that I’d filed in early January 2017 at the advice of a lawyer from the Hamilton Legal Clinic.
By February 24, 2017, after 12 days of entry by the landlord and/or his agents (not counting two meetings), the repairs completed are:
repairing the toilet (1 hour)
Replacing two interior doors (6 hours)
Installing locking mechanisms on nine windows (4.5 hours)
Weather stripping around the front door (2 hours)
Repairing the front door lock and self closure (2 hours)
Replacing an electric stove (1 hour)
Installing lifts on six windows (1.5 hours)
Foyer light repaired (2 hours, and only because Agostino had to re-wire the light fixture through the building meter, rather than Richard’s meter)
Richard Pollington’s behavior becomes increasingly antagonistic and hostile.
I started this blog both to document the difficulties a tenant faces trying to enforce the law. It had become very clear to me over the previous decade that there were some fundamental inequities in the landlord tenant relationship (to put it mildly) in downtown Hamilton.
Along the way I’ve some to a few conclusions about the effectiveness of the Landlord and Tenant Board (both as an adjudicative body and as an effective means for a tenant to enforce rights under the law) the effectiveness of Municipal Law Enforcement at curbing landlord misbehavior, the contributions made to the current housing crisis in Hamilton by the ineffectiveness of the LTB and MLE, and the ongoing gong-show (shitshow? bullying douchebaggery? neo-facist sellouts? It’s hard to find the right label…) that passes for city government in Hamilton.
At the end of November 2016, after being ignored by our landlord for so long, my roomate and I decided the best approach was to file a T6 application with the Landlord and Tenant Board and to make a complaint to Property Standards in Hamilton. In the first two weeks of December, 2016 the apartment was cold and not properly heated.
I delivered a copy of our disclosure to Richard Pollington, our landlords’ agent. Richard was openly hostile and derogatory, and one of his roomates Larry Norman (also a caretaker of our landlords’ building) advised me to “throw it in the garbage because you’re being evicted anyway”. This was the beginning of our landlord’s attempts to make the necessary steps in an LTB application as legally and personally hazardous and unpleasant as possible.
So far, this disagreement with our landlord has resulted in five responses by HPS to a complaint (two by the tenants, two by our landlord and his agents, and one by a family member of our landlord’s agent Richard Pollington). I’ll keep a running tally.
That makes 24 days of entry on 10 Notices of Entry since this began.
To this point there have been at least sixteen complaints to police (at least 9 from our landlord and his crew) resulting in 14 responses, and charges being laid in two cases (against Jeremy Stamper). The tally is at 19 hours 0 minutes of hearing time at the LTB, in 15 hearings, two by telephone, thirteen in person (counting the Case Management Hearing and mediation session of May 19, 2017 as hearings). It has also used up 9 hours and 51 minutes of a mediator’s time. On the criminal side, it has used up whatever time the pre-enquete hearing used when process was issued on Pollington’s private complaint, and two short appearances. Call it three hearings, 60 minutes of a judge’s time.