Rolling Chassis In Apartment | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Rolling Chassis In Apartment

The cat is out of the bag now, you can't hide/box the parts now. Anyway you didn't know you did anything wrong before and still now. We know you're a good guy & you know you are but all your other neighbours may not. They may think it can cause fire or toxic fume when you're working on it...I know I know you won't work on it. The load balance thing is one reason I hear you about your buddies weighing 300lb but they don't stay in one spot and not moving for months I know I know you'll move the parts around I hear you but you'll not win here Man. If I were you I'd talk to her, ask her to give you a couple of weeks to get rid off the parts sell them off on Kijiji and you gotta sell them till they sold.

How much do you really want these parts? How much can you spend each month to store them $100? Maybe someone here can help you store em for abit of money, storage unit is double or triple that amount. This hobby is expensive if you can't spend $100/month to store the parts...How are you going to finish this project or you're not planning to then sell em off. Start the project again when you have the mean to do it.
 
If you really want to stay in the apt, tell her you've sold the bike and the person is coming next week to haul it off. Then they reschedule for another week that buys you 2 weeks. You've seen really good deal on Kijiji from time to time...now you know
 
Ok going back and seeing that you NOW state, that there is also a motor in the unit. THAT would have been a pertinent piece of info, to include in your original post, not to mention, that there was also a gas can present. You "CLAIM" that there is no oil or gas in the engine. Has it ever been a running motor, or is it a brand new unit, if it has been run, unless it was completely torn apart, and everything wiped down, then there IS some residual oil in it.

Either way, trying to convince the landlord, and then the LTB otherwise, will be an EXTREMELY difficult uphill battle. So if I removed the engine from my car, should I too expect the land lord to be ok, if I were to move it and the motor, (albeit they are separated), into my unit?

I was squarely on your side, until you began to give more of the story. Now I am convinced that the land lord is perfectly within their rights. Does that mean that they can evict you? Not initially, the LTB would require some form of notice, that you MUST remove the vehicle and ALL parts out of your unit. If at that point, you fail to do so, you are likely to find yourself in front of a VERY unfriendly LTB.

The LTB, as would most, view this as a vehicle, albeit in some form of disassembly. The board would no doubt agree, that at any point, you could easily reassemble it, within your unit.

At this point, the land lord is VERY unlikely to want to work with you on a suitable resolution. Had you approached them first and made a request to purchase one of those "bike lockers" which can be attached to the outside oif a building then you could have had some form of "secure" storage, for your vehicle.

The land lord, is really at this point coming from a position of power, so it is NOT in their interest to now work with you.

The LTB is also, VERY likely to rule against you, deeming having a vehicle, (both required major parts, rolling chassis, and a motor), represents a danger, to the other tenants, and also place the land lord with an unacceptable level of liability, if something were to happen.

I am sorry, but I agree, with others, get the chassis, the motor, and ANY other parts out of your unit, immediately. take photos of them in their new spot, and approach the land lord, with contrition, and advise them that you are NOW in full compliance, and that at NO point in the future, will those items make their way back into your unit.
 
Iceman said:
To each their own but vehicles don't belong in the house. If you own the house it's your call. If I'm a landlord I dont want people using my property as a garage.

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
I definitely, would NOT recommend following some of the "advice" provided here, of "threatening to visit her other properties, or that she is harassing you, and your going to sue"

Firstly, it is a bad idea to threaten, anything your unwilling/unable to follow through on. Going to small claims court, (for the lawsuit), will run you about $200 just to file, then you have to have her served and file that with the court etc. Also, small claims courts are booked solid, and you would be looking at LEAST 2 years to get to a settlement conference. If it isn't resolved there another couple of years, to go to the trial stage. The LTB, although SLOW, will be LONG finished with your before you get to that point. That is assuming you win in small claims, (which is at best a crap shoot, for something like this)

As for "visiting her other properties" that will achieve nothing, Unless your an engineer, or a building inspector, or bylaw. You have NO authority, to be on those premises, they can have you removed and banned from going back onto the properties. But that is a moot point, if the landlord is somewhat intelligent, the SECOND, you mention doing that, she will provide you with notice, (a written email would suffice), advising you that you are NOT permitted to enter ANY of her properties. If you ignore that, and go, she can simply call police and have you charged with trespassing, (that would NOT fly at the LTB, either). They would more than likely not even agree to hear your side and order the eviction.
 
Whats in the rental agreement? What does the law say about storing automotive or motorcycle parts in a rented space? Those are the only things that matter here.

It is very difficult to evict a tenant who is actually paying rent and not bothering anyone. LTB tends to side with the tenant.
I lived in a house a few years back at York Uni where the landlord (who didnt live there) decided he didnt give a **** that two of the tenants, who werent students, would blast music until all hours of the morning. One of the other tenants called the police a couple of times and ended up going to the LTB where they forced the landlord to pay her back a years worth of rent.
 
GreyGhost said:
And this is why I will not be a residential landlord. I can see both sides of this mess and there are no good answers.
On the rent increases, this is why controlled rent increases are a mess. As time passes, landlords have more and more incentive to get out old tenants as the rents get further and further from market rates. Yes, removing rent controls mean some people need to move to a cheaper area, but sadly that's life. Even if I wanted to buy a house downtown, I can't afford it and that's nobodies problem but mine.

On the other side, so many landlords have been f'd over by scumbag tenants it's unbelievable. Privacy laws protecting people that perpetually don't pay rent is crazy. A landlord should be able to file with LTB and if tenant is found to be a problem, they should be listed on a database for future landlords to search (to limit abuse, maybe $20 a name to search and you need to list the new property address?).
Click to expand...
The difference is you CANT buy a house downtown, its not a reasonable expectation in 2019.
Uprooting people who have lived in buildings and areas for years. Moving their kids out of schools etc is unreasonable.
I have no sympathy for greedy property "investors". Property values have skyrocketed over the last several years yet they still want to force people out so they can make even more. Property investors, developers, RE agents, builders... greedy scum.

I have no problem with having a database to search, as long as landlords are punished also.
 
Evoex said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not. It's my opinion and therefore valid. I did mention "to each their own", if you want to store vehicles in the house that really is your business.

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk
 
K20EF8 said:
Whats in the rental agreement? What does the law say about storing automotive or motorcycle parts in a rented space? Those are the only things that matter here.....
Click to expand...

The lease won't say anything about storing parts.
The lease won't say anything about herding bearded yaks in the third bedroom, but I don't think that would be allowed either.

When you rent a residence you are allowed regular/usual usage (I'm sure there is a Latin legal term for that but I don't speak Latin).
Storing vehicles in a residence is not regular or usual.
If there was a garage, and the vehicle was in the garage, this would all be different, not necessarily "ALLOWED" but different.
 
K20EF8 said:
The difference is you CANT buy a house downtown, its not a reasonable expectation in 2019.
Uprooting people who have lived in buildings and areas for years. Moving their kids out of schools etc is unreasonable.
I have no sympathy for greedy property "investors". Property values have skyrocketed over the last several years yet they still want to force people out so they can make even more. Property investors, developers, RE agents, builders... greedy scum.

I have no problem with having a database to search, as long as landlords are punished also.
Click to expand...
Why can't you buy a house downtown? I don't buy that for a second. When I entered the housing market 35 years ago, I made $10K/year and the cheapest dump in a rough hood was $65K. My wife and I ate Kraft dinner for 3 years to save $10K for a down payment - that was 15% of our income for a little over 3 years. We paid 14% interest on a $60K mortgage which cost $700/mo -- or about 40% of our gross income... it was hard.

That house would be about $650K today. To get into that house a couple would need to save about $32K for a down payment. Using comparable incomes today of $56K/person that would require saving less than 10% of their gross income for 3 years. They would be strapped with a $630K mortgage that cost $2900/mo -- or about 32% of that couple's income.

Please don't whine that it's harder today to own a house today than it was 35 years ago... it's not.
 
Last edited:
K20EF8 said:
The difference is you CANT buy a house downtown, its not a reasonable expectation in 2019.
Uprooting people who have lived in buildings and areas for years. Moving their kids out of schools etc is unreasonable.
I have no sympathy for greedy property "investors". Property values have skyrocketed over the last several years yet they still want to force people out so they can make even more. Property investors, developers, RE agents, builders... greedy scum.

I have no problem with having a database to search, as long as landlords are punished also.
Click to expand...
The problem with your logic of landlord scum is what if the landlord hasn't owned the building for 50 years? To keep things simple, assume they bought a single unit rental for 800,000 (which seems reasonable now for Toronto outside of downtown core). Mortgage and property tax would be ~3,500 a month. What's current market rate for that now, $2200 plus utilities? So the landlord is already having to pay $1,300 a month ignoring any maintenance. If the tenant were substantially below market rent, it's even worse. Even if they have owned the property for 50 years, being able to charge market rent inflates the value of their property and gives them a better return on their investment. Calling people scum for trying to maximize their returns is not well thought through. That argument could be equally applied to almost any situation (eg. someone has enough money to afford motorbike parts so they are scum for not selling everything and helping the hungry).

Realistically for rental to work for both landlords and tenants, the value of the property needs to be drastically lower. That can either be accomplished through reduced size, higher density or land that is not included in the sale. I think the last one is the most promising. Say a 50 year land lease from the City, the price of dwellings will be substantially lower as the land is much of the price (and most of the price as density drops). Everyone knows about the 50 year lease (occupying owners, landlords and tenants). When the 50 years is up, the city either decides that the development is still effectively serving a need and renegotiates a lease or bulldozes it and rebuilds at a higher density. Just check out the price of cottages on leased land vs owned land. There is a dramatic difference. As a tenant, you don't care if the landlord owns the land. As the landlord, you could potentially have the renter paying all expenses vs you having to throw in a substantial amount every month.
 
FLSTC said:
The story started off as a rolling chassis, then it turns out there was a gas can there (now removed) and the engine is also sitting there on a separate piece of wood.

Should've sweet-talked the landlady before bringing the bike in.

If you like the price and location, you should respect the owner and stop using your apartment as a garage.
Click to expand...

This.

You have an engine an engine on a piece of plywood. I'd be ****** to if you were my tenant.
 
GreyGhost said:
The problem with your logic of landlord scum is what if the landlord hasn't owned the building for 50 years? To keep things simple, assume they bought a single unit rental for 800,000 (which seems reasonable now for Toronto outside of downtown core). Mortgage and property tax would be ~3,500 a month. What's current market rate for that now, $2200 plus utilities? So the landlord is already having to pay $1,300 a month ignoring any maintenance. If the tenant were substantially below market rent, it's even worse. Even if they have owned the property for 50 years, being able to charge market rent inflates the value of their property and gives them a better return on their investment. Calling people scum for trying to maximize their returns is not well thought through. That argument could be equally applied to almost any situation (eg. someone has enough money to afford motorbike parts so they are scum for not selling everything and helping the hungry).

Realistically for rental to work for both landlords and tenants, the value of the property needs to be drastically lower. That can either be accomplished through reduced size, higher density or land that is not included in the sale. I think the last one is the most promising. Say a 50 year land lease from the City, the price of dwellings will be substantially lower as the land is much of the price (and most of the price as density drops). Everyone knows about the 50 year lease (occupying owners, landlords and tenants). When the 50 years is up, the city either decides that the development is still effectively serving a need and renegotiates a lease or bulldozes it and rebuilds at a higher density. Just check out the price of cottages on leased land vs owned land. There is a dramatic difference. As a tenant, you don't care if the landlord owns the land. As the landlord, you could potentially have the renter paying all expenses vs you having to throw in a substantial amount every month.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Toronto Island community?
 
Baggsy said:
You mean like the Toronto Island community?
Click to expand...
Something like that, but much less desirable land. It doesn't have to be a toxic swamp, just equivalent to other residential developments. Also probably not a 99 year lease. I think that just makes a mess. Maybe even 50 years is too long and it should be something like you can only own a unit for 25 years and then it must be sold on the free market? How long is the waiting list for the island and how many actual turn over on the free market yearly? That system doesn't work well. It's like getting a parliament hill canada flag. Realistically, if you sign up your unborn great-grandchildren they may get one.

Another thought is maybe things work better with automatic 20 year lease resets? Something like you pay your original rate plus the ~2% yearly increases but at 20 years, the rate resets to current market rate. That gives most people time to get their kids through school without moving but avoids a perpetual rent disparity? Also, tenants know when the clock reset is coming so they are able to make plans instead of the current mess of renovictions. Dwelling prices can factor in this clock so a bunch of below market tenants don't necessarily get kicked prior to a sale.
 
GreyGhost said:
The problem with your logic of landlord scum is what if the landlord hasn't owned the building for 50 years? To keep things simple, assume they bought a single unit rental for 800,000 (which seems reasonable now for Toronto outside of downtown core). Mortgage and property tax would be ~3,500 a month. What's current market rate for that now, $2200 plus utilities? So the landlord is already having to pay $1,300 a month ignoring any maintenance. If the tenant were substantially below market rent, it's even worse. Even if they have owned the property for 50 years, being able to charge market rent inflates the value of their property and gives them a better return on their investment. Calling people scum for trying to maximize their returns is not well thought through. That argument could be equally applied to almost any situation (eg. someone has enough money to afford motorbike parts so they are scum for not selling everything and helping the hungry).

Realistically for rental to work for both landlords and tenants, the value of the property needs to be drastically lower. That can either be accomplished through reduced size, higher density or land that is not included in the sale. I think the last one is the most promising. Say a 50 year land lease from the City, the price of dwellings will be substantially lower as the land is much of the price (and most of the price as density drops). Everyone knows about the 50 year lease (occupying owners, landlords and tenants). When the 50 years is up, the city either decides that the development is still effectively serving a need and renegotiates a lease or bulldozes it and rebuilds at a higher density. Just check out the price of cottages on leased land vs owned land. There is a dramatic difference. As a tenant, you don't care if the landlord owns the land. As the landlord, you could potentially have the renter paying all expenses vs you having to throw in a substantial amount every month.
Click to expand...
Or simply let the free market work, let rents float to where there is reasonable vacancy rates and prices are set by the rules of supply and demand.

Despite what the many Toronto socialists say, our bourgeois are pretty good at making sure the proletariat is not uncomfortable. Nobody wants a a revolution -- that's just good business.
 
FLSTC said:
The story started off as a rolling chassis, then it turns out there was a gas can there (now removed) and the engine is also sitting there on a separate piece of wood.

Should've sweet-talked the landlady before bringing the bike in.

If you like the price and location, you should respect the owner and stop using your apartment as a garage.
Click to expand...
100% this. Can't imagine any landlord who would want to intentionally pick a fight with a good tenant. Be respectful and landlords typically accomodate reasonable requests. It's becoming a pain to find decent tenants these days.
 
Mad Mike said:
Or simply let the free market work, let rents float to where there is reasonable vacancy rates and prices are set by the rules of supply and demand.

Despite what the many Toronto socialists say, our bourgeois are pretty good at making sure the proletariat is not uncomfortable. Nobody wants a a revolution -- that's just good business.
Click to expand...
So pull rent control and let everything float? I'm not against that in principle, but the old fixed-income neighbour would have had to move to peterborough at least a decade ago. Maybe that's the right answer. I can't imagine any government surviving the ensuing fallout from cancelling rent control though.
 
sburns said:
The space is desinated as a living space, not storage, not parking.
Click to expand...
Is it?

There are a lot of feelings in this thread. I understand why people wouldn't want this, but am not convinced that just because it is unwanted means it can't happen. You are renting someone space. Unless you clearly defined in the lease what they can or can't do (obviously with the overrider of what is legal), then the landlord needs to learn and tighten up their leases, not throw a hissy fit.

As far as living vs storage, I'm not sure that is ever a winnable argument. Most peoples residences are a combination of the two, drawing a hard line and saying something is unacceptable is a difficult fight to win. In this case, the OP has something that is lighter and less flammable than a loaded china cabinet sitting in his dining room. Any bitching that it doesn't belong is just that. If you want to control everything that happens in your property, don't rent it to others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom