A Richmond resident tried to force the city to refund him almost $1,200 – after it was forced to chop down his overgrown and unsightly garden while he was out of the country.
Ruiliang Jian filed a complaint with the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), requesting he be refunded the difference between the City of Richmond’s bill of $1,694.90 and his estimate of $501.24.
Jian claimed the city’s costing of the job – which was triggered by a bylaw officer investigation and took 23.67 staff hours, plus a 20 per cent admin fee – was inflated and unfair.
CRT documents indicate that, because of the start of the COVID pandemic, Jian was out of the country for much of 2020 and that a tenant in his home had left in March of that year, “leaving nobody to manage the property.”
Acting on a complaint to the city about Jian’s property becoming unsightly, a bylaw officer investigated and found the home to be in contravention of the city’s Unsightly Premises Regulation, which states that an owner or occupier of a property must not allow the property to become or remain unsightly.
Grass, weeds were waist high
The CRT heard that the grass and weeds on the property, including on the public boulevard outside – which is still the property owner’s responsibility – were at waist height.
Having received no response to a knock at the door, the bylaw officer left a notice on the door, asking for the long grass to be cut and removed by May 22, 2020.
The officer returned on May 27 to see that the grass had not been cut and the notice was still on the door, prompting a letter to be sent to Jian at the property.
The letter demanded the property be cleaned up by June 10 or “necessary actions” would be taken at Jian’s expense.
With no response from Jian, his home was duly cleaned up at the city’s expense and an invoice was sent in August for the total of $1,694.90.
Jian claims it wasn’t until November of that year that he became aware of the invoice and that’s when – although acknowledging the city was within its rights to take action - he began to question the cost.
Homeowner claimed city's bill was 'unreasonable'
Jian paid the full amount but then took the matter to the CRT to request the “unreasonable” difference be refunded.
However, the CRT ruled that Jian’s claim is “not included in the scope of the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction” and, therefore, it must “refuse to resolve a claim that it considers to be not within its jurisdiction.
“Given my decision to refuse to resolve the dispute, the CRT will refund any CRT fees paid to date.”
It’s not known if Jian took the matter any further.
