BC loses legal case deciding whether inflatable hot tub is ‘property’ | iNFOnews | Media Pyro

[ad_1]


WORD PICTURE.

Description: pexels.com


November 13, 2022 – 6:58 AM






A BC homeowner has won a legal battle with his strata after they sued him for his inflatable hot tub on his deck.

According to a decision of the Civil Procedure Tribunal on November 10, Maple Ridge strata BCS2331 fined Alejandro Jose Noriega $600 for taking a hot tub on his property.

The ruling said that about a month after Noriega installed the hot spring a complaint was received. The strata will start issuing fines of $200 every seven days if he doesn’t take the hot tub.

Noriega sprays, soaks in the shower and gets pumped, but then files a lawsuit against the apartment that says under its rules it doesn’t have the authority to prevent him from taking a hot shower on his floor. .

At the heart of the case is the idea that the inflatable hot tub is considered a “flat-style property.”

This is not the first time that a layer has been disputed whether it is rich or not. In August, the tribunal sat with the owner of a hot tub. The case cost $22,000 in legal fees.


READ ALSO: BC spends $22,000 on lawyers, loses inflatable hot tub case

The park argued that its rules allowed only “floor-style furniture” on the decks, and no hot tubs were allowed.

The strata said the “common definition” of patio furniture is “furniture such as chairs, tables, chairs or lounges, suitable for use on a patio or deck that will not be damaged exposed to rain, sun and other external factors.”

However, the tribunal said the layer did not say where its “common definition” came from but instead looked to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

“Such definition of furniture … includes necessary, useful, or desirable equipment, such as movable furniture used to furnish a space, such as a room or patio, for occupancy or use,” the ruling said.

The tribunal said that it can be easily moved by one or two people and comes under the category of patio furniture under the park rules.

The layer argued that, although the hot tub is easily moved when it is drained and drained, the hot tub remains in place for at least two months, indicating that it is a permanent fixture.

The tribunal disagreed.

“The number of times a person moves an object does not determine how accurately or easily it is moved,” the tribunal ruled.

The court also argued that Noriega did not obtain a city permit for the hot tub, nor did he submit an engineering study to confirm the patio’s structural integrity or whether its plumbing could handle the heat. watering.

The tribunal said that while the layer’s concerns were valid, there was no evidence to support them.

Noriega said he does not need a city permit for the hot tub.

In the end, the tribunal ordered that the tribunal return the $600 in fines, and there is nothing in the law that prevents Noriega from re-establishing the hot water.

There are also layers on the hook for $225 to cover Noriega’s tribunal fee.


READ ALSO: Vernon man buys $1M house; will be sued for the secret desk



To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 email the editor. You can also send photos, videos or advice to the chat room enter to win a monthly prize.


We welcome your comments and thoughts on our content but fair play. We will not filter or delete content that does not contain off-topic content or links, inappropriate content, false content, spam or fake content. If you have any concerns about what you see in the comments, email the editor at the link above.

Information from © iNFOnews, 2022

iNFOnews

[ad_2]

Source link

Avatar photo

About the author

Media Pyro is a site giving interesting facts about acer brand products. We also Provide information about your online Privacy Laws.

This will close in 10 seconds