Jump to content

      














BUILT
Danbrook One
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 2762-2768 Claude Road
Municipality: Langford
Region: Westshore
Storeys: 11
Danbrook One is an 11-storey, 90-unit residential complex with ground floor commercial space in the 2700-block... (view full profile)
Learn more about Danbrook One on Citified.ca
Photo

[Langford] Danbrook One | 11-storeys | Rentals, commercial | Built - completed in 2019


  • Please log in to reply
240 replies to this topic

#201 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,747 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 01:56 PM

 

...should have given them a notice to vacate when the problems first arose...

 

What were the problems? Are there visible signs of structural issues?



#202 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 05:09 PM

I wondered what would happen if a tenant refused to leave but I think the RCMP would stake you out and wait until you left for work and seal the building front door.


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#203 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 17 January 2020 - 09:31 AM

I think the time has come for a class action lawsuit against the building owner and Langford.   The tenants should have zero loses and be compensated for their time to move.   I think they should sue for the return of all their rent because the owners should not be allowed to keep any money from renting a defective building



#204 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 13,652 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 09:39 AM

What were the problems? Are there visible signs of structural issues?

 

The 400 temporary posts they installed are pretty visible!



#205 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 09:40 AM

^Then the current owner should sue the original owners/builders as they did their due diligence bought a brand new fully inspected and approved building that turned out to be uninhabitable.

 

CBC said it was a problem with the first and second floor supports. Still don't know if this manifests itself into visible damage, ie: cracks.


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#206 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 13,652 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 09:42 AM

I think the time has come for a class action lawsuit against the building owner and Langford.   The tenants should have zero loses and be compensated for their time to move.   I think they should sue for the return of all their rent because the owners should not be allowed to keep any money from renting a defective building

 

Stu Young has been on CFAX twice now in the past week and stated that there will be lawsuits and the City will be named (although he qualified the second part by saying that the City always gets sued).

 

If I was betting on this I would say that Danbrook One is going to sit as is for years. I can't see anyone paying to fix the problems until liability has been established in the courts. 

 

The obvious question is what other buildings did this engineer design and are they being investigated as well?


  • Rob Randall and Victoria Watcher like this

#207 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,747 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 10:35 AM

 

The 400 temporary posts they installed are pretty visible!

 

That's exactly my point. Any actual visible issues? Tape across the door doesn't count.


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#208 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,747 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 10:35 AM

You'd think if the situation was critically severe there would be photos of cracks or something.


  • Rob Randall likes this

#209 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 13,404 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 10:53 AM

I think the time has come for a class action lawsuit against the building owner and Langford.   The tenants should have zero loses and be compensated for their time to move.   I think they should sue for the return of all their rent because the owners should not be allowed to keep any money from renting a defective building

 

the class is way too small with much too low a payout for any legal firm to take this on.



#210 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,747 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 10:56 AM

For example, here's a December 2018 story from Australia:

 

 

The developer of a Sydney high-rise building which had to be evacuated on Christmas Eve says it has been “stunned” by structural defects which have led to some residents being barred from their homes.

Emergency services were called to the Opal Tower at Sydney Olympic Park on Monday after those living in the recently completed building heard and saw cracking in a wall throughout the morning.

 

And now looking back on the building's issues in December 2019:

 

 

Opal Tower residents have reflected on a tough year, as the last apartment was returned to its owner just before Christmas.

“I didn’t feel anything but some people on the lower levels said they felt movements, like a minor earth tremor,” he said. “I can imagine it would have been quite unnerving.”

It later emerged that large cracks had been discovered on level 10, but this would only be the beginning.

Most residents were allowed to return home on Christmas Day but were evacuated again two days later when more cracks were discovered on level 4. Damage was also found on level 16.
 

Residents stayed in hotels and other temporary accommodation for weeks until an interim report released by the NSW Government suggested it was safe for them to return.

The staggering cost of housing residents was first revealed in court documents lodged this month in the NSW Supreme Court that suggested more than $10 million was spent.

Icon released a further statement on December 18 that said it had spent more than $11 million in relocation expenses, covering hotels, rental and lease costs, security, pet accommodation, removalists, furniture storage, insurance and transport.
 

“For most of us, our lives have returned to normal.”

In particular, Tom is looking forward to hosting his first new year’s eve at the apartment and taking advantage of his stunning city views, something he missed out on last year.

“I love living here,” he said. “It’s a great precinct with restaurants and I have a stunning outlook to the city. It’s breathtaking and it’s a beautiful building.

 

 


Edited by aastra, 17 January 2020 - 10:57 AM.

  • Rob Randall likes this

#211 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 13,652 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 11:30 AM

the class is way too small with much too low a payout for any legal firm to take this on.

 

Don't kid yourself, lots of firms in Langford would be happy to. They spend a couple of hours doing up the writ and then settle for their 30% of the take.


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#212 snub

snub

    Reflecting

  • Member
  • 426 posts

Posted 22 January 2020 - 08:53 PM

Remaining Danbrook One tenants ordered to vacate immediately

Property management company offering each unit $1,000 in ‘compassionate assistance’

 

 

Tenants of Langford’s Danbrook One building have been told to vacate the premises immediately, as stated in a letter from the building’s owner.

On Jan. 16, Centurion Property Associates Inc., Danbrook One property management, released a letter to residents saying their contract with the building owner has been frustrated as of Dec. 20 – meaning the contract is incapable of being carried out due to an unforeseen event or events and without fault of either party. Citing laws of the Residential Tenancy Act and Frustrated Contract Act, Centurion said both parties involved in the contract are relieved from fulfilling their obligations to it.

“Therefore, your tenancy has ceased, and you are required to vacate the unit,” the letter said.

 

 

https://www.goldstre...te-immediately/



#213 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 23 January 2020 - 08:25 AM

That is all they are offering?!?!?!???  I think they should at a minimum return all the rent that was paid for a building people could not live in, 100% of all costs related to moving in and moving out, and then $1,000 as a bonus.  Anything else is bullshit.  The tenants did nothing wrong, they should not be one cent out of pocket


Edited by Bernard, 23 January 2020 - 08:25 AM.


#214 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 56,158 posts

Posted 23 January 2020 - 08:28 AM

There are thousands of people currently living in illegal suites in our region that are not up to code and, well, illegal.

 

And in most cases the landlords know the suites are not up to code and illegal.

 

In this case the building owner did not know there was an issue. The tenants were also not in any actual danger.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#215 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 23 January 2020 - 08:56 AM

The state and condition of the building is a responsibility of the owner.  This is part of the risk of being in business.   Risk means costs.

 

As to illegal suites, a tenant is in their rights not to pay the rent until the suite is made illegal.  The only recourse the landlord has is declare the space unfit for human habitation and the end the tenancy but they can not claim any rent that has not been paid.    The landlord would also not be able to rent out the illegal suite again until it is legal and their would be a notice on their title that the house has not been permitted and this has to be disclosed if the house goes up for sale.



#216 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 56,158 posts

Posted 23 January 2020 - 09:01 AM

The state and condition of the building is a responsibility of the owner.  This is part of the risk of being in business.   Risk means costs.

 

As to illegal suites, a tenant is in their rights not to pay the rent until the suite is made illegal.  The only recourse the landlord has is declare the space unfit for human habitation and the end the tenancy but they can not claim any rent that has not been paid.    The landlord would also not be able to rent out the illegal suite again until it is legal and their would be a notice on their title that the house has not been permitted and this has to be disclosed if the house goes up for sale.

 

You mean, until the suite is made legal?

 

And what you describe above is what happened here. The building was deemed unfit for habitation, and tenants were not required to pay rent from that point forward. Anyone who missed prior rent payments got lucky, I guess.

 

The whole illegal suite thing is just a bunch of bureaucracy. Nobody cares at City Hall unless a tenant files a complaint. And if they file a complaint and the space is deemed uninhabitable, they need to move.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#217 jasmineshinga

jasmineshinga
  • Member
  • 289 posts

Posted 30 January 2020 - 10:31 AM

Sorensen website is back up, with all references to Danbrook One removed... conveniently.


~ Jasmine ~


#218 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 13,404 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 10:34 AM

building management says some tenants remain.



#219 snub

snub

    Reflecting

  • Member
  • 426 posts

Posted 21 February 2020 - 09:54 PM

Update:

 

 

Tenants defy call to leave unsafe tower in Langford
Roxanne Egan-Elliott / Times Colonist

February 21, 2020 06:00 AM

 

 

https://www.timescol...ford-1.24081024

 

 
 


#220 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,419 posts

Posted 26 February 2020 - 07:11 PM

Will be almost impossible to fix this tower,   Very likely to be demolished.   Great case study in engineering and professional ethics for future students 



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users