Ad
HomeBuisnessUnlicensed BC property manager fined $100,000: BCFSA Pi News

Unlicensed BC property manager fined $100,000: BCFSA Pi News

Ad

Pi News –

Ad

BC’s real estate regulator has ordered an unlicensed property manager to pay a $100,000 fine and more than $25,000 in enforcement costs for “gross disregard for the regulatory regime.”

The BC Financial Services Authority made a decision on sanctions in the case of Glenn Richard Campbell late last month. The decision was announced online last week.

- Advertisement -

The case against Campbell began in October 2017 following a complaint by a Surrey law enforcement officer. The complainant told the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate, the BCFSA’s predecessor, that Campbell admitted he was not a licensed property manager. Statutory Officer in Surrey Property Matters.

He also told the offending employee that he had worked for the offending employee as a property manager who had been “managing various properties around the Lower Mainland for five years,” BCFSA hearings director general Andrew Pendray ruled.

Ad

OSRE received a second complaint against Campbell in March 2019. It came from a woman who rented a Surrey property managed by Campbell, who said she understood he was unlicensed, according to the ruling.

Pendray concluded in a previous liability ruling that Campbell and his company, Greater Realty Care Property Management, were not and had never been licensed property managers in BC, but had nevertheless provided such services since at least 2013.

Pendray also concluded that Campbell withheld or withheld information from investigators when they contacted him in 2020 about his unlicensed activities.


‘CUSTOM FILLING PUT’ GUARANTEED

BCFSA investigators said Campbell’s conduct amounted to “disregard for the regulatory regime” and asked for a $100,000 fine.

In the sanction decision, Pendray agreed.

“In my view, the respondent’s willingness to admit that he not only provided unlicensed rental property management services, but that he had been doing so for a long time, provides insight into the respondent’s views on the need to comply with the following requirements. regulatory regime,” the decision reads.

“In conclusion, I find that the respondent independently determined that, despite being aware of the existence of licensing for rental property management services, it was not required to be licensed.”

In addition, Pendray said investigators found invoices from Campbell dated January 2021, seven months after the regulator first contacted it about complaints about its operations.

It was also evidence of Campbell’s disregard for the regulatory regime, according to the listener.

Pendray also said Campbell told OSRE he was investigating the “wrong person,” but knew the claim was untrue.

“His continued provision of unlicensed rental property management services for an extended period of time beyond July 2020 clearly demonstrates the respondent’s gross disregard for the regulatory regime,” the ruling said. . “It requires a clear restraint on the respondent.”

Pendray found that Campbell earned more than $80,000 for his unlicensed work, which included collecting rent, liaising between landlords and tenants, advertising properties for rent, moving tenants serving notices, dealing with offenders on behalf of property owners and coming forward to the Housing Rent Board as a “landlord” among other things.

Pendray said Campbell’s earnings were an aggravating factor in his conduct, and he rejected mitigating factors such as Campbell’s lack of discipline with the BCFSA and lack of evidence of harm caused by his unlicensed work.

“In this case, there is no evidence that the defendant suffered any actual or substantial harm as a result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct,” the ruling said. “However, the respondent was unlicensed and thus risked harm in providing the services it provided by operating outside the regulatory regime.”

Pendray ordered Campbell to pay a $100,000 fine to the BCFSA within 90 days of his decision. It also ordered Campbell to pay $25,805.26 in enforcement costs over the same period.

“I have no doubt that the administrative penalty requested by the BCFSA would impose a heavy burden on the respondent,” Pendray wrote in his decision.

“Having considered the previous disciplinary decisions and consent orders cited by the BCFSA, I accept that the imposition of this heavy burden and the penalty sought are appropriate in the circumstances.”

Ad
RELATED ARTICLES
Ad

Most Popular