Did you know

Rent Increases for manufactured/mobile home parks.

See RTB info: Rent increases for manufactured homes ↗
RTB has also a guideline about annual pad rent increase ↗ that explains relatively well.
For a rent increase that takes effect in 2026, the allowable increase is 2.3% (plus proportional amount, read below)
There are two Acts that govern residential rentals, but one applies to manufactured/mobile homes (MH) in a park:
They are the Residential Tenancy Act that does not apply to MH owners and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act ↗ that does apply to us.
Did you know that your landlord must use the Residential Tenancy Branch forms for a rent increase aka RTB-45 ↗ if he/she does not ask for the proportional increase (see below).
The government sets the eligible rent increase for the upcoming year. If the rent increase is higher than the government set rate, or badly calculated, then you can file an application for Dispute Resolution. Here is an example of RTB decision where a landlord repeatedly tried to evict a MHO tenant that paid her rent without including the illegal rent increase: Rent increases not following regulations ↗.
The Notice of Rent Increase can only be given once a year as per the Residential Tenancy Act (Part 3, 42).

There is also the the Proportional Rent Increase aka Form RTB-11a ↗.
The auto-calculating version of RTB-11A will be updated with the 2026 increase in September, on the government website. Note the following:
  • Users should check the bottom of the form to ensure they have the correct version - should say "#RTB-11A for 2026 rent increase (2025/09)".
  • It is fillable but may not calculate properly in some browsers. To verify the calculations the park owner provides, prefer to use the latest version of Adobe Reader ↗
  • Users who view the form using a web browser but are unable to view the version with "#RTB-11A for 2026 rent increase (2025/09)" may need to clear their browser's cache.
The "proportional amount" (also known as an enhanced rent increase) is the change in local government levies plus the change in regulated utility fees, divided by the number of manufactured home sites in park. This means that each tenant of the park pays for a part of the year's increase in taxes and fees.
You may ask the landlord for proof of the increases, ie. Taxes, water, etc which is applicable.
You may legally ask the landlord for proof of these increases.

BCMHO is campaigning since over a year to eliminate the Proportional Rent Increase. What is it and what to change?
Currently, RTB adds a proportional Levies and fees increase this year over the top of a % inflation increase of the past year rent. There is no reason to add a proportional increase to MHO pad renters as if they have a stake in the park ownership itself. Apartment renters don't have this. The calculation can be complex and erroneously calculated in favour of the park owner. One MHO had to repeatedly dispute the calculation at RTB hearings to have the rent increases cancelled. Was this cancellation applied to all pad renters in the park? No. A blatant failure of RTB regulations.
Moreover, the calculation is in error and adds in excess the amounts of inflation on levies and fees. Effectively, the inflation on levies and fees is already added in the rent increase by inflation alone. This put into question the legitimacy of the calculation since it would add a proportional increase even when levies and fees would have increased by the same amount the inflation would have. It also means that, to be fair, all park owners would have to declare all their levies and fees to calculate by how much it increased compared to inflation. The rent increase would then be either raised or reduced by the difference with the real levies and fees increase and how much the inflation would have these increased.
Explanation: We realise that the current rent includes the levies and fees of last year, right? (That is, when the park owner asks the proportional increase every year, of course.) This means that the levies and fees, being part of the current rent, are increased by the value of the inflation + the actual increase (the proportional part). It is a double increase. And maybe this calls for a reimbursement and reduction of all these extra rent increases.

Additional Rent Increases for capital expenditures and expenses.

Additional rent increases information ↗
A landlord can raise the rent above the standard (annual) amount for a limited time (usually ten years) to recoup the costs. The landlord must have either the tenant's written agreement or apply to the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) for either an Additional Rent Increase for Expenses (ARI-E) or an Additional Rent Increase for Capital Expenditures (ARI-C). The raise is supposed to be removed once paid (in ten years, usually) and kept out of the inflation rent increase, but this may not be happening. Moreover, some park owners (large trust funds in particular) have tried to put expenses for regular maintenance like large 4 wheels motorized lawn mowers, or vanity welcome panels, into additional rent increase. MHO residents, with lots of preparation, have disputed this at RTB and won their cases, eliminating the offending rent increase. BCMHO finds these downloading of large expenses justified when parks are not lucrative venues and park owners truly need help to maintain or improve service with home owners acceptance. Otherwise, why would home owners paying the totality of an expensive expense (in addition to providing profits to park owners) not own it?

RTB-10 form allows the buyer to continue the tenancy with the same rate and conditions

Using the Request for Consent to ASSIGN a Manufactured Home Site Tenancy Agreement (RTB-10) form allows for a continuation of the tenancy under the same rent rate, rules and conditions. The form is served to the park owners and they have a certain amount of time to refuse it. The cannot refuse for any random reason or excuse. They have to justify it. See the form and information for details.
Selling, buying and the RTB-10 Form
RTB Forms listed by number ↗ (look for RTB-10)
Additional information about selling your home ↗
Information on buying & selling manufactured homes ↗

Material terms are often claimed by park owners to justify evictions.

Park owners have tenancy agreement citing everything is material term. A recent RTB arbitrator followed RTB Policy Guidelines to cancel an eviction attempt ↗. Here are excerpts:
«The policy, with respect to material terms, provides that:
A material term is a term that the parties both agree is so important that the most trivial breach of that term gives the other party the right to end the agreement.
To determine the materiality of a term during a dispute resolution hearing, the arbitrator will consider the importance of the term in the overall scheme of the tenancy agreement, as opposed to the consequences of the breach. It falls to the person relying on the term to present evidence and argument supporting the proposition that the term was a material term.
The question of whether or not a term is material is determined by the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation of the tenancy agreement in question. It is possible that the same term may be material in one agreement and not material in another. Simply because the parties have put in the agreement that one or more terms are material is not decisive. During a dispute resolution proceeding, the arbitrator will consider the true intention of the parties in determining whether or not the clause is material.
[...]
As stated under PG8, consequences of breach are immaterial under this ground. What matters is whether the parties, at the start of tenancy, agreed that the clause is so important that even the most trivial breach of the clause gives the other party the right to end the agreement.
As stated under PG8, warning letters regarding any breaches must not only outline the problem, but they must also inform the recipient that the purported breach is a breach of a material term of the agreement.
I have reviewed the Warning Letters. None of the Warning Letters identify clause “10.” of the Tenancy Agreement directly.
It is insufficient for a party to attend a hearing and rely solely on a sentence written in a tenancy agreement that identifies a particular clause as material. Clause “10.” was not initialed by the parties at the start of the tenancy and there is no evidence before me that the parties treated clause “10.” any different than any other clause in the Tenancy Agreement. Clause “10.” was not identified or highlighted in the Landlord's Warning Letters. The Landlord's agents did not provide an explanation for why they consider clauses “3.”, “10.”, and “13.” to be material clauses of the Tenancy Agreement. Even the Landlord's One Month Notices do not identify clause “10.” as a material clause. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, clause “10.” is so far reaching that a finding of materiality would mean that everything from the wasting of water (subclause “e)”) to strict compliance with all Park Rules (clause “g)”) would be a material clause of the Tenancy Agreement.
For all the above reasons, I find the Landlord failed to establish that they have ground to end the tenancy under this ground.
[...]
As stated in the Branch's Policy Guideline 55, the word "seriously" indicates that the risk is substantial; it is not minor or trivial.
[...] However, with respect to the substance of the Landlord's complaint, that is, with respect to the parked vehicle that was clearly being worked on at some point during this tenancy (in contravention of the Park Rules), I also find the Landlord has not proven that the vehicle poses a significant risk to the Landlord's property or that, by working on the vehicle, the Applicants seriously jeopardized the health or safety or lawful right of another occupant or the landlord.
Contravention of the Park Rules with respect to the number of vehicles is not a serious jeopardy to the health or safety or lawful right of another occupant or the landlord and it is not a significant risk to the Landlord's property.»

RTB disputes are often biased in favour of park owners and almost impossible to contest afterward.

Here is the policy guideline regarding eviction ↗
And here is a case where the Eviction could not be averted ↗

Repetitive evictions attempts failed in this case.

A badly documented eviction notice that was based on a previous eviction attempt that failed lead to a warning to the park owner.
Decision about a repeat eviction attempt ↗

Fire Hydrant Maintenance

Provincial legislation requires property owners to maintain the fire hydrants that are located on their property. (Note: Fire hydrants that are located on public property, e.g. boulevards, are the responsibility of the local municipality). To make sure the owner of a manufactured home park is properly maintaining the fire hydrants in the park, you can contact your Municipality or local Fire Detachment. Check with your municipality regarding the fire prevention and protection bylaws and policies.