Treadstone Associates
Case File № 075 · Rental & Investment

No lease yet

a first-time landlord’s house-hacked duplex in Abbotsford-Mission

First-time buyers house-hacking a legal duplex had no signed lease for the second unit at application, only an appraiser’s market-rent opinion. One lender counted none of it, pushing TDS to 46.6%; a lender willing to add 50% of the appraised rent pre-lease brought TDS to 40.2% and, as first-time buyers, cut BC’s Property Transfer Tax to zero.

British ColumbiaInsured · 90% LTVFiled August 7, 20265 min read
46.6%

TDS with none of the unleased rent counted — declined

40.2%

TDS with a pre-lease market-rent add-back — approved insured

$0

BC Property Transfer Tax payable, first-time-buyer exemption

Anonymized illustration. The borrowers, dollar figures, and rates in this file are an illustrative composite — no real client is identifiable, and any rate shown is illustrative, not a quote. The rules are real: every regulatory figure is cited to its source in the Sources section, and the math computes exactly as shown.

№ 01

The client

First-time buyers in Abbotsford-Mission found a legal duplex they planned to house-hack — living in one unit, renting the other — in a market where rental vacancy makes a second unit a real asset, not a speculative one. The catch: no tenant was in place yet, so there was no signed lease to hand the lender — only an appraiser’s opinion of market rent.

Borrowers

Two first-time buyers, T4

$8,800/mo combined income

Property

$550,000 legal duplex, Abbotsford-Mission

Living in one unit, renting the other

Down payment

$55,000 — 10%

Under 20%, file must be default-insured

Second unit

No signed lease yet

Appraiser’s market-rent opinion: $2,800/mo

Debts

Student loan $220/mo

№ 02

The problem

One lender’s policy was simple and unhelpful: no signed lease, no rental income counted, full stop — regardless of what an independent appraiser said the unit would rent for.

The no-income-counted arithmetic

  • Housing costs: qualifying payment $3,477 + property tax $285 + heat $120 = $3,882/mo
  • TDS against the couple’s own $8,800/mo income: ($3,882 + $220 student loan) ÷ $8,800 = 46.6% — against CMHC’s 44% maximum. Declined.

The duplex itself wasn’t the problem, and neither was the couple’s income. The gap was entirely about documentation timing: they hadn’t found a tenant before applying, and one lender’s policy treats that exactly like a property with no rental potential at all.

№ 03

The numbers

At 10% down this is an insured file, so CMHC’s 39%/44% maximums are the numbers that matter.

Structuring the insured loanAmount
Purchase price$550,000
Down payment (10%)−$55,000
Base mortgage (90% LTV)$495,000
CMHC premium — 3.10% in the 85.01–90% LTV band, capitalized+$15,345
Total insured mortgage$510,345
Rate & paymentsFigure
Contract rate (illustrative, not a quote)4.69%
Minimum qualifying rate6.69%
Monthly P&I at the qualifying rate$3,477
Monthly P&I at the contract rate$2,879

GDS — unaffected by whether the rent is counted

GDS (subject property)Monthly
P&I at the qualifying rate$3,477
Property tax$285
Heat (lender-standard estimate)$120
Housing costs $3,882 ÷ income with add-back $10,200 → GDS 38.1% — under 39%

TDS — the documentation gap, in numbers

TDS lineNo lease, no income countedPre-lease market-rent add-back
Housing costs (GDS numerator)$3,882$3,882
Student loan$220$220
Appraised market rent added to income50% of $2,800 = $1,400
Income used$8,800$10,200
TDS vs. the 44% cap46.6%  ✗40.2%  ✓
№ 04

The solution

A submortgage broker licensed with BC’s registrar under BCFSA moved the file to a lender whose policy allows a rental offset to be built from an appraiser’s opinion of market rent when no lease exists yet — at a more conservative 50% of the appraised figure, and conditioned on the lease being signed and delivered before funding.

The appraisal itself carried the weight a lender needs: an independent, licensed opinion of achievable rent for the specific unit, not the borrowers’ own estimate. That distinction is what let the lender treat it as real income rather than speculation, similar to how our walkthrough of a rental offset that failed at one lender and passed at another plays out.

№ 05

The outcome & the closing math

Approved and funded insured at 90% LTV, 25-year amortization, conditional on the lease being provided before advance — which it was, at the appraised rent. TDS moved from 46.6% under the first lender’s no-lease policy to 40.2% once the pre-lease add-back applied.

As first-time buyers on a purchase under $835,000, the couple also cleared BC’s full Property Transfer Tax exemption: the general-rate tax on this purchase would be $9,000, reduced to $0.

The lender’s condition — lease in hand before funding — meant the file still needed to close on the appraised income being real, not assumed. It was.

№ 06

What to take from this file

  • 01No lease is not the same as no rental potential. An independent appraiser’s opinion of market rent can carry real weight with the right lender, even before a tenant is found.
  • 02Pre-lease policies are more conservative for a reason. A 50% offset on an appraised figure, versus a fuller offset once a signed lease exists, reflects the extra uncertainty — and it is illustrative, since each lender sets its own percentage.
  • 03Check the first-time-buyer PTT exemption before pricing closing costs. On a purchase under $835,000, it can take the transfer tax to zero — a material number to get right for a first-time buyer’s cash-to-close.
  • 04A house-hack duplex is still a subject-property file. The same underwriting question as any owner-occupied multi-unit purchase: does the lender count the other unit’s income, and on what evidence.

Sources

Every regulatory figure in this file traces to one of these primary sources. Client details and anything that varies by lender are illustrative, as flagged below.

Illustrative in this file — lender-specific, not rules:

  • 4.69% contract rate — rates move daily; not a quote.
  • 50% pre-lease market-rent offset — each lender sets its own policy for counting rental income before a lease is signed.

Authority & provenance

How this case file was built

We publish the origin, the verification method and the reviewer for every case file, so you can judge how far to trust it before you rely on it with a client.

Where it comes from

Derived from files handled by Treadstone’s fulfillment desk and from scenarios contributed by partner brokerages. Names, employers, exact amounts and dates are changed so no client or file is identifiable.

Provenance: Composite — a pattern seen repeatedly on fulfilled files, not a single transaction.

What is verified

Every regulatory figure traces to a primary source listed above and was checked against it on the date shown. The arithmetic is recomputed by machine on every rebuild.

Anything that varies by lender is labelled illustrative rather than stated as a rule.

Who reviewed it

Reviewed for Canadian regulatory accuracy before publication, and re-checked whenever a cited rule changes.

Reviewed by: Nicholas Parson, Treadstone Associates — reviews every case file before publication.

First published 7 August 2026Rules last verified 7 August 2026Next scheduled review 7 February 2027

This case file is professional reference material for licensed mortgage professionals. It is not advice to a borrower, and it is not a lender commitment. Insurer rules, qualifying rates and provincial taxes change — confirm the current position with the insurer, regulator or lender before you rely on any figure here in a live file.

Treadstone fulfillment

Files like this are daily work for our desk.

Document collection, ratio math under multiple treatments, lender placement notes, and submission-ready packaging — for Canadian mortgage brokers who would rather be in front of clients.