(415)552-9060
Can My Landlord “Bank” My Annual Rent Increases?

Can My Landlord “Bank” My Annual Rent Increases?

Can My Landlord “Bank” My Annual Rent Increases?

I live in a 15 unit building that was built in 1907. I’ve lived in my small one bedroom apartment for 19 years, and in that time, the building transferred ownership once, in 2001. At that time, the new owners tacked on a rent increase because of “capital improvements,” and this was an increase that actually ended in 2011, so my rent returned to its 2001 price last year.

The landlord hasn’t raised my rent in the past 4 years, not even the small yearly increase that is allowable by law. So my question is, why would a landlord choose NOT to raise rent if they are legally able to? I can’t imagine it’s just to be nice. Is it likely they are banking the increases so they can throw four years worth (or more) at me all at once? And is that even legal?

Is the landlord foregoing the annual allowable rent increases to be nice? I doubt it. Is this some scheme to dump a huge increase on you in the future to force you to move out? I doubt that too. Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence. I often substitute the word stupidity for incompetence. In your case it’s probably neither, unless you believe that business decisions are always inherently malicious–an apt conclusion these days.

The annual allowable rent increases under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance for the past four years are, cumulatively, 6.7%. If your landlord has multiple properties, he could be waiting to increase the rents when it is more profitable to do so. He may not think it’s justified to incur the expense to to recalculate the rent and send out notices for, in your case, a 6.7% increase in gross revenue.

By law, a landlord may bank the annual allowable increases. There is no limit to the amount of rent increases that can be banked since April 1, 1982 and there is no time limit for imposition of these banked amounts. Indeed, I have seen banked increase notices that go back all the way to 1982, usually imposed by new owners seeking to immediately increase a building’s income. Is it fair? No. Is it legal? Yes.

As I said a couple of weeks ago. Courts have, time and again, decided that landlords must be able to get a fair return on their investments. Banked increases are a part of that scheme. Landlords will point out that a banked increase is not retroactive and that you should be grateful for all the money you saved over the years.

San Francisco Tenants: You need to understand that your landlord can, at any time, make up for years that he did not increase your rent by “banking” the annual allowable increases and charging them all at once. California Civil Code § 827 requires a landlord to give you a 60-day notice for such an increase if that cumulative increase is over 10% of your existing rent.

Banked increases will almost always be imposed by new owners. If your building has recently been sold and the old landlord has not increased the rent for awhile, plan on a banked increase. For that matter, all San Francisco tenants should always plan for a banked rent increase.

To paraphrase Anonymous, the internet hacktivist collective, “Landlords: They are legion, they do not forgive, they do not forget. Expect rent increases.”

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

I Think My Master Tenant Is Scamming Me

I Think My Master Tenant Is Scamming Me

I Think My Master Tenant Is Scamming Me

I thought this might be a good question for people like me who sublet temporarily in SF for a couple of months to give themselves more time to look for more permanent housing.

I am subletting an apartment in a 5 unit old Victorian in the Mission District of San Francisco for about 3 months from the original tenant who I met off Craigslist.  The tenant was temporarily leaving to take care of an ill family member on the East Coast.  I offered to write up the sublet contract because she was leaving for the East Coast in 5 days and was clearly distraught and still had a lot of things to take care of.

The tenant asked for an initial payment of the rent for the first month and the last month and an additional security deposit of a month’s rent of $1700 (in cashier’s check), plus utilities of about $60 in addition to rental reference and credit check.  She also asked me to include an option in the contract letting her move back in a week earlier and she promised to pay me back the prorated one week’s worth of rent before I vacated the apartment.  She has 30 days to return my security deposit.  She told me some other things to put in the contract about her plants and keeping the place clean and we agreed on the final version over phone and by email before meeting in person.

Before I moved in I asked to meet her landlord but she assured me she already talked to him.  We met the day before she left, went over the contract together and signed it then she gave me her keys.  A month into the sublet I ran into the landlord who was surprised to meet me and asked if I was living in that apartment.  I explained to him that I was subletting for about 3 months and was equally surprised that he didn’t know about it.  He told me the tenant had previously sublet to another people without telling him and he was unhappy about it but that generally she was an okay tenant who had lived there four years.  After some small talk, we exchanged contact information and he told me to let him know if there were any problems or anything that needed to be fixed.

Since that time, the tenant has exhibited more worrisome irrational behavior. 

1.     She called me trying to change the move back date in the contract to a much earlier date (not what we agreed to) and then promised both over the phone and by email to mail me the payment for the week’s rent plus utilities before my move out date in March (it’s been two weeks and I have not received it).  There is a specific provision in the contract saying that she needs to pay me that amount before I vacate.

2.     When we discussed the security deposit she was cagey saying that she would mail it back to me but she needed to hang on to it for the 30 days. Honestly, there is nothing in her apartment repair or otherwise that would be $1700.  I’ve kept everything the way she left it, watered her plants for her, and I don’t use her dishes or cookware because I have my own

3.     When discussing move out the date, she asked me to vacate the apartment and leave the keys in an envelope in her mailbox because she was going to “emotional” coming back to her apartment and wanted to be alone.  I objected saying that I felt more comfortable handing her the keys in person to make sure she received them, also that we should inspect the apartment together before I left so she could point to things that were “broken” she would use the security deposit to fix.  She reluctantly agreed but I have the feeling she wanted to avoid me.

I am worried that she is going to try to keep both my security deposit and also my week’s rent.  What can I do?  Refuse to vacate the apartment until she pays me at least the week’s rent?  Should I ask for a cashier’s check?  Get her landlord involved in this?  If she doesn’t pay me my security deposit what would I be able to do?  Small claims court?

Do I have any rights as a subletter?  What can I do to protect myself at this point?

I feel bad thinking this way but she has given me the impression that she is hanging on to my money because she’s not doing so well financially.  I don’t think she’s working right now.  Of course, I am hoping for the best but in our interactions with each other she has given me a negative impression of her in a short amount of time.  At first, I felt bad for her and thought this arrangement was mutually beneficial but now I feel like she’s trying to take advantage of me. 

Cases like this drive me crazy. It’s not enough that we in the tenant defense business have to deal with unscrupulous and/or uninformed landlords, we have to deal with tenants who decide they own their units and rent them out like landlords.

Master tenants who sublet in this manner rarely obtain the landlord’s consent to sublet. I write thousands of words complaining about landlords who don’t give a rat’s ass about their tenants. It’s always money. money, money, me, me, me.

The master tenant here is no different. She didn’t bother to consider that she could be subjecting you to a costly lawsuit that could ultimately effect your credit rating to the extent that future landlords won’t rent to you, not to mention that this could be a scam. She’s a Bad Master Tenant.

Luckily you’re not presenting the worst case scenario. The landlord could have served a notice to cure or quit alleging illegal subletting. Then the master tenant and you could spend the next couple of months defending an unlawful detainer (eviction) action–a lawsuit that the landlord would likely win. I have to say , your landlord gracefully handled the news that you were the new subletter.

The master tenant is either oblivious to the Rent Ordinance or she is relying on your naiveté. Bad.

To understand the scope of your rights as a subtenant you should first read Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.15C. The regulation is very specific. Unless the master tenant has informed you in writing, before you sublet, that you are not subject to the just cause eviction provisions of the Rent Ordinance, the only way the master tenant can evict you is by alleging one of the just causes like nonpayment of rent, nuisance, habitual late payment, etc.

Even if you have been informed that you are not subject to “just cause” eviction, the master tenant would have to serve you a 30-day notice to quit.

Essentially, you have obtained most of the rights of a subtenant and you could tell your new “landlord” that you plan to live in the unit forever.

You also have to ask yourself if she’s simply scamming you. Believe me, that’s more common than one might think. Is she charging you more rent than she pays? What’s with the $5,100.00 charge for a temporary sublet? Did she use the dough to finance her trip? Check the Superior Court website to see if she has been sued for this before.

And here’s a thought for you: It’s not usually a good idea to give a stranger you’ve met on Craiglist over $5,000.00 unless the services are performed immediately.

So what do you do?

The landlord won’t want to get involved and he doesn’t have any duty to you anyway. He might get fed up and evict the entire household, but that does you no good.

I think you should simply tell the master tenant that you will move out, if she returns all of the unused rent  including the security deposit. (BTW, Civil Code §1950.5 provides that the landlord must return the deposit in 21 days, not 30.) She needed to hang onto to it for thirty days? Bad.

When you move out, the transaction should be a “cash for keys” exchange. That’s cash or a cashier’s check, not a rubbery gotcha note.

If the master tenant balks, you’ll know she spent your money. As distasteful as this may be, you may have to tell her that she just acquired a new roommate until she pays you.

You can also move out and sue her in small claims court, but the likelihood of ever collecting is small. The master tenant is unemployed and, think about it, her only source of income may be the next sucker she finds on Craiglist.

Why am I so freaking nasty when it comes to master tenants like this? They screw it up for the rest of us. Ironically, whatever the internal justifications master tenants sublet in this manner–ineptitude, desperation or greed–those justifications provide the fodder for landlords to demand the repeal of rent control. Of course, the repeal of rent control would further subject tenants to landlords’ greed, desperation and ineptitude.  Bad, bad, bad.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Can My Landlord Raise My Rent By $300/Month?

Can My Landlord Raise My Rent By $300/Month?

Can My Landlord Raise My Rent By $300/Month?

I am in a situation with my landlord and I need help understanding my rights in this poorly written lease that I should never have signed. This is in the city of San Francisco. I am not sure how to classify the unit, it was advertised as an in-law, the common type you find in the Richmond and Sunset. The landlord lives in the top level, there is a second level that her family lives in, and I live in bottom basement level. I do not know if this is a legal unit as it has no smoke detectors or carbon monoxide detectors, there is no separate address or PG&E meter and I’m almost certain it was built before 1979. Anyway, that isn’t really the issue.

I signed the month-to-month lease in May 2011. Later my boyfriend moved in. The lease does not limit occupancy to myself, or state a maximum occupancy requirement. The lease does not have any terms prohibiting subletting.

Anyway, my boyfriend has been living there for months, he even paid rent one month and she accepted and cashed the check.

Today, she emailed me saying she wants to raise rent from $1,300.00 to $1600.00. She didn’t ask for anything in writing, didn’t ask to have him sign onto the lease, its all about money.
My question is can my landlord raise the rent higher than 6%? Am I breaching my lease as there is no clause against another occupant? I just noticed the part that says landlord will return security deposit no later than 60 days. I know CA law requires 21 days, what do I do about that?

Last week I mentioned that there are several major recurring themes in landlord tenant relationships. You have encountered a few of them.

First, most landlords cannot see past their noses when it comes to money. It’s always all about the money. Second, some landlords seem to want to cut off their noses just to increase the rent. Third, don’t live in the same building as a landlord. You’re likely to encounter a troll in the basement, or as in your case, upstairs.

If I was Mitt Romney, I’d bet $10,000.00 that you live in an illegal unit. In “Tenant Troubles: Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An Illegal Unit?,” I outline some of the things to look for to determine if your unit is an illegal in-law.

Illegal in-law units have been a source of landlord tenant tension for years. They are some of the best deals in town and can be pleasant places to live, until the landlord starts screwing around with the tenant or a new owner wants to remove the unit from the market.

All of the lawsuits we have filed are based on facts similar to yours. The landlord gets greedy. The tenant realizes the unit is illegal and reports it. The tenants loses a cheap place to live and the landlord loses the income from the unit forever–a lose, lose proposition initiated by landlords just like yours.

The unit, regardless of its status, is rent controlled because the building was built before 1979 and it has two, if not three, units. Therefore, the landlord can only increase the rent based on the allowable annual increases determined by the Rent Board. The landlord cannot increase the rent at all until you’ve lived in the unit one year. In your case, the rent can be increased next May by the allowable 1.9% or $24.70.

I looked over your lease and, indeed, it does not prohibit subletting. The landlord would be foolish to attempt to evict you for allowing your boyfriend to move in. (Foolish in any case because you should report the unit to the DBI if the landlord attempts to evict you at all.)

I’d make another one percenter style bet that when you move, the landlord won’t return the security deposit. It’s just par for the course for Cheese Balls like this. California law will trump the terms of your lease. The landlord should return your security deposit in full (Remember, she shouldn’t be renting the place at all.) within the 21-day period.

What do you do if the landlord refuses to return the deposit? You sue her.

[yarpp]

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

My Former Landlord Won’t Return My Security Deposit Or Call Me Back

My Former Landlord Won’t Return My Security Deposit Or Call Me Back

My Former Landlord Won’t Return My Security Deposit Or Call Me Back

Here is the situation with my previous landlord:

He gave me a verbal agreement that he would return the security deposit ($1500) to me within 14 days (this would have been July 15) but under the lease he had 18 days (July 19th). Upon moving out and returning they keys he was unresponsive and did not return calls or emails. After almost 2 weeks had passed we received an email saying he found scuff marks on the floors and walls and that he would get back to us soon with how much he would need to withhold for repairs.

Given these scuff marks pre-dated our time in this apartment, we sent photographs (with time stamps proving the date the photos were taken) that indicated the poor condition of the floors and scuff marks on the walls and also reminded our landlord about the normal wear and tear clause of the lease and cited several articles that point out that scuff marks fall into this category.

We sent these emails to him on July 12, responding immediately to his email about the scuff marks. We have not heard from him since. On July 19th when neither the security deposit nor the balance of the deposit with an itemized list of repairs was returned, I called Reginald to inform him that since the deposit had not been returned we were taking action to file a claim in small claims court but that we would prefer to settle this out of court.

He did not answer, so I left him a message with these details. I called him again the following day (from a different phone in case he was screening our calls) and left him another message with the same details. On July 20th my roommate and I drafted a formal demand letter (based on advice from the SF tenants rights website) and mailed him a hard copy via certified mail.

In this letter (attached) we gave him until August 4th to return the security deposit (which we would expect in full or very nearly full since the damage was not due to us). We said if he doesn’t return the deposit, we would sue him for the $1500 deposit plus an additional $1500 for illegally withholding the deposit.

Given his unresponsiveness, we don’t expect to hear from him (although we know the letter was signed for and received) and are expecting we will have to take him to court. Any advice you could give on our situation is greatly appreciated.

We are also worried that the landlord may be bankrupt or insolvent – our neighbors informed us they received a notice that he was $826,000 in debt on out building and to not pay him any money. Is there anything we can do if this is the case? Or do we just have to give up on our deposit?

The only mistake you made (besides renting the apartment from this schmuck in the first place) was that you misquoted the statutory damages in your letter. You should sue the landlord for $1,500.00 plus $3,000.00 in statutory damages (California Civil Code § 1950.5(l)) because he withheld your deposit in bad faith. In many cases a small claims court will not award the statutory damages for one reason or another, but in your case the facts, as you state them, prove that the landlord refused to return the deposit based on a pretext that was a lie.

Sue him for $4,500.00. Don’t worry collecting the money. That part comes after you get a judgement. BTW, the small claims limit in California just increased to $10,000.00.

Pick up a copy of Everybody’s Guide to Small Claims Court in California, by Ralph Warner,  Nolo Press. You can find Nolo Press Guides in most larger bookstores or buy one online from the publisher.

If the landlord files for bankruptcy after you get a judgment, California Civil Code §1950.5(d) states, “Any security shall be held by the landlord for the tenant who is party to the lease or agreement. The claim of a tenant to the security shall be prior to the claim of any creditor of the landlord.As I pointed out in an earlier “Tenant Troubles,” your claim goes to the top of the list in bankruptcy court.

The Tenants Union website is a great resource, but nothing beats bringing your documents to them and getting live counseling from a well-informed volunteer.

Jeez, Louise, if every tenant in California wrote to his or her state legislators every frickin’ time a landlord ripped off a security deposit, maybe, just maybe, the law could be re-written to reflect proactive preventions enacted by many other states.

So try this readers, paste this article into an email and demand all of my proposed changes to the law (except the small claims limit increase), and send it to: Mark Leno, Tom Ammiano, Fiona Ma, and Leland Yee.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

Are The Buyout Terms My Landlord’s Offering Acceptable?

Are The Buyout Terms My Landlord’s Offering Acceptable?

Are The Buyout Terms My Landlord’s Offering Acceptable?

My husband and I live in a two-unit condo that was converted from a TIC to a condo in 2007. The owners moved out during the conversion process and we moved in. They asked us to keep utilities in their name, which we did though we made the payments. I should state at this point that these people used to be friendly acquaintances of ours through a larger group of friends.

We moved in 5 years ago (March 2006) and the TCI to condo conversion was completed approximately a year after we moved in, at which point they indicated they wanted to sell the unit. This has happened twice over the past few years, they say they want to sell and ask us when we think we can be out.

They have never mentioned eviction, but have tried to stick us in the middle of negotiations with potential buyers to “guarantee” a move-out date with no mention of compensation. Of course no buyer has followed through with an offer since we were still in residence without a legal notice of vacating the property (though the property was advertised “delivered vacant”).

The owners have contacted us again this winter with the same game plan. Our response was, let’s talk about a buyout–otherwise we’ll deal with the new owners and an OMI eviction or whatever…

They were not happy about it but agreed to work with us on this and stated that they would have their lawyer draw an agreement. We have been very generous in not pushing them for more than statutory relocation payments and return of our deposit plus interest.

What we received was not what we expected. I believe it is a Stipulation of Judgment (which you mention in your article: Tenant Buyouts: The Agreement) with no accompanying document or agreement language. It seems very owner/landlord oriented, naming themselves as the plaintiff and us as the defendants.

My husband and I expected a letter of agreement stating terms and conditions etc. that would be witnessed/notarized and sent to us certified mail to sign a copy. I’ve attached what we received instead.

We have had some feedback from friends involved in real estate who all said don’t sign it. Our intent moving forward is to take control of the situation, let our landlord know that the document we received is not something we can agree too, draw the agreement ourselves, have it reviewed by a lawyer, sign notarize and send the document with copies to the owner. Does this seem a reasonable course of action?

In San Francisco a two unit building may bypass the condominium conversion lottery if both units were owner occupied for at least one year before submission of the conversion application. (San Francisco Subdivision Code §1359.)

I bring this up because I always think something is fishy when a landlord, engaged in the process of conversion, asks a tenant to keep the utility bills in his name or receive his mail. My first thought is that the landlord may be falsely claiming that he lives in the unit–defrauding the City. You can search the condo conversion process on a given building by checking with the Department of Public Works.

I’ve said this before: Tenants, never lie for your landlord. Never cover for them by receiving their mail or paying bills in their name.

You should also be aware that your unit is still covered by rent control regarding annual allowable rent increases. Even though it is now a single-family dwelling, it is not exempt because the original “developers” of the condominium have not sold the unit.

Buyouts are controversial among tenant advocates. Essentially, a buyout removes another rent controlled unit from the already dwindling supply. These days, buyouts rarely compensate tenants for increased market rent amortized over a given period of time. That said, I will represent tenants in negotiating buyouts, if after I tell them all the downsides, they feel a buyout is appropriate.

In my opinion, the terms of your buyout are unacceptable. In the agreement you attached (a stipulation for judgment) the landlords are only offering you the minimum relocation payments ($10,200.00, should be $10,202.00!) and the statutory minimum time (60 days) to vacate and waive all of your tenant rights.

Why would you agree to that, if you can get the same terms when a new buyer purchases the property and serves a legal OMI notice? I wrote about this in Tenant Buyouts: Your Absolute Bottom Line.

Remember, when you waive your tenant rights you’ll give the landlords the opportunity to increase the rent to market rate. This may be their goal anyway. Your rights are valuable and the landlords know it. They’re just being Cheeseballs.

As a rule, I don’t mind a stipulated judgment as a form of agreement, but I admonish my clients, “If there is any reason you think you will not be able to move out per the agreement, don’t sign it.”

Another common misconception is that agreements must be notarized. A notarized signature on an agreement like this does not lend more legal significance to the agreement. Generally, wills and documents to be recorded should be notarized.

If you want to be generous, that is your prerogative. Yet the agreement you attached does not provide for payment up front nor does it provide for enforcement in case you move and the landlords don’t pay. It should be redrafted whatever the consideration terms.

For updates to this article see Tenant Buyouts Update 2018.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

My Landlord Wants Me To Move Out So He Can Sell My Apartment

My Landlord Wants Me To Move Out So He Can Sell My Apartment

My Landlord Wants Me To Move Out So He Can Sell My Apartment

I live at the top of a 4-story, single-family home (garage included) with 2 owners, 1 owns the downstairs unit and my landlord owns his floor as well as my unit above him. My landlord, in addition to his investment partner, owns his unit as well as mine. The investment partner owns a 50% share. I received a call today from the investment partner that they intended to sell both the units and would offer me first and last months rent to help me move out.

I already presume that my tenancy rights are at stake, especially since this sounds like a potential Ellis Act move. My landlord and I have had numerous problems with the downstairs neighbors, who are completely irrational owners that are involved with our overall “living” situation. The investment partner mentioned that the neighbors are going to build a barricade. The other unfortunate thing about the living arrangements is we all share a washer and dryer downstairs. We have tried compromising with these owners but they really are completely unreasonable. I could even take them to court for harassment I’m sure.

I mentioned to the landlord’s investor that I would be interested in buying the property. What is your view on this overall situation. I like the property so much I am willing to buy it and either put up with or sue the downstairs neighbors. I may become part of the conversation with the real estate agent this weekend.

I went ahead and filed a “Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction” with the Rent Board today to protect myself as this situation continues to unfold.

Any other recommendations or perspective you have that could shed some light on what I am dealing with legally would be most helpful because I am truly trying everything in my power to hang on to this place.

I’m going to try to answer your question with the caveat that I am unclear about the status of your building. Is it a single-family house legally divided into three units? When you mentioned that the downstairs neighbors are going to “build a barricade” and an “overall living situation,” I began to have some doubts. You will need to know the status of your unit to determine the correct course of action to deal with the landlord.

I recommend that you take a look at the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. Just type in your address and pray that the goddamned thing works. I think I’ve mentioned that I hate this website, but it is better than nothing.

If you have three addresses in the building (a sign that the units may be legally divided) try to use the lowest number to find it. Do you pay your own electricity bill? If so, that also is an indicator that your building has three legal units.

Your landlord states that he wants to sell his two units. If the landlord is selling the units as tenancies in common (TICs), he is really selling partnership interests in the whole building rather than the units themselves. The units must be condominiums to be sold individually.

If the units were converted to condominiums you should be able to see that on the parcel map. The map will show three lot numbers for the building lot. You can also check the Department of Public Works Subdivision Tracking System to determine if the units are condominiums. If the units are condos they are considered single family dwellings.

I’m assuming the building was built before 1979. Regardless of your unit’s status, the landlord has to evict you for just cause. That the unit is for sale is not a just cause.Filing the Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction was justified.

If you find that your unit is illegal (converted without the proper permits), the landlord can evict you by permanently removing the unit from housing use pursuant to Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(10). The landlord must obtain the necessary permits and, if you have lived in the unit for more than a year, provide you a 60-day notice to vacate and arelocation payment of $5,101.00.

You can also sue the landlords, including the neighbors downstairs, for void contract. The landlords were not entitled to rent the unit at all; your lease is null and void.

If you live in a legal apartment, the landlord could evict you by moving in a close relative or, if the partner owns more than 25% of the entire building, he could move in. You would be entitled to a 60-day notice and the same relocation payment of $5,101.00. If the landlord want to sell it is unlikely he will serve an OMI (owner-move-in) notice because he has to represent that he will live in the unit for three years.

It’s hard to say if an Ellis Act eviction would be viable. Remember, the downstairs owners would have to agree and it doesn’t sound like they are very agreeable. If that does occur you would be entitled to a 120-day notice and a $5,105.20 relocation payment.

If your unit is a condo, the landlord can raise the rent to market rate because the unit is exempt from the rent control provisions of the Rent Ordinance. The most likely scenario here is that a new owner will evict you, using an OMI eviction.

Frankly, I don’t understand why you want to enter into a partnership (assuming the units are TICs) with neighbors you want to sue and landlords you can’t trust. No, you can’ttrust the landlord because he and his partner are sleazily trying to get you out. That’s why you filed the Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction, right? Would you marry someone as irrational as your neighbors? Or someone who lies to you? Life is too short. But that’s just my opinion based upon observation (and litigation) of several TICs gone bad.

Before you do anything else, you should rush to the San Francisco Tenants Union to sort this out. Join the Tenants Union. It will be the best forty bucks you ever spend.

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

A Lease With An “Introductory Rate”?

I moved into my apartment in June of this year. The lease I signed gave me an introductory rate of $950 per month for the first 6 months and $995 for the last 6 months. When I remarked about the increase to a co-worker, he told me that this increase sounded illegal and probably violated rent control laws. I had no idea. Is the $45 increase legal?

Am I getting a whiff of Parkmerced? Parkmerced, the sprawling group of high-rise apartments and townhouses next door to San Francisco State, is the largest rent controlled apartment complex in the City. Parkmerced comprises approximately 3,400 units. In order to increase upside in their investment, Parkmerced’s various owners, including the notorious (and now deceased) Leona Helmsley, have tenaciously challenged the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance in court and devised schemes to try to contract around it. The Parkmerced Residents’ Organization is one of the oldest tenants’ associations in the City. They can tell you some stories.

Before I start slagging another broke (yep, belly-up, victims of their own greed, boo-hoo), big landlord, we need to understand if you are, in fact, being flim-flammed.

We need to see if you live in a rent-controlled apartment.

Generally, if your building was built before 1979 and it has two or more units, your tenancy is covered by the rent ordinance price and eviction controls. If you unit has been converted into a condominium, your tenancy is not subject to the allowable annual increase. In other words, the landlord can raise the rent as he pleases.

If you are not sure if the building was built before 1979, go to the SF Assessor-Recorder’s website., click the disclaimer and enter your address. Check the pop-up window to see when the building was constructed.

Enter Parkmerced. Five years ago when Parkmerced was the “Villas at Parkmerced” they had a program to entice renters called “Bonus Bucks.”

The scheme went like this: A tenant signed a one-year lease to rent an apartment for $1,675.00 per month, but received a monthly rebate of $350.00 effectively paying $1,375.00 per month. At the end of the lease term, Parkmerced increased the rent, using the allowable increase of 1.7% but based the increase on $1,675.00 rather than $1,375.00. The increases amounted to over 28%.

The Rent Board found that the increase was illegal and later, Parkmerced settled a class-action lawsuit reimbursing the illegal increases. Essentially, you cannot contract around the Rent Ordinance.

If your tenancy is rent controlled, your lease violates the Rent Ordinace in two ways. First, it establishes an increase six months after the inception of the tenancy. Second, the increase of $45.00 is about a 4.7% increase. The allowable increase this year is .1% Yes, one tenth of one percent!

In December, send your landlord a nice Christmas card explaining why you’re not going to be paying the $45.00 increase.

If the landlord sends you a three-day notice to pay or quit, pay the increase and file a petition at the Rent Board alleging an unlawful rent increase.

Okay, I’m dying to know, is your landlord Parkmerced?

Call the Tenant Lawyers now for a free consultation.
(415) 552-9060