(415)552-9060
Screwed by Costa Hawkins

Screwed by Costa Hawkins

Screwed by Costa Hawkins

I think I have been screwed by Costa Hawkins. I live in Noe valley SF in a rent controlled apartment. I have been at this apartment for 4 years. The lease is in my roommate’s name. He is moving out and the landlord wants me to sign a new lease and increase the rent 50%.

I always paid my roommate directly without exchanging money with the landlord.  But the landlord knows that I have been living here, he has my phone number etc.

Do I count as a tenant? Can I argue that even without being on the lease rent control applies to me because that was my only residence for 4 years?

Note that I’m OK with increasing the rent but hopefully not that much (I’d be happy with 25%). Do I have anything to negotiate with or can he just make me move out if I don’t accept the new rent?

Of course you count as a tenant.

Rent Ordinance §37.2(t) defines tenant: “A person entitled by written or oral agreement, sub-tenancy approved by the landlord, or by sufferance, to occupy a residential dwelling unit to the exclusion of others.” Note that a tenant under the Rent Ordinance can even be a person at sufferance, the legal term for a holdover tenant, a tenant occupying a unit without permission from the landlord.

Judging by the behavior of the landlord, you are an approved subtenant because he is willing to negotiate a new lease with you and let you remain in the premises.

The problem is that the rent control provisions of the Ordinance don’t apply to you because you are a “subsequent occupant.”

California Civil Code §1954.53(d)(2) mandates:

If the original occupant or occupants who took possession of the dwelling or unit pursuant to the rental agreement with the owner no longer permanently reside there, an owner may increase the rent by any amount allowed by this section to a lawful sublessee or assignee who did not reside at the dwelling or unit prior to January 1, 1996.

If you are a regular reader of “Tenant Troubles” you should recognize that California Civil Code §1954.53 is called the Costa Hawkins Rent Housing Act, a bi-partisan law enacted in 1995 by the band of pandering griftocrats we call our state legislators.

Costa Hawkins eviscerated local rent control so bona fide tenants like you get screwed because you’re not an “original tenant.”

The only way you can argue that that you could be entitled to the rent control protections of the Rent Ordinance is to prove that you are a “co-occupant.”

Rent Board Rules & Regulations §6.14 defines a co-occupant as “a subsequent occupant who has a rental agreement directly with the owner.” Rules & Regulations §6.14(c) applies to you and states:

When all original occupant(s) no longer permanently reside in a rental unit, and the last of the original occupants vacated on or after April 25, 2000, the landlord may establish a new base rent of any subsequent occupant(s) who is not a co-occupant and who commenced occupancy of the unit on or after January 1, 1996 without regard to the limitations set forth in Section 37.3(a) of the Rent Ordinance unless the subsequent occupant proves that the landlord waived his or her right to increase the rent by:

(1) Affirmatively representing to the subsequent occupant that he/she may remain in possession of the unit at the same rental rate charged to the original occupant(s); or

(2) Failing, within 90 days of receipt of written notice that the last original occupant is going to vacate the rental unit or actual knowledge that the last original occupant no longer permanently resides at the unit, whichever is later, to serve written notice of a rent increase or a reservation of the right to increase the rent at a later date; or

(3) Receiving written notice from an original occupant of the subsequent occupant’s occupancy and thereafter accepting rent unless, within 90 days of said acceptance of rent, the landlord reserved the right to increase the rent at a later date.

Where the landlord has waived the right to increase the rent under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(3) above, the subsequent occupant to whom the representation was made or from whom the landlord accepted rent shall thereafter have the protection of an original occupant as to any future rent increases under this Section 6.14. Where the landlord has waived the right to increase the rent under subsection (c)(2) above, any subsequent occupant who permanently resides in the rental unit with the actual knowledge and consent of the landlord (if the landlord’s consent is required and not unreasonably withheld) at the time of the waiver shall thereafter have the protection of an original occupant as to any future rent increases under this Section 6.14.

As you can see, it’s very difficult to prove that you are a co-occupant unless you moved in at the same time as the master tenant or established a direct relationship with the landlord, e.g. paid the rent directly to the landlord and the landlord treated you like a tenant and promised you (in writing) that someday you could “inherit” the tenancy at the same rental rate.

Try to make the best deal possible with the landlord.

If you fail to come to an agreement, remind him that he must serve a 60-day notice to increase the rent more than 10% (Civil Code §827.) Then take all of you documentation to the San Francisco Tenants Union and purchase a membership to assess your chances for success if you file a Rent Board Petition for a wrongful rent increase.

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

Can My (Troll) Landlord Give A 24-Hour Notice That Lasts All Week?

Can My (Troll) Landlord Give A 24-Hour Notice That Lasts All Week?

Can My (Troll) Landlord Give A 24-Hour Notice That Lasts All Week?

Peter Coleman-Weight sings Caligula.

Can a landlord state a whole week 9:00am – 5:00pm to enter under California Civil Code Section 1954, 24-hour notice, and the first four days she doesn’t show or call. She also screams, swears, and prays while walking around, she also threatening to break all the windows and to burn down the house if we ever refuse to let her in.

She isn’t the owner, she gave the house to her daughter to avoid lawsuits. But she walks around screaming that the house belongs to her no matter who’s name is on it.

Can your landlord serve a 24-hour notice that lasts for a week? How does that work unless there’s an ongoing construction project? Civil Code §1954(d)(1) states in part, “[T]he landlord shall give the tenant reasonable notice in writing of his or her intent to enter and enter only during normal business hours. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry.” Twenty-four hours is presumed to be reasonable. The law does not presume multiple entries as you describe.

You don’t mention the landlord’s rationale for her entries but they are also circumscribed by the law:

A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:
(1) In case of emergency.
(2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.
(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
(4) Pursuant to court order.

Given her actions, I somehow doubt that your landlord has any cognizable reason to enter your house other than to harass you. Join the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your situation with a counselor there. They can help you to write the landlord a letter to assert your rights.

Lovely. You have encountered another version of a troll landlord–the troll who won’t go home.

I’ve run into landlords like this more often than one might imagine. They’re completely insane and often maintain a “workshop” in a multi-unit building.  They think they’re somehow repairing or cleaning their property, but, of course, they’re doing neither. They visit the property solely to torture their tenants. Landlord trolls with a Caligula complex are particularly dangerous because many of them are richer than god and if you cross them, they’ll do anything they can and spend any amount of money to get you out.

I’m dealing with an eviction case right now that has a troll who won’t go home. She’s a wealthy woman who owns several big buildings. She comes to the building in which my clients lives almost every day to “sweep” and lurk in my client’s garage.

I had another case in which the landlord, worth about $10 million and who had a home in the East Bay, had a habit of driving to San Francisco and hanging around the building in which my clients lived. One day he had the temerity to walk up three flights of stairs to illegally enter my clients’ apartment to take a dump. They were home at the time.

In each of these cases, the landlords tried to evict my clients based upon trumped up allegations designed to cost my clients thousands of dollars and to force them to vacate.

You may ask yourself: Don’t these landlords have something better to do? Can’t they simply enjoy their wealth? But those are rational inquiries. You and I cannot begin to understand the irrational, compulsive actions of a sociopath, a king, a dictator or a landlord.

You can video the landlord’s tirades. You can call the cops when she insists upon entering without a good reason. You can try to get a restraining order. You can sue her (and her daughter) for harassment.

But you live in a house. Unless you have been a tenant there since 1995,  you should understand that your landlord, if she comes to her senses, can simply increase your rent to get you to move.

Unless you have a rent-controlled tenancy, my advice is simple: Start looking for new housing now, before your landlord burns down the house or before she conjures a reason to sue you because you defied her.

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

My Erratic Landlord Is Asking For An Illegal Rent Increase

My Erratic Landlord Is Asking For An Illegal Rent Increase

My Erratic Landlord Is Asking For An Illegal Rent Increase

I have a question about rent increases. My girlfriend and I live in a rent controlled 12-unit building in Nob Hill (built in 1907). We recently received a 30-day notice to increase our rent from our landlord. He is trying to increase our rent by 3.8% (1.9% for 2012 and 1.9% for 2013). While I know it’s perfectly ok for them to bank increases, we haven’t lived in the unit for two years yet. We moved in on August 1st of 2011. He stated in his notice that the rent increase was to take place on 7/1/2013, which would only be 23 months of tenancy. This compounded by the fact that he said he wouldn’t raise our rent when we moved in as it just “pisses people off” leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth… I have tried to reason with him before on certain things and he has responded in a completely erratic way due to the fact I think he’s strung out on drugs most of the time to the point my girlfriend is afraid of him. He lives in our building so I don’t want to make it an unbearable living situation but given how crazy rents are getting these days we don’t really have too many options.

Thanks for any help in advance and thank you for your column it’s a great deal of help and a invaluable service to the rest of us non hedge fund/dot commie gazillionaires. 

Uh, oh, you broke one of the cardinal rules of renting an apartment in San Francisco. If the landlord lives in the building, take a pass, keep looking. I talk about this all the time. Landlords, especially those who live with their tenants, think they own their tenants. They think they’re helping when they illegally enter your unit to express your new puppy’s anal glands. Most of the time, however, they simply believe that your apartment is an extension of their house and they want to monitor and control your behavior.

Your rent increase is technically illegal. “Banking” rent increases is a well-established and legal practice, San Francisco Rent Ordinance §37.3(a) provides in part, “A landlord who refrains from imposing an annual rent increase or any portion thereof may accumulate said increase and impose that amount on the tenant’s subsequent rent increase anniversary dates…” As you stated, a rent increase of 1.9% could have been imposed in August 1, 2012, but the second increase cannot be imposed until August 1, 2013. I’m sure you understand that his prior “promise” to refrain from increasing the rent could never be a defense to refusing to pay the increase.

Politely inform the landlord, in writing, that you will begin to pay the increase on August 1, 2013. (You should establish a practice of written communication with your landlord despite his proximity in the building.)

Then wait for all hell to break loose.

You think your landlord is strung out on drugs. He may be, but sometimes the behavior one ascribes to drugs can simply be a syphilitic dementia-like, Caligula-style obsession for control commonly found in landlords.

I hope your landlord doesn’t have a problem waiting for his increase for one month, but your description reminds me that some landlords can turn into trolls at the first hint of “defiance” from their tenants.

If your landlord starts to get nasty, make sure you document the behavior and, if necessary, call the cops.

I truly understand your conundrum. Two years ago, rents in San Francisco were, what, a tenth of what they are now? 😉 But do you really want to live in fear? How much is that worth? I think you should consider moving. You should also consider volunteering to strengthen rent control, devoting the same amount of time you might spend worrying about your dickhead landlord. Call the San Francisco Tenants Uniion or Tenants Together.

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

My Landlord Died, Am I About To Lose My Apartment?

My Landlord Died, Am I About To Lose My Apartment?

My Landlord Died, Am I About To Lose My Apartment?

I live in a unicorn of an amazing SF apartment. We pay well below market rate for Pacific Heights for a flat that is part of a two-unit building built in 1913. I have lived in it for three years with two roommates all in our 30s. I am the master tenant on the lease. 

After an insane six months of a struggle over the estate of our former landlord who owned our flat and lived upstairs in the penthouse unit, (Two wills! Mentally unstable identical twins! A case of mistaken identity in which my roommate’s clothing got stolen as retaliation for the ensuing settlement on the estate!) it has finally gone on the market. 

The building is going to be purchased faster than someone could tweet the Redfin listing, so I want to know what my rights as an existing month to month tenant are. I know I will probably be kicked out for our new owner to charge twice what we pay for the place but I want to know what, if anything, I can do to make the inevitable eviction work in my favor. After having to deal with the last half year of insanity, I would like to know that there is some sort of silver lining on this incredibly dark cloud that is the SF rental market. Please don’t tell me to move to Oakland.

Like the unicorn, rent controlled apartments are mythical and fast becoming extinct, especially when they become objects of desire for Twitter-motherfuckers and bubble-headed investors. Yours is a typical San Francisco fable wrought with insatiable greed, two-headed, cross-dressing monsters and an age-old struggle to save the unicorn from the forces of evil–a tragic ballad.

While you should prepare for your eventual departure, your rights are completely intact until a new owner decides upon his course of action for the building. Remember that you must be evicted for one of the sixteen just causes stated in the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. For example, a new landlord cannot kick you out to charge twice the rent to another tenant. If that happens, you’ll have a unicorn of a wrongful eviction lawsuit!

Intuitively, it seems like a new owner who truly wants to live in the building would move into the penthouse and continue to rent to you. I’ve seen that once or twice in my career.

Here’s a more typical scenario for a two-unit building like yours. The owner threatens to serve a sixty-day owner move-in notice, hoping to begin a buyout negotiation. At that point you may be able to negotiate a buyout of your tenancy that involves waiving all of your Rent Ordinance rights. I’ve written several articles about tenant buyouts and won’t go into all the nuances here.

The upside for the new owner is that can move upstairs and charge the new tenants twice your rent for the downstairs unit.

The theoretical upside for you is that you and your roommates will receive more than the statutory relocation payment mandated by Rent Ordinance §37.9C.

If you’re thinking about negotiating a buyout you should also understand if you or one of your roommates is disabled within the meaning of California Government Code §12955.3 because you may be eligible to receive $3,472.00 for each disabled tenant who has lived in the unit for more than a year.

If you or your roommates are eligible for the additional relocation payment, your are also disabled within the meaning of the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 USC 12102.) This is important because an owner who evicts you, even with a just cause, will be barred from converting the building to condominiums per San Francisco Subdivision Code §1396.2. This is a valuable negotiation tool.

A developer/landlord may threaten to evict you using the Ellis Act, a process by which the owner “goes out of the landlord business” and sells the units to TIC buyers. The Ellis Act should be repealed.

You can evaluate a buyout using the same factors described above. Ellis relocation payments are slightly higher. Ellis evictions require a 120-day notice or, if you or one of your roommates is disabled, you could be entitled to a one-year extension of the notice.

Like Ted Gullicksen at the Tenants Union says, negotiating a buyout is a “game of chicken.” You don’t know what the landlord really wants to do and you don’t want to commit to a buyout unless it works for you, but there may be an instant when one of the parties drives off the cliff, caves, or the landlord simply serves a eviction notice.

If you receive a notice out of the blue, remember that the requirements for an OMI notice and an Elis notice are strict. Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union and become a member to get help to evaluate the legality of the notice.

Finally, I almost never recommend that a tenant defend an unlawful detainer (eviction action) based upon an OMI or Ellis notice. There are no defenses to an Ellis eviction. Unless you can prove that the landlord lives in a castle in Monaco and that he could never intend to live in your flat, as his primary residence for three years, you probably shouldn’t risk going to court to defend an OMI eviction either. For tenants, the court is the place where bad things happen.

What’s wrong with Oakland? I lived in Oakland for years. The weather is better. Just think of yourself as one of thousands of San Franciscans who are putting the there back there.

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

Does My Landlord Need To Clean My Chimney?

Does My Landlord Need To Clean My Chimney?

Does My Landlord Need To Clean My Chimney?

I live in a 15 unit building built in the 1950s. I’ve been in my apartment for two years.  Already the fireplace is unusable because my place fills with smoke when I attempt to have a fire. I have no idea when the landlord last cleaned the chimney.  She did not indicate that when I moved in.

Who is responsible for cleaning my chimney, me or my landlord?  If my landlord, how often are they expected/required to clean it? Is it interval based, e.g. every five years?  Or on an as-needed basis, e.g. my apartment fills with smoke?

Have you ever seen Mary Poppins, the answer to your first question is easy–Dick Van Dyke, of course. At least that’s what your landlord will tell you.

While fireplaces aren’t primary sources of heat, their maintenance, repair and inspections are the responsibility of the landlord. Think about it, if a landlord has been warned about a malfunctioning chimney and a subsequent chimney fire burns down half the neighborhood, who is going to be sued?

We might not think about chimney fires much in San Francisco, but according to an American Red Cross article written in 2009, fireplaces and chimneys were the number one source of home heating equipment fires.

All of the publications I consulted recommended annual chimney inspections. Most of them point out that cleaning intervals largely depend upon use.

This depends a lot on how much you use your fireplace or stove. The National Fire Protection Association says, “Chimneys, fireplaces, and vents shall be inspected at least once a year for soundness, freedom from deposits, and correct clearances. Cleaning, maintenance, and repairs shall be done if necessary.”

The CSIA (Chimney Safety Institute of America) says that fireplaces should be cleaned when 1/8″ of sooty buildup is evident inside the chimney and flue system. If any glaze is appearing in the flue, cleaning should be done even if there is less than 1/8″ of build up. Any time an appreciable accumulation of soot and creosote occurs it can be enough to fuel a chimney fire that may damage the chimney and even spread to the roof and home. Furnace flue systems also require cleaning, so don’t neglect regular cleaning of those venting systems.

If you are using the fireplace correctly and smoke is still billowing into your apartment, then it looks like a chimney cleaning is in order.

Certainly, you should inform your landlord about the problem. If she starts humming “Chim Chim Cheree” when you ask her to fix it, consider filing a substantial decrease in services petition at the Rent Board.

If you file a petition at the Rent Board you will have to establish that the loss of the fireplace is a substantial decrease in services. You will need to prove that the fireplace and its use has value. Here are are few things to discuss:

  1. The fireplace in the unit is unique. It was one of the factors you considered when you rent the unit.
  2. The landlord factored in the increased value of the fireplace to determine the initial rent.
  3. The fireplace is a secondary heat source.
  4. Cleaning the fireplace will alleviate a fire hazard.

You will need to be thorough. At first blush, the person who decides your case could conclude that the fireplace is a luxury that you don’t really need. You must be prepared to argue why loss of use of the fireplace is more than simply losing something you didn’t need in the first place.

If you need to file, take all of your evidence to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your case with a counselor.

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

My Landlord Is Selling My Building, How Pessimistic Should I Be?

My Landlord Is Selling My Building, How Pessimistic Should I Be?

My Landlord Is Selling My Building, How Pessimistic Should I Be?

I’ve lived for three years in the in-law apartment of a residential, two-family home built in 1900 (the landlords live in the main house upstairs; I live in the in-law/garden apt on the first floor). It’s in  Bernal Heights.

My landlords, with whom I have a very good relationship, are approaching their 80s, and just informed me last week (via a handwritten note on a piece of cardboard) that they are putting the house on the market.

I am 35, I have a dog (who I just adopted two months ago), and my rent is $1300, and hasn’t gone up since I moved there. As I understand it, any new owner would just slip in and become my new landlord…unless they do an Owner Move-In, in which case they would have to give me a bunch of money and 60 days to vacate and physically have a family member move in. Is that about right?

I’m a born pessimist, and I realize this is subjective, but does it happen often that a tenant in a situation like mine is forced out? Is it at least possible that a potential new owner would want the already-installed tenant and their monthly check? I’m trying not to freak out, but I just know that finding a similar place in SF (I love both my apt and Bernal very much) is basically impossible at this point, as would be buying a home. I don’t want to have to leave.

You claim to be a born pessimist. Perhaps you’re not being pessimistic enough. People who buy houses with in-law units rarely want an “already-installed tenant and their monthly check.” Why? Because your monthly rent will barely cover the new property taxes based upon the insane price a new owner paid for the house.

In other words, even if a new owner wants to rent his in-law unit, he doesn’t want to rent it to you. You’re not paying enough rent. San Francisco rents increased from 15% to 25% citywide last year according to an October article in the SF Examiner.

“It’s been an exciting, epic year for the rental market in San Francisco,” said Laura Gray, who handles rentals for Paragon Real Estate.

She attributes the increase in younger single tenants to the the aggressive hiring of tech firms such as Google, Apple and Twitter.

With demand for smaller rentals so high, many younger tenants are choosing to double or triple up in a larger three-bedroom flat. With singles prepared to pay anywhere from $1500 to 1800 per month for a shared rental, larger flats in San Francisco are easily renting out for $5000 to 6000 per month.

Hey, it’s been an exciting and epic year and San Francisco taxpayers (you) have subsidized Twitter-Motherfuckers so that their employees can pay $1,800.00 per month for a room in a three-bedroom flat. That same flat rented for about $1,800.00 total a couple of years ago. Based on my many conversations with tenants looking for apartments, the trend continues.

The first question you must ask: “Is my unit illegal?” In my experience most in-law units, like the one you describe, are illegal. I have written much on this subject over the years. I outlined the factors to make that determination in “SF Appeal Tenant Troubles: Can I Be Evicted Just Because My Apartment’s An Illegal Unit?”

You need to understand this because the present owners or a new owner can “remove the unit from the rental market” because it is illegal pursuant to Rent Ordinance section 37.9(a)(10).

All an owner has to do is inform you of his intent to demolish and get an over-the-counter building permit to remove the unit. Then the owner can serve you a 60-Day Notice to vacate with the permit attached and pay you the requisite relocation payment to move. The relocation payment this year beginning in March 2013 is $5,153.00. I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider that a bunch of money when it will likely cover about three or four months of your new Twitter-based rent.

To add insult to injury, I’ve seen many instances when a landlord will reinstall a kitchen in an illegal unit and re-rent it. There is absolutely no penalty for this unless the new tenant finds out and reports the unit to DBI and sues for fraud.

Epic. Happy fucking New Year! How’s that for pessimism?

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

Is My Landlord Required To Replace My 25-Year-Old Carpet?

Is My Landlord Required To Replace My 25-Year-Old Carpet?

Is My Landlord Required To Replace My 25-Year-Old Carpet?

I live in a 1908 Edwardian building on Pine Street. There are seven units total over three floors.

I’ve lived there in a large two bedroom on the top floor for 17 years under a very reasonable rent control price: $1470.00 now. My landlord has increased the rent at the minimal percentage each year. He’s been more than cooperative when I’ve been slightly late with the rent. We’ve always communicated pretty well. When I moved in, there were three of us living there and over the years I have rented out a room many times. Right now it’s just me and my cats.

He has replaced my dishwasher before when requested, when it’s died. He recently replaced all my windows which were quite old and decayed.

My question is regarding the carpeting. There are two large rooms and two small rooms each with carpeting between 17 and 25 years old. Needless to say, it needs to be replaced badly. When I moved in 17 years ago there were two cats living in the apartment. There are two cats presently living there as well (not the same ones of course) Also the apartment hasn’t had any interior painting or improvements besides the windows in the entire time.

Can I replace the carpeting in the apartment and charge the landlord? Is he required to replace any or all of it?

Also, my bathtub and bathroom equipment is pretty worn out. Is he required to upgrade the shower or the toilet?

Yours is a common question that I used to hear at the Tenants Union about once a week. And it’s always a tough one to answer.

Shag carpets, hardwood floors that should be refinished, and dingy paint jobs from the last century. It’s difficult to require a landlord to repair or replace them unless they pose some sort of health or safety issue that could be cited by a housing inspector.

I lived in a building in the Richmond in which the living room and dining room were carpeted in 1970s bright orange (thank heaven, not shag!). In the right light that carpet could induce an acid flashback. Yet the carpet was remarkably durable. When I asked the landlord if I could remove it, he declined, noting that he want to keep the carpet to protect the hardwood floors.

After inquiring at the Department of Building Inspection, I learned that housing inspectors, given the scope and requirements of their job, can only cite a carpet if it is in disrepair, rising to the level of a threat to health or safety. They look for holes and areas so worn that they could be tripping hazards. They will also cite a carpet that is moldy.

So look around. Could the carpet be unsafe? You mention your cats, but if they have peeing on the carpet for years, that’s your problem. Ditto with them scratching and tearing up the carpeting.

Check your lease. It’s likely that the lease contains a “no alterations” clause that requires a landlord’s written consent to make repairs or to replace the carpet. If your lease doesn’t contain such a clause, you may have more leeway to replace the carpet, but on your own dime.

The other issues in the apartment should be approached in the same manner.

You mention that the bathroom and kitchen and worn out. If the plumbing leaks, that could be a violation. If the cabinets are falling apart, that could be a violation.

If the paint job in the apartment is simply old, it is unlikely that you can require the landlord to repaint. However, if the paint is peeling and cracking that could be a violation.

Before you approach your landlord, it would be wise to take some photos and bring them to the San Francisco Tenants Union to get a second or third opinion regarding the condition of the apartment.

When you understand all of your options, you should simply ask your landlord if he will replace the carpets and/or paint, etc. Maybe you make a deal with him to cover some of the costs.

Of course, you can always ask the landlord for his permission to paint or upgrade yourself. As you probably know, I rarely recommend that a tenant upgrade a landlord’s property, but small fixes and new paint may be justifiable because the benefits may justify the cost.

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