(415)552-9060
My Landlord’s Jacking My Rent Way Up After I Complained About Maintenance

My Landlord’s Jacking My Rent Way Up After I Complained About Maintenance

My Landlord’s Jacking My Rent Way Up After I Complained About Maintenance

I Complained About Maintenance.

Building was built 8 years ago. Two roommates and I rent a three-bedroom condo from its owner. Rented it to us as a three-bedroom, but we have good information that the third bedroom is illegal–built without a permit.

Construction on the building has kept us from using around a third of our unit. After writing many complaint letters he ignored, last month he sent us a notice that he was increasing our rent by around a third. We feel this is in retaliation for complaining about being partially constructively evicted from our unit. Rent is 3500, increase is for 1200.

Do we fall under the ordinance?

Unfortunately, because the building is a newer one, built after 1979, you are not covered by the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. You can only avail yourselves of the protections of California law. You may as well be living in Bakersfield.

That doesn’t mean that you don’t have any tenant rights. Your rights are just more antiquated and harder to enforce. It’s like you’ve traveled back in time about 40 or 50 years. The Billboard Magazine Number One pop song in 1961 was, appropriately, “Tossin’ and Turnin’” by Bobby Lewis. You’re probably doing a little of that, dealing with your Cheese Ball landlord.

The first thing to do is check to see if the landlord has the requisite building permits for the construction. It’s amazing how often arrogant wads, like your landlord, don’t bother to get permits. And on top of that, don’t consider that their tenants might get angry and turn them in.

Go to the Department of Building Inspection Online Permit and Complaint Tracking site, type in the address and check if the landlord has the permits. Also see if there are other complaints on the unit or the entire building. Remember the unit is considered a single family dwelling because it’s a condo. The building may have separate complaints.

Next, call a Housing Inspector to write up violations in your unit. It doesn’t matter if the work is legal or not if you have substantial violations of the implied warranty of habitability.

Finally, the rent increase may very well be a violation of California Civil Code § 1942.5which defines and provides remedies for retaliatory evictions. Civil Code § 1942.5 essentially provides that the landlord is presumed to have served the rent increase notice in retaliation if it was served less than 180 days after a complaint from the tenant regarding the habitability of a unit. The code also provides for statutory damages and attorney’s fees to a prevailing party.

Go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss your issues with a counselor. You can flesh out your possible causes of action and develop a strategy to deal with your landlord. You should at least write him a letter warning him that you will sue him if he continues his behavior.

Hopefully, you have some DBI notices of violation to support a demand that the construction is completed in a timely manner.

Do not withhold your rent. You do not want to be a defendant in an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit. Alway complain about maintenance in writing.

After all is said and done, you get to sue your landlord. Isn’t that wonderful? You get to hire an attorney. You get to spend a couple of years thinking about and dealing with your landlord, whether you still live in the unit or not.

If you talk to me, it’s likely that I’m going to tell you the same thing that I tell tenants every day, “Make a business decision.” In your case, your landlord will have the absolute right to evict you without cause somewhere down the line. He will also be able to increase the rent to more or less whatever he wants, if not now, later.

Usually, apartments without rent control are not worth fighting for. Depending on the provable damages, many affirmative lawsuits are not worth the aggravation. That’s why landlords get away with so much shit. They make the laws. They know that tenants often don’t have the means or the time or the stomachs to fight them.

I hope you can solve your problems with your landlord. If you can’t and you’re pissed off, the chances are that your anger would be better served working to change the laws than to sue the landlord. Join the San Francisco Tenants Union and/or call Tenants Togetherand ask them how you can help.

In the meantime, consider the 1961 Number Five Billboard hit, “Runaway” by Dell Shannon. Maybe it’s a song your landlord should be singing.

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

How Do I Get Reimbursed For Utility Overages That Aren’t My Fault?

How Do I Get Reimbursed For Utility Overages That Aren’t My Fault?

How Do I Get Reimbursed For Utility Overages That Aren’t My Fault?

Utility overcharges.

I rent a one bedroom apartment in a Victorian house that was constructed about 120 years ago.  The house has 4 units, one of which is owner occupied.  I pay $1750 a month plus $150 for garage parking and I’ve been in the unit since June 2010.

My lease requires that I have the water bill in my own name and pay it, which I do.  For over a year, the bill was about $50.  Late last year, it’s started increasing dramatically, and my most recent bill was over $200.  I called SFPUC and they told me they could tell I have a leak because the water is always being consumed, even at night.  I set up a time for an inspection which my landlord attended.  I could not attend as I was working.  She informed me that the inspector said the leak was not in the unit but elsewhere in the building.  She informed me she would have her son look into it, and that he has some expertise in this area.  That was two weeks ago.

I believe that my landlord is responsible for the overage due to the leak.  SFPUC says they will reimburse for half of the overage when we prove that it has been repaired.  How do I (1) get this repair done ASAP, (2) get my landlord to pay the overage, either all of it or what’s not reimbursed by PUC.

My landlord is generally a nice person but the house could be in better repair.  I don’t know if it’s an illegal unit or not, and if I got the building inspector out, I’m pretty sure they would find a good number of problems.  I don’t intend to stay in this apartment long term but do plan to stay for at least six months.  I don’t want to cause more trouble than necessary, but I want my money back for the over paid water.  Should I start deducting it from my rent?  What about the last 4 bills that were high?  What is a legal, polite but assertive way to handle this?

This is an issue that is more common than you might think. I’m not clear on whether you are paying the water bill for the whole building or just for your unit. Unit water meters, while becoming more common, are not often found in old Victorian buildings. That’s why it is more common that landlords pay for water.

A side issue here could be that the house had been chopped into units illegally. If you are also sharing your PG&E bill or your utilities are included in your rent, you should look into the possibility that your unit is illegal. SF Assessor-Recorder’s website. Of course, if your unit is illegal, that would open up a can of worms that I’m not going to discuss here.

Unfortunately, in my experience, when landlords ask their sons to look into anything, nothing gets done. Certainly, her son could be a licensed plumber and I may be wrong. But that’s the point, she is going to need the help of a professional to find and fix the leak.

You need to compile all of the documents you received from SFPUC. You need something in writing from them that states you did not cause the leak and/or that the leak is coming from a part of the building not associated with your apartment. Compile all of your water bills to get an average charge to demonstrate the amount of the utility overcharges.

Then simply ask the landlord to reimburse you. I think that should be done in writing and the letter should include a brief synopsis with the proof that you are in no way responsible for the leak. (BTW, I believe that letters should always be one page long, two if you must.)

This is also the time to mention that she needs to repair any conditions in your unit that may represent a substantial decrease in services–roof leaks, heating issues, broken windows, etc. You should go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to discuss this with a tenant counselor.

If the landlord doesn’t make the other repairs in a timely manner, call a Housing Inspector for the Department of Building Inspection to get any violations on the record.

If your landlord refuses to reimburse you, or, more likely, just stalls, you should notdeduct the overpayment from your rent because you could risk an allegation that you breached your lease by failing to pay your full rent for the month.

As I’ve said many times, it’s always better to be a plaintiff in a legal action rather than a defendant. File a petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services at the San Francisco Rent Board instead.

You have already compiled your evidence, now all you have to do is fill out the form and file it. You should include any other decreases in service regarding habitability of the premises with supporting evidence. The Tenants Union can also help you with this.

One of the reasons I like working with tenants is that they’re usually nice people who are not vindictive. Most just want to get what they pay for and live their lives. Most don’t want to sue anybody and they usually look for the humane, civilized approach to resolve problems. Sometimes problems can be resolved in that manner.

Unfortunately, the landlord-tenant paradigm is based upon engrained beliefs that the landlord is always in control. When tenants attempt to assert their rights in any manner, however politely, the old passive aggressive lord of the manner mentality can rear its ugly, antiquated head.

Landlords, especially those who live with their tenants, may forget that their relationship with their tenants is simply a business relationship, no more no less.

The legal, polite way to handle this is to be polite but direct. The leak needs to be fixed and you want your money back. If this doesn’t happen, you dispassionately use the legal system to resolve the issue, no more, no less.

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

Why Do You Assume All Landlords Are Rich?

Why Do You Assume All Landlords Are Rich?

Why Do You Assume All Landlords Are Rich?

I don’t want to argue the merits of rent control per se. But, what I would like to know is why does every single tenant advocacy group, person, attorney, legislator etc just assume that a landlord, just being a landlord, is rich?

Some are wealthy and some are not. Some large corporations are doing fabulously well today and some small businesses are suffering greatly.

Maybe we should means test landlords as a way to exempt some from the rent ordinances of SF & Berkeley? Would you consider that fair?

It’s interesting that your list of those who assume that landlords are rich practically encompasses the entire population. Could that assumption simply be true? Duh. In the Bay Area, all landlords are rich.

It’s very easy to come to that conclusion. If you’re a landlord, you own at least two units, right? (Generally, a landlord who rents a room to a boarder in his own house is exempt from rent control.)

According to HUD, for the 12 months ending March 2010, the median sales price was $647,300 in the city of San Francisco. I believe the price has increased in the last year.

But before you blow a gasket, I understand that the single family home sales price is not necessarily indicative of the value of a given unit. Those figures are harder to find. But is there a two-unit building in San Francisco that is worth less than $400,000? If there is one, it’s probably uninhabitable.

Is it fair to say that all San Francisco landlords have assets valued at least $400,000.00? Landlords who own more units than in this hypothetical San Francisco shack are worth considerably more.

Is that rich enough for you?

Anyone who didn’t come in with yesterday’s rain knows that rich people always complain about not having enough. It’s in their nature.

One of the reasons corporations do so well is that we subsidize them with tax breaks and write-offs. Interestingly, we also subsidize landlords the same way. Landlords can deduct their mortgage interest, maintenance costs, property taxes, property management costs and on and on.

I don’t even get my frickin’ $62.00 renters credit anymore.

I’m sorry. The poor landlord who deserves a means test to opt out of rent control is like the small company, say Bechtel with annual revenue of $30.8 billion, that deserves a tax break.

Of course you want to argue the merits of rent control–you want to argue the merits in a passive/aggressive manner so typical of apologists for landlords.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, “The next landlord who publicly complains about being vilified by tenant advocates for being too rich must be publicly vilified by tenant advocates for being too rich.

Update, December 1, 2013: Did I actually say $400,000 for an average value of two units? Just trying to be conservative…

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

If I’m Rich, Am I Still Protected By Rent Control?

If I’m Rich, Am I Still Protected By Rent Control?

If I’m Rich, Am I Still Protected By Rent Control?

I live in a two-unit building where the owner lives in one unit. The building was built in 1900. They are both legal units and I pay $3,900.00 per month.

Is it true the rent can only go up .5%? I make over 400K per year but don’t want to pay any more than I have to.

When I read the laws of rent control my interpretation is that for a building like mine that only portions of the rent control apply to my situation covering evictions and such but don’t cover the actual rental fee. I know my landlord doesn’t cover his costs monthly on the rental and he will want to raise the rent if he can.

I love this question! It’s a great set-up (intended or not.) Rich tenant exploiting struggling landlord. Shouldn’t we all have their problems? I feel like I’m sitting behind a desk at ACORN; a prostitute and her pimp asking me for advice about buying a house and hiding their source of income… Okay, I’ll bite.

Unless the units were converted to condominiums, your tenancy is protected by both major provisions of the Rent Ordinance. Your rent can only be increased by the allowable annual increases established by the Rent Board and you can only be evicted for for one of the 15 just causes. If your unit is not a condominium you are correct. Beginning March 1, 2011, the annual allowable increase is .5%, half a percent. Last year’s increase was .1%.

If your unit is a condominium (a legal single-family dwelling) then your tenancy is only covered by the just cause provisions of the Ordinance. The landlord can raise the rent to “market rate.”

Really, the landlord could raise the rent as much as he wanted, but if he tried to raise your rent to, say $10,000.00 a month, that indicates that his “dominant motive” is to evict you–a violation of the Rent Ordinance.

Of course there are other allowable increases a landlord can levy: capital improvement passtroughs; operation and maintenance costs; utility cost passthroughs, etc. Generally, however, you won’t have to pay a penny more than $3,919.50 if your rent is increased after March 1, 2011.

A rent increase of 20 bucks for a tenant who makes $400,000.00 per year, is this fair?

The Rent Ordinance was enacted in 1979 because:

“Tenants displaced as a result of their inability to pay increased rents must relocate but as a result of such housing shortage are unable to find decent, safe and sanitary housing at affordable rent levels. Aware of the difficulty in finding decent housing, some tenants attempt to pay requested rent increases, but as a consequence must expend less on other necessities of life. This situation has had a detrimental effect on substantial numbers of renters in the City, especially creating hardships on senior citizens, persons on fixed incomes and low and moderate income households.” (San Francisco Rent Ordinance §37.1(b)(2).)

Every once and a while landlords squeeze into their green tights and with Robin Hood-like indignation point at tenants like our reader and demand “means testing” for rent control.

They claim that our reader and his ilk are always going to be able to afford increased rents and that he doesn’t deserve the protections of rent control. His unit, they cry, should be removed from the statutory protections. At first blush, this may seem fair…until you take a closer look.

Means testing, the application of an income threshold to remove a unit from control,would not create a single new affordable rental unit. Instead it would serve to remove vast numbers of units from rent control protections forever.

Think about it, a landlord with a wealthy tenant can raise the rent to whatever he wants, whenever he wants to. By virtue of those increases alone, only wealthy people will be able to afford his unit, insuring that the unit will stay at “market rate” forever. A landlord in that position has no incentive to rent to a tenant whose income may fall below the threshold.

If means testing is enacted, all tenants will have to prove eligibility for rent control. If you don’t like sending your tax returns to the IRS, how are you going to feel sending a second set to your landlord?

Finally, imagine the bureaucracy necessary to enact a means control scheme. The Rent Board would be flooded with petitions seeking to review renters’ tax returns.

Tenants, don’t get fooled about “fairness.” Means testing won’t create more affordable units nor will it provide revenue to do so. Means testing is simply a scheme to rob from the rich and give to the richer–another ploy to eviscerate the Rent Ordinance.

If we’re truly concerned about the rich paying their fair share, it’s time to revive the graduated income tax with upper level tax rates of 80-90%, just like in the days of that old socialist, Richard Nixon.

Let the IRS sort it out, not the Rent Board.

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

Can I Get Evicted For Adding A Lock To My Closet?

Can I Get Evicted For Adding A Lock To My Closet?

Can I Get Evicted For Adding A Lock To My Closet?

I have been having a hard time with my landlord/management (the building was sold in July-no one was notified) and someone entered my apartment (which is in an SRO hotel) and put some nasty stuff in my closet.

I am 67 years old and I’ve lived here for over 20 years. Because of this incident, I want to put a lock on my closet. Is that permitted in a hotel?

Before I answer your question, I want to point out that it is a violation of Rent Ordinance 37.9(k) to fail to inform tenants that a building is on the market. The ordinance also provides that tenants must be informed of their rights in a notification that the building is for sale.

If real estate agents know about this they’re not letting on. I see many cases in which landlords have failed to inform the tenants of a pending sale.

As you may be aware, Single Room Occupancy Hotels (SROs) are covered by the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and state law. You have the same rights as a tenant in an apartment.

You need to check your lease to see if it allows you to “alter” the apartment without the consent of the landlord. If you don’t have a lease, you may install a lock on the closet without further ado.

If your lease states that you can only alter the apartment with consent of the landlord, you have two choices. You can write the landlord and request written consent or you can install the lock and see what happens.

If the landlord notices the lock and wants you to remove it, he must serve you a three-day notice to cure or quit, meaning that you have three days to remove the lock before the landlord can serve you with an unlawful detainer lawsuit to evict you. You can choose to remove the lock to avoid an unawful detainer or you can choose to fight the eviction.

Luckily, seniors (60+ years old) can receive free unlawful detainer representation at Legal Assistance for the Elderly. The program has a staff crackerjack housing attorneys who know how to defend evictions.

Frankly, I don’t think a jury would toss you out of your home simply because you put a lock on a closet, but as I have said in several columns, fighting an eviction in court is tricky. Before you decide to defend an eviction, talk to LAE or the San Francisco Tenants Union to develop a strategy.

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

Adding A Roommate, Losing A Garage

Adding A Roommate, Losing A Garage

Adding A Roommate, Losing A Garage

I have been in my current (rent-controlled) two-unit apartment here in San Francisco since September 2008. The property manager states they will not process nor approve any application until they have received a positive verbal or written referral from the prior landlord/property manager/roommate.

I am not aware of any city, state or federal law supporting this requirement and understand that a property manager/landlord may only use personal information from an application to rent to confirm proof of income and credit worthiness, and the approval must be completed within a reasonable period of time (as far as I can tell, five business days).

This requirement by the property manager nearly sabotaged my new roommate when, after almost two weeks, they refused to allow him to move in because his prior landlord/roommate apparently wasn’t returning their calls.

My second question: the property manager has also refused to allow me to remain the master tenant on the lease, but instead insists that the new roommate be a co-tenant despite the fact that I have never been late paying the rent (with and without a roommate) since I moved in.

I would like to remain the master tenant (and the new roommate was aware of this wish and agreed to it prior to applying), but the property manager created a “Modification to Lease” placing my new roommate on the lease as a co-tenant.

Under the lease, I am entitled to park two motorcycles and a vehicle in the garage, and since I moved in, have neatly stored items in the storage area (I essentially have sole access to the garage since the tenant downstairs does not drive). After the new roommate moved in, the property manager sent me a letter stating that we must remove all items in the garage despite knowing of the storage matter and no one (that we know of) complained about our storage. I checked the lease and it states, “storage in unit only.”

Are the first two issues lawful, and do I have to move our things despite their constructive notice that I/we have always stored things in the garage/storage room?

All of your issues involve gray (unclear) areas of the law. By that, I mean that your issues, if litigated, will be subject to administrative or judicial interpretation. All of your issues are interesting. And you should understand that when a lawyer says your case is “interesting” that translates as “expensive.”

Can the property manager refuse to process a roommate application without a reference from a former landlord? Rent Board Rules and Regulations § 6.15A and B govern the process by which a roommate can be added to a tenancy. Assuming you have a clause in your lease that allows subletting with the landlord’s written consent (most leases do) the applicable section is 6.15B(b)(ii):

“The proposed new tenant or new subtenant, if requested by the landlord, has completed the landlord’s standard form application, or, in the event the landlord fails to provide an application or has no standard form application, the proposed new tenant or new subtenant has, upon request, provided sufficient information to allow the landlord to conduct a typical background check, including credit information, income information, references, and background information.”

I imagine that most “standard applications” ask for the name of a former landlord. Read narrowly, one could interpret the rules as only requiring the tenant to fill out the application. However, no one is going to argue that the landlord cannot, upon receiving the application, “conduct a typical background check.” There’s the rub. I would certainly argue that a new roommate should not be penalized by a former landlord’s recalcitrance in providing a reference. What if the guy is on an extended silent meditation retreat in an ashram in India? Or recently deceased? What if the new roommate doesn’t have a former landlord, having just moved out of her parents’ house?

The problem is that there is no clear answer. Would it be worth a shot to litigate this at the Rent Board? Perhaps, but in your case you would not have standing to do so because your roommate was, finally, approved.

Can the property manager insist that a new roommate become a co-tenant? Frankly, I’m surprised that they would want to. Your roommate will have all of the rent ordinance protections you now have. Simply put, the landlord cannot increase the rent to market rate if you move out.

The only advantage of being a master tenant is the ability to evict a subtenant, either with or without just cause. (See Rules and Regulations §6.15C.) If your roommate becomes a co-tenant you would not be able to evict her at all because co-tenants cannot evict each other. Personally, I don’t see a problem because I don’t think anyone should want to be a landlord.

That said, you may not have to sign a new lease with the modification as proposed by the property manager, but the law is not completely clear. Rent Ordinance §37.9(a)(5) provides that a tenant can be evicted if he or she refuses to sign a new lease “under such terms which are materially the same as in the previous agreement.” Your roommate is a party to the lease not a term in the lease, yet the modification itself is, arguably, a material new term.

Finally, the storage issue is also subject to interpretation. Your lease specifically requires “storage in unit only.” Did the property manager “waive” that requirement? Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. That the property managers knew about your storage in the garage is not necessarily enough to prove their intent.

I think the best strategy is to remove the items from the garage. Then consider filing a petition for decrease in services at the Rent Board. Bear in mind that you will have to show that losing the storage has some monetary value; that losing the storage is a substantial decrease; and that the property managers intended to give up their right to demand that you remove the items. It’s a close call.

When presented with cases like this, I ask my clients to think long and hard before they risk their tenancies based upon unsettled issues in the law. For example, if you were my client, I may have advised you not to allow your new roommate to move in had the property manager refused to accept her based on their inability to contact the old landlord.

Defending evictions is expensive, time consuming and stressful. Often it’s better to make a business decision. Ask yourself, “Is my tenancy going to be worth it after I amortize these costs?”

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