(415)552-9060
My Building Manager Says I’m Denying Access To My Apt., But I’m Not!

My Building Manager Says I’m Denying Access To My Apt., But I’m Not!

by | Jun 16, 2010 | Tenant Law

My Building Manager Says I’m Denying Access To My Apt., But I’m Not!

One of the owners of my building, I’ll call him DJ, was also the former manager until Jan 2010 when management was turned over to a professional managing firm, I’ll call Slumco. I have been having problems getting the managing firm Slumco to remedy an outstanding notice of violation issued by SF DBI over eight weeks ago.

Last week, out of the blue, the former manager DJ emailed me and said he wanted to send in a work crew within a day. I had not received any notice of change in management, so I asked him whether he was acting as the manager and if he was still a partial owner.

He did not answer those questions and then accused me of denying access, which I did not. I have been more than accommodating and never denied access. I’ve allowed many people in to evaluate and estimate repairs but nobody has actually done any work.

I emailed the president of Slumco and asked him if DJ was now the acting manger and he replied “DJ is our Attorney”. I had no idea he was a lawyer, let alone the acting lawyer for Slumco. He never disclosed this fact and used his same old email address as when he was the former building manager.

In communication, is he required to inform me which capacity he is acting in? Doesn’t he have to disclose that he is a lawyer? Does he have a conflict of interest?

The first thing I do when a tenant tells me that a landlord is represented by a lawyer who I don’t know either personally or by reputation is look him up. It doesn’t happen often, but every once in awhile I’ll run across someone who thinks that he can intimidate tenants by claiming to be a lawyer. It’s easy to set them straight. On two occasions, I caught unlicensed attorneys filing unlawful detainers. Now that’s a real kick!

Check the State Bar attorney search engine to see if DJ has his JD. Actually, California is one of few states left that does not require one to graduate from a law school to be licensed to practice law. You don’t need a JD (Juris Doctor) if you do a rigorous course of study under a practicing attorney or judge. It’s very possible DJ is a lawyer. Check out how long he’s been in practice and if he has any disciplinary actions filed against him.

I did a quick search in The Rules of Professional Responsibility and a few cases. I can’t see any requirement that DJ has to tell you he is a lawyer. There is very little possible conflict of interest. He has always been in an adversarial position with you. That is, unless he is getting confidential information by seeking to represent you, he has always been a potential enemy. And you know it. Next time you communicate with him (in writing), ask him who he is representing.

I don’t think any of that really matters. The real questions are: How many fricking inspections and estimates does it take to abate the violations? And where is your formal 24-hour written notice to enter? Check out “Sorry, CitiApartments, ‘Routine Inspections’ Are Illegal” for a refresher.

Certainly, the landlord has the right to enter to exhibit to workers for repair estimates and to make the repairs. However, DJ should be aware that he could be violating your covenant of quiet enjoyment. Here’s a legal concept: He could also be in violation of California Civil Code 1940.2(4) which makes it illegal to commit significant and intentional violations of Section 1954 for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate. The statute provides for penalties of up to $2,000.00 for each violation.

You also might want to provide a bit more continuing legal education for DJ and inform him that you’re not paying your rent next month if the repairs are not completed. California Civil Code 1942.4 provides that landlord cannot demand or collect rent if a dwelling has substantial habitability defects that are not your fault, reported by a government official and outstanding for more than 35 days. Check with the San Francisco Tenants Union or a tenant attorney before you withhold the rent.

The threat of a legally sanctioned rent strike is something that all landlords understand, lawyers or not.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

by | Jun 9, 2010 | Tenant Law

Locked Out Of The Laundry Room

I live in a 16-unit building in San Francisco (rent controlled, if that matters). We have a laundry room in the basement with two coin-op washers and dryers. Due to the fact that the laundry room is underneath someone’s apartment and also uses some of the building’s hot water, use of the washers and dryers has always been restricted to 10am-10pm. I work a shifted schedule, so sometimes the only time I have available to do my laundry is weekday mornings.

Until recently, this has never been a problem and I’ve been able to start the washers at a few minutes after 10:00, however many times over the past two months, I have found the laundry room door closed and locked during the day. Sometimes it is opened during the day and other times it remains closed. I have spoken to the building manager (who lives upstairs) about this, and he said that someone in the building (most likely the tenant who lives above the laundry room) is closing the door (which locks automatically) and since he works during the day, he cannot unlock it until he gets home. He said he had received some other complaints as well, and he would try to rectify the situation.

It’s now been 3 weeks since I spoke with him, and nothing has changed.

My question is whether I have any legal recourse if this keeps happening. Do tenants have a right to use the building’s community laundry room during posted hours? I don’t pay any extra for the laundry room (aside from quarters to use the machines), but it was advertised as a feature of the building when I found the apartment and thus weighed into my decision to move in.

How many times do I have to say this? If you want to have any credibility with a court or an administrative agency (the Rent Board) you have to make a complaint to a landlord in writing! Whenever I read “I spoke” to the landlord or his agent, it makes me crazy. When you speak to a landlord about your tenancy issues, you almost never get a response.

Why? Because most landlords don’t want to do anything except collect the rent. Ignoring you is the perfect response because the landlord will deny that you mentioned the problem when you finally take him to the Rent Board and you won’t be able to prove that you did complain.

When you write a letter to a manager or a landlord, sometimes (not often enough), he will take steps to remedy a given complaint. Sometimes (not often enough), he will think that you’re serious.

The first thing you should do is restate this question in demand letter form and send it to the manager, copying the building owner, the management company and anyone else involved in the operation of the building. It would be good to mention that the manager acknowledged that he had other complaints about the locked door. It is also important to give him a date certain (make it reasonable) to perform and tell him that you will file a petition for decrease in services with the Rent Board if he doesn’t fix the problem by that date.

The next thing to do is try to find the other tenants who have complained about the locked door to the laundry room and ask them to send similar letters. As I have often maintained here, it is important for tenants to stick together. Note that the manager immediately blamed the tenant who lives above the laundry room. He didn’t consider that it’s just silly to have a laundry room door that locks behind you. What if you left your clothes in there and accidentally shut the door? Why should there be a lock on the door at all? The bottom line is that a landlord will always try to shift the blame to other tenants. However if the tenants stick together, he will be more likely deal with issues if he understands that there’s an uprising in the works that may cost him some money.

Finally, there is no inherent tenant right to use a laundry room, but it is a service provided, inherently, in your lease. If you are now unable to use that service, it constitutes a decrease in services. Is it a substantial decrease in services? If so, how much money is it worth?

I think those factors go hand in hand. When I dealt with this for a client a few weeks ago, I pointed out the inconvenience factor. In your petition to the Rent Board, you want to note where the nearest laundromat is located and figure out how much time it’s going to take to lug your laundry there, wait for it to finish and lug it back. Does the local laundromat cost more money? If so, you can demonstrate an actual increase in cost.

But remember a petition to the Rent Board has to be predicated on notice to the landlord and the notice has to be in writing. If you want to have a last conversation about this with the manager, ask him why the hell there’s a lock on the door in the first place.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

What Constitutes a “Decrease In Services”?

What Constitutes a “Decrease In Services”?

by | Jun 2, 2010 | Tenant Law

What Constitutes a “Decrease In Services”?

I have lived in a particular flat in the Mission for about 3 years. It was in horrible shape when I moved in, but my partner and I cleaned it up. The landlord always comments on how great it looks.

The problem is that there are a number of maintenance issues that never seem to get addressed. There are some wiring issues in the front of the flat where the lights don’t work. The roof leaks in several places, as well as the windows. The linoleum in the kitchen is peeling and there is a chronic mold problem in the bathroom (tub needs to be re-grouted).

Also, it doesn’t appear that we have regular trash service as we throw it out on our back stairs and it doesn’t get taken away every week. He also has refused our request for our FREE recycling and composting bins. I’ve written a couple of letters and I pretty much get a flat out “no” (in terms of the lights, flooring, garbage bins) or it takes him months to get anything done (like the roof, which is still a work in progress).

I almost want to call an inspector to force him to make the fixes, however I’m afraid that we will have to move out for an extended period of time and we risk losing the place. Our landlord only owns one rentable property, the rest of the building is his small business.

His main excuse is a lack of funds, which I can sympathize with. However, I would like to know what our options are. As I mentioned, the place was pretty much in worse condition when I moved in so I’m not sure if a “decrease in services” rent reduction is the way to go.

Of course you have a decrease in services! You’re living in a unit with a leaking roof, faulty wiring, persistent mold and no garbage service. You could be describing a trailer in Mississippi as opposed to a flat in San Francisco and your rent should be reduced accordingly.

This may be difficult to fathom, but you could be living in a death trap. I recently spoke to a tenant who described similar living conditions that were a pain in the ass but bearable because the rent was cheap. Bearable until the electrical outlets started sparking and a fire broke out in her young daughter’s bedroom.

Your landlord is a classic Cheese Ball. He’s so cheap he squeaks. He’s not above collecting your overpriced San Francisco rent. He’s happy to take all of the tax write-offs that are available to him and not to you. He’s a shabby little version of an insurance company–he wants to take your money and provide nothing in return. Believe me, the landlords who cry poor, like insurance companies, are some of the richest ones out there because they’ve squirreled away all their dough. In the worst cases these landlords kill tenants.

As I describe in Wet, Cold, and Moldy, my first SF Appeal column, you have already notified the Cheese Ball and now you need to do something about it.

Call a housing inspector from the Department of Building Inspection. Check to see if the building has complaints or violations from the past.

What? No garbage pick-up? You throw the garbage on the back stairs? Are we still living in the 18th century? Landlords are absolutely required to provide garbage service for both residential and business tenants. San Francisco Health Code 291.1, et seq. (and following sections) is clear on this point. Landlords who fail to provide garbage service can be convicted of a misdemeanor.

Will you be forced to move from your apartment because of the repairs? I think it is unlikely because the repairs do not, from your description, seem to be extensive enough to render your unit completely uninhabitable.

You may, however, reconsider moving out when you get sick of the landlord coming over every day to “inspect” rather than doing any work on the place. For this reason I insist that landlords use licensed contractors and that they provide 24-hour written notice pursuant to Civil Code 1954.

When all the violations are in place you should certainly file a petition at the Rent Board to reduce your rent due to substantial decreases housing services or call a competent tenant attorney to considering filing a lawsuit.

Good luck. You’re going to need it.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Is My Building’s High Water Bill My Problem?

Is My Building’s High Water Bill My Problem?

by | May 27, 2010 | Tenant Law

Is My Building’s High Water Bill My Problem?

I’m a loyal reader and always figured the day I had trouble with my landlord you were gonna be one of the first people I contact. Last Friday night (11:00 p.m.) my girlfriend got a call from the landlord saying our water bill was out of control, and she was going to stop by to see what was going on, and to have my lady call her in the morning.

7:30 a.m. Saturday morning the doorbell rings, next thing you know she’s knockin’ on our door (we’re in an in-law). She proceeds to leave a memo (with copies of both March/May bills) stating we’re responsible for the increase and have to pay the difference with our upstairs neighbors. She says she doesn’t want to raise our rent, but might have to if we don’t conserve. The bill is crazy, $932, usually it’s about $125 (according to her) it says we used over 90,000 gallons of water in the last billing period. There’s NO WAY we used that much water, and if there’s a leak in the house, I haven’t noticed a thing. Oh, and to add to that, in our lease it states we only pay 25% of PG&E, that’s it.

So I did a little research about my rights (along with the ladies who live above us) and everything I’m finding says she can’t do that. We contacted the Water Dept. and have set up a walk through, but the whole thing just doesn’t seem right. There’s no way she can make us pay for a problem we had nothing to do with right? I mean it sucks it’s a huge bill, but it’s not in the lease and it’s not my problem anyway.

I also believe she violated the lease by entering the house with less than 24 hours notice and that her threat to raise the rent was pretty empty. I believe we qualify for the .1% rent increase. Any information on where I should go from here would be greatly appreciated.

Also, if I happen to be wrong about anything could you let me know where I could find more info to help me out in this situation.

To begin with, an 8 hour phone notice just doesn’t cut it. It’s not only rude, it’s illegal. It’s not a violation of the lease, but a violation of the law–California Civil Code 1954 which requires 24-hour written notice. I wrote about this in “Tenant Troubles: Sorry, CitiApartments, ‘Routine Inspections’ Are Illegal,” February 3, 2010. Of course, the exception to the statute is entry in case of emergency. In this landlord’s self-centered, penurious, pea-brain the water bill may have constituted one. Try calling her at 11:00 p.m. some night and cheerfully announce, “We’re coming over for breakfast. We’re hungry!” See how that plays.

Sure the water bill is a problem…the landlord’s problem, unless she can prove that you or the tenants upstairs did something to cause the spike in usage. We had a case in which the landlord accused our clients of running all the faucets after they vacated, creating an enormous bill for 200,000 gallons of water. The landlords could not provide any evidence. They were guessing and they lost. The same is probably true here.

You did the right thing in calling the Water Department (Public Utilities commission) It will be interesting to see what the PUC technician has to say. Leaks can be caused by cracks in the pipes anywhere on the property or any number of other things. Leaky toilets are often the culprits. If you notice a leaking or running toilet you should report it to the landlord. But it’s still the landlord’s responsibility to fix it.

Unless the landlord can prove the tenants caused the leak, she’s SOL. She can’t raise the rent in any scenario. Assuming you live in a rent-controlled apartment, excess water usage is not a justification to raise the rent beyond the .1% allowable increase for 2010. From what you’re telling me, your lease seems to indicate that the landlord is obligated to pay the water bill anyway.

This is a subject for another column, but from the facts as you state them, I think you’re living in an illegal in-law unit. You should go to the San Francisco Tenants Union to check that out. Don’t call any housing inspectors until you do.

Why don’t you send me your landlord’s phone number? I’m hungry!

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

My Building’s For Sale, Should I Worry?

My Building’s For Sale, Should I Worry?

by | May 12, 2010 | Tenant Law

My Building’s For Sale, Should I Worry?

Over the weekend I received a letter from a real estate broker informing me that my landlord intends to put the building I’m living in up for sale. I’m currently living in a three unit Victorian in the Lower Haight, and the rent is truly more than reasonable. Because of the great location and the rent I was hoping to hunker down in this place for a few years. I moved in back in November and signed a year lease, which I believe was supposed to go month to month after November 2010. Everyone else in the building has been there for several years so I’m fairly sure they’re already on month to month terms.

Now I’ve read up a bit on some of my rights, but I wasn’t really clear on a couple of things. First off I’ve noticed that once the building is sold if the new landlord decides to continue renting the building then my current lease terms will have to be honored. However if they decide to convert the building into condos/tic then I may have the right to relocation benefits. Now what’s not clear to me is how this will all factor in when my year lease would turn into a month to month lease.

At that point do these same rights continue to cover me for as long as I wish to stay in the apartment? Would it be possible for the new landlord to just wait out my current lease terms and then refuse to allow me to stay on month to month or renew my lease terms?

Really I guess I would just like some clarification as to what my rights are when my lease is scheduled to go month to month.

Let’s pick this one apart. Three-unit Victorian in the Lower Haight, obviously built before 1979 and not a single family house. You already know this; your tenancy is completely within the price control and “just cause eviction” parameters of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Even if you were living in a brand new SOMA cracker box you would have the same protections until November 2010 because your lease doesn’t expire until then.

Many tenants don’t understand the relationship between their lease and San Francisco rent control. Because your building was built before 1979, your tenancy can only be terminated for one of the fifteen “just causes” in the rent ordinance. Even if your lease expires, the landlord can only evict you for cause. Lease expiration is not a just cause under the rent ordinance. Because you live in a building with two or more units, the landlord cannot increase your rent to market rate after the expiration of the lease. Instead, he can only increase the rent using the applicable allowable increase. This year it is .1% (one tenth of one percent).

The landlord can require that you sign another one-year lease that includes the applicable increase but the lease must contain the same material terms as the lease you originally signed.

Before you hunker down, however, you should understand that three-unit buildings are prime speculator targets. Usually the inflated sales prices do not justify the rental income, so people who purchase small building are often looking to sell units as tenancies in common (TICs). After the building is sold you might be facing several different scenarios.

Often a new speculator owner will approach tenants in a small building with an offer to buyout their tenancy. That way he can avoid evicting the tenant for an applicable just cause. For example if the new owner is just a developer who wants to rehab the building and sell it as TICs, it’s going to be tough for him to claim that he wants to evict a tenant to move in, because among other things, he has to promise to live in the unit for three years.

For the speculator it may be advantageous to pay you money to waive your tenancy rights and move. For more information about buyouts check out the series of articles I wrote in my blog, Evict This!

A new owner may simply want to evict you to move in. If you are served with an OMI (owner move-in) notice you will be entitled to the stautory relocation payment. This year it is $5,101.00 per tenant.

Finally, a speculator may want to evict all of the tenants in the building using an Ellis Act eviction. If you are served with an Ellis eviction you’ll be entitled to 120 days to move (unless you’re disabled or over 62 years old) and a relocation payment of slightly more than the $5,101 for other evictions.

As you can see there are a lot of “what ifs” involving the sale of a smaller building in San Francisco. These days, given the real estate market and fewer speculator evictions you might just get your wish. Happy hunkering!

​

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

by | May 9, 2010 | Tenant Law

Landlord Crybabies Forced To Ellis Because Landlording Became So Unpleasant

Landlord crybabies.

Last month the San Francisco Business Times published a reprehensible editorial, “Tenant activists exacerbate rental housing crisis.” They were reacting to the  occupation of an empty building in the Mission by Homes Not Jails on April 4.

This is what riled me up: “Aided by reliable mouthpieces on the board of supervisors, they’ve helped make it so unpleasant over the years to be a landlord in San Francisco that owners of several hundred rental units each year invoke a nuclear option known as the Ellis Act and detonate their rental business by evicting all their tenants.”

I’m sorry, landlord crybabies, but if being a landlord is so unpleasant, why don’t you just sell your building without evicting the tenants?

Essentially that was the question the California Supreme Court posed in Nash v. City of Santa Monica in 1984. “Nash was a 17-year-old student when, approximately a year before the rent and demolition controls were enacted, his mother obtained on his behalf a $260,000 apartment building in Santa Monica. He soon became disenchanted, however, with operating rental housing: ‘There is only one thing I want to do, and that is to evict the group of ingrates inhabiting my units, tear down the building, and hold on to the land until I can sell it at a price which will not mean a ruinous loss on my investment.'” The Court ruled that there was nothing unconstitutional about rent control or demolition control that protected tenants. They reasoned that Nash was getting a fair return on his “investment” and that he could sell the building if he wanted to get out of the landlord business.

That’s when the landlord lobby really started to scream. In 1985 they persuaded their friends in the legislature to pass the so-called Ellis Act to supersede the ruling in Nash to allow landlords to evict all their tenants before they exited the landlord business. The rest is history.

As we all know now, for the last decade, the Ellis Act has been used by speculators who enter the landlord business for five minutes to evict long-term tenants, seniors and the disabled in order to sell units as TICs (tenancies in common.) We also know that those speculators were fueled by a flood of monopoly money from banking geniuses who were later bailed out by taxpayers.

Now the bubble has burst and (big surprise) Ellis evictions dropped 78% in the last year in San Francisco. The Business Times editorial noted this, “But in whatever number, they [Ellis evictions] are a symptom of the dysfunction in the San Francisco rental market and not a cause. Basically, there’s little incentive to remain a landlord in San Francisco — and every incentive to try to get yourself out.” Of course most of the landlords who used Ellis evictions were never in the landlord business and those who were didn’t get out until they saw an opportunity for obscene profit.

If the Business Times cannot recognize that vacant buildings are not a cause of dysfunction in the rental market, what can they see? Not much. The editorial also excuses scofflaw landlords because, “[Rent control] contribute[s] to blight by discouraging landlords from maintaining and upgrading their units.” They misstate the law claiming, “That the owner of the property would in fact be breaking the law by offering it again for rent was apparently lost on the protesters.” In fact, the landlord can re-rent but he would be required to offer the unit to the original renter at the rent-controlled price.

That’s the point. Landlords start to cry like babies when they can’t get exactly what they want, when they want it. “Unpleasant” translates to “I can’t get as rich as I want to as fast as I want to” and “I don’t want to spend the money to maintain my building.” Sob, sob. They also clinch their fists and threaten, “But given that the owner of property ultimately controls whether it remains on the rental market at all, learning at the least to live with them [landlords with their power to Ellis evict at will] would be in everyone’s interests — including, most notably, their [tenant activists] own.”

Unfortunately that threat will remain bone-chilling real until the Ellis Act is either repealed or amended to require that landlords actually be in the business for five or so years until they can get out. And occupying vacant buildings is a laudable method to remind us that, like Jerome Nash, landlords will go to any extreme, including refusing to re-rent units in vacant buildings, to force tenants to bend to their will.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

by | Apr 28, 2010 | Tenant Law

Is My Landlord Trying To Evict Me For Smoking?

I’ve been a tenant in a 36-unit apartment building in SF since October 1992. The landlords hired a new property management company about a year ago. Today, I received a letter from the management company stating that they had received an “official complaint” that smoke originating in my unit has continually permeated into surrounding units. The “complaint” demanded that I be more vigilant in containing the smoke. It goes on to point out the “quiet enjoyment” and “house rules” provisions of my original lease, none of which reference smoking explicitly, although “house rules” refers to “odors.”

OK, I’m a smoker, and have been since I moved in. I smoke three to four cigarettes per day, one of which I don’t smoke in my apartment. I try to be considerate by opening windows and using odor eliminating sprays, etc., and the common hallway window is always open. No one has ever complained to me about smoke and there are other smokers in the building.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve noticed that the vacant apartment in my wing is being shown to prospective tenants so I wonder if this “official complaint” is coming from my neighbors or the prospective tenants/rental agent. Bottom line–I need advice about how to proceed.

What is the first thing I fix on here? You got it–a long-term, rent-controlled tenancy. The second element is a relatively new management company who wants to show their prowess to the owner by maximizing profit. What do you want to bet that they just hired some new hotshot graduate of the Citiapartments School of Apartment Management? This is a classic case of a landlord’s initial attempt to establish a pretext to evict you.

It would be interesting to understand what exactly made the complaint “official.” Was it in writing? Typed on a real, honest-to-goodness letterhead with straight margins and not too many misspellings? My guess is that the rental agent may have been the “official” complainant. I’ve seen this before. I had a case in which the opposing attorney claimed that a rental agent had a right to quiet enjoyment while exhibiting the units in a particular building. The agent didn’t live in the building.

Quiet enjoyment is a term of art in the law, meaning that the term has a very specific legal definition: “The possession of land with the assurance that the possession will not be disturbed by a superior title.” (Black’s Law Dictionary [8th ed. 2004]). One has to have possession (a lease) of land (an apartment) to claim the right to quiet enjoyment. Believe me; you don’t get to sue the inconsiderate clod sitting behind you, talking through the whole movie, for interfering with your quiet enjoyment. Nor is the rental agent entitled to quiet enjoyment by just being in the building.

Are you interfering with another tenant’s quiet enjoyment? No. Smoking in your apartment is still legal. You are not smoking in the common area. You are not creating a nuisance. You are not breaching your lease. Here’s where the other part of the definition of quiet enjoyment comes in. If the landlord (the one with superior title) is concerned that he may be sued by other tenants for interfering with their quiet enjoyment, he should do something about smoke escaping from under the door. He should install weatherstripping.

Given what you have told me, I think you would be wise to continue your practice of eliminating the smoke as best you can. Respond to the management company in writing. Point out that smoking in your apartment is neither a breach of the lease nor is it a nuisance. Tell them about the precautions you take and request that they install weatherstripping under your door.

I am also concerned that other tenants may be complaining without alerting you. As I said last week, tenants have to stick together. I think you should politely ask your neighbors if your smoking bothers them and try to understand how their concerns could be accommodated. For example, a neighbor sharing the hall may need weatherstripping to create another barrier to smoking entering her unit.

Expanding on my thoughts last week, before you blame yourself or another tenant for problems arising from living in close quarters, consider the landlord’s duties. As in this case, the landlord may be able to fix the problem causing the discord. If management refuses to act, it’s clear to me that the landlord just became the problem.

Share On Facebook
Share On X
Share On Reddit
Share Via Email
Share On Telegram

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

Contact Us
Sitemap
Privacy Policy
Is This Legal Advice?