(415)552-9060
Why On Earth Would I Have To Pay My Building A $200 Move-Out Fee?

Why On Earth Would I Have To Pay My Building A $200 Move-Out Fee?

by | Jun 11, 2014 | Tenant Law

Why On Earth Would I Have To Pay My Building A $200 Move-Out Fee?

I’m a 31-year-old female who has been living in the same apartment since August 2011. My apartment was a 2 bed/2 bath unit in a 100+ unit condo building constructed around 2006 so I know I’m not covered under the rent ordinance. My roommate is the master tenant and has been on the lease since March 2010. I have been paying my fair portion of the rent to her and she pays the landlord. The only times I’ve ever communicated with the landlord was when I emailed him my original application with the information to run a credit check (after she agreed to let me move in) and to let him know when I was moving out. He has never responded to any email from me and communicates directly with the master tenant.

When I moved out from my apartment, I arrived at my building with a UHaul moving truck to move my bed frame, mattress, and a few larger items. Upon arriving with the moving truck, I was informed by the condo building’s front desk that there was a $200 non-refundable moving fee. Without me even asking, the woman at the front desk padded the elevators even though I had already made several trips moving boxes with my car that morning without any issues. I finished moving in less than an hour and the front desk confirmed that there was no damage made on any of the common elements while moving and the master tenant has refunded me my full security deposit.

The condo association keeps emailing me for a $200 check for the move-out fee. Since I was never informed either by the landlord or the master tenant about the fee, am I obligated to pay it? When I first applied for the apartment, I never signed any sub-tenancy agreement with either the master tenant or the landlord, despite my requests to do so. The landlord just never sent me any paperwork. Can they take me to small claims court for the move-out fee or is this something the owner has to settle with the condo association?

As my momma would say, “Jesus H. Christ!” (I don’t know what the “H” stands for, but I like to imagine that it’s more profane than my favorite middle name for Jesus a couple letters up the alphabet.)

Jesus H. Christ! This is a new one for my column and it illustrates just how far greedy weasel-landlords will go. Think extortion-racket-style, Toon Patrol Weasels in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

You don’t have a lease (contract) with the landlord so there is no term you can breach. You cannot be compelled by contract to pay any move-out fee. You should point that out (loud and clear) to the bozos who are emailing you trying to collect it. You should also tell them if they attempt to send you to collections over this issue, you will sue them for defamation of character.

If they attempt to justify the charge as some sort of service they provided, remind them that their rationale is weak because they didn’t charge you to move in. Besides, how much can it cost to pay an employee (who is on duty anyway) to hang pads in the elevator?If they try to invoke a clause in the original lease providing for a move-out fee, tell them to take that up with your former roommate.

If, down the line, they try to withhold the fee from your roommate’s security deposit, they won’t be able to get away with that either. Civil Code §1950.5(m) states: “No lease or rental agreement may contain a provision characterizing any security as ‘nonrefundable.'” Any deduction for the move-out fee could be seen as a bad faith deduction resulting in the assessment of the statutory penalty of twice the security deposit.  (Civil Code Civil Code §1950.5(k)(1).) Do your roommate a favor and remind them of that as well.

Who knows if the owner is somehow liable to the homeowners association. It simply isn’t your (or your roommate’s) problem.

Unfortunately anyone who proposes a “move-out fee” with a straight face won’t have a sense of humor. There’s no way you can make him laugh and, like the Toon Patrol weasels, make him fly away and disappear. That’s why you’ll have to tell the homeowners association to try pull their scam on someone less gullible; someone who didn’t just get off the train (and bus) from Bakersfield.

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?

How Can I Avoid Getting Screwed By Landlords Application Fee Scams?

How Can I Avoid Getting Screwed By Landlords Application Fee Scams?

by | Jan 15, 2014 | Tenant Law

How Can I Avoid Getting Screwed By Landlords Application Fee Scams?

Ubi jus ibi remedium. “Where there is a right, there is a remedy.”

I have read your column for quite awhile, and I look forward to it every week. I have a question that might be outside of your typical coverage, but it might also be helpful for your readers. I have been looking for my own apartment in Oakland for several months, but I think my question would apply for San Francisco as well (and Marin, and the South Bay.)

I know through my research that there is a limit to the amount that a landlord may charge for an application fee/background check, and I believe it is currently $44.21. My research into California laws has also led me to believe that if a landlord does not actually perform a background check on me, or does not otherwise process my application, then s/he must refund it, otherwise it is illegal to accept the application fee payment. (An example would be, if the landlord accepted an application before me, processed it, offered the apartment to that person, and they accepted, thus my information was never looked at.) I always thought that this was the reason that landlords asked for checks, so that if an application was not processed, they would just not cash the check.

However, I have been coming across apartments that request an application fee be paid in cash or cashier’s check. Is this legal? I subscribe to Experian, so I can see when my credit is checked, and I’m in regular contact with my references, so I would know if this information was followed up on.

Do I have any recourse if I can tell that there was never a background/credit check performed on me, or do I have to just accept that there might be landlords out there collecting application fee payments on top of their already-guaranteed rent? I appreciate any thoughts you may have on this matter.

Rental application fees are governed by California law, therefore the comments I make here will apply to anyone in California who is looking for an apartment.

California Civil Code §1950.6 governs the collection of screening fees. In 1998, the fee to screen an applicant’s credit, etc. was capped at $30.00 with annual adjustments pegged to the Consumer Price Index. In 2012, he most a landlord could charge to screen an applicant’s credit was $44.51.

You are correct that the law provides that a must refund the fee if “the landlord or his or her agent does not perform a personal reference check or does not obtain a consumer credit report…” (Civil Code §1950.6(e).)

While the the law does not prohibit the collection of a cashier’s check or cash, it does provide, “The landlord or his or her agent shall provide, personally, or by mail, the applicant with a receipt for the fee paid by the applicant, which receipt shall itemize the out-of-pocket expenses and time spent by the landlord or his or her agent to obtain and process the information about the applicant.” (Civil Code §1950.6(d).)

Check out the California Department of Consumer Affairs article “Looking for a Rental Unit” for more detailed information.  Their advice:

Before you pay the application screening fee, ask the landlord the following questions about it:

  • How long will it take the landlord to get a copy of your credit report?
  • How long will it take the landlord to review the credit report and decide whether to rent to you?
  • Is the fee refundable if the credit check takes too long and you’re forced to rent another place?
  • If you already have a current copy of your credit report, will the landlord accept it and either reduce the fee or not charge it at all?

If you don’t like the landlord’s policy on application screening fees, you may want to look for another rental unit. If you decide to pay the application screening fee, any agreement regarding a refund should be in writing.

One way to avoid the fee is to get a copy of your most recent credit report before you begin to search for apartments. Under federal law you are entitled to a copy of your credit report annually from all three credit reporting agencies – Experian, Equifax. and TransUnion. Each of the companies have their requirements to obtain one. Here is an example from Experian.

You can print out the report and provide copies to prospective landlords when you apply for apartments. I’ve done this in the past without a problem. I tend to think that a landlord who insists upon charging the fee despite your offer of a recent report, is either scamming you or such a Cheese Ball that you wouldn’t want to rent from him anyway.

Last week I talked to a tenant who told me that the leasing agent for an apartment in San Francisco wanted to charge $500.00 for a screening fee. My advice? Don’t pay. Get as much information as you can to prove the allegation and report the guy to the District Attorney. If you’re standing in a line to apply for an apartment with a bunch of other folks (typical these days) and the agent is collecting $500.00 a pop, flag down a cop.

While that may work when a landlord is blatantly running a con game, what if the landlord charges $50.00 per application or does not refund your fee after he fails to collect the information? Do you have any recourse if the landlord violates Civil Code §1950.6? Just like the Department of Consumer Affairs said, you can walk away or while you’re in line, negotiate a written agreement to get a refund.

You may wonder, what kind of bullshit, namby-pamby advice is that?

It’s the only kind of advice one can offer when the namby-pamby, bullshit law does not contain a remedy, a penalty for its violation.

Reread the statute.  Note that it doesn’t provide a tenant with any recourse to enforce it. Could it be that the legislators who drafted and passed the law wanted to appear to be reformers while still guaranteeing  one more illicit income stream for their landlord benefactors?

Some lawyers are familiar with this Latin phrase: Ubi jus ibi remedium. “Where there is a right, there is a remedy.” Conversely, where there is no remedy, there is no right. Get it? You’re a tenant not a lord.

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?

A Just Cause Eviction Does Not Mean “Just ‘Cause Your Landlord Said So”

A Just Cause Eviction Does Not Mean “Just ‘Cause Your Landlord Said So”

by | Dec 18, 2013 | Tenant Law

A Just Cause Eviction Does Not Mean “Just ‘Cause Your Landlord Said So”

I am 26 years old and living in a 4-unit three-story building in the Inner Richmond neighborhood of San Francisco. Two other roommates and I are living in one of the four units.  The building was constructed in 1909.  One roommate has been living in this unit for almost three years now. Myself and another roommate are on the current one-year lease, which will be concluded at the end of February.

Currently we pay $3,200.00/month for our unit.  We are on very good terms with the landlord, have an excellent track record with no complaints and we all have excellent credit scores and steady jobs. One roommate does have two cats, but the landlord consented and only requested an additional deposit fee when we moved in and signed our one-year lease. 

Now on to my question:  The various owners of the building have gotten together and put the building as a whole on the market (one 4-unit building).  The building has been on the market for over 4 months and has been shown to many parties with no offers made.  

The landlord has informed us that if the building does not sell as a whole by the end of the year (12/31/2013), she plans on selling her individual unit that we are currently occupying.  She has informed us that if this is the case, she will be asking us to vacate the unit when our one-year lease expires on February 28, 2014. I was curious as to what our rights are as good tenants that have come to love this home and do not want to be forced to move at this particular moment.  

Do we have any rights?

In the 4+ years I’ve been writing “Tenant Troubles,” I can’t remember addressing this basic question. Yet it’s a question I answer on the telephone two or three times a week. Here is the bumper sticker answer that you (and each and every tenant living in a rent-controlled unit in San Francisco) need to burn into your brain along with your name, the taste of chocolate and the first time you had sex. This is your new mantra:

IF THE LEASE EXPIRES, I DON’T HAVE TO MOVE.

Try it again, only this time imagine me as Glinda the Good Witch, my wand circling over your head. Close your eyes, tap your heels together three times and think to yourself, “I don’t have to move, I don’t have to move, I don’t have to move…”

In this respect, if you live in a unit built before 1979, you are not in tenant-Kansas. You can only be evicted for just cause. Contrary to what many landlords think, a just cause is not, “Just ’cause I said so.” Indeed the simple sale of a unit is not a just cause.

Rent Ordinance §37.9(k) defines several disclosures that must be made to tenants before the sale of a unit or building.  Rent Ordinance §37.9(k)(1)(A) states that such a disclosure must include a “statement in bold type of at least 12 points that tenants cannot be evicted or asked to move solely because a property is being sold or solely because a new owner has purchased that property.”

You don’t have to move if your lease expires, but you may have to move if the landlord sells the unit, or if she starts to accuse you of fictitious breaches of the lease like stealing her sister’s shoes. Even in San Francisco, there are bad witches, gangrenous green with greed. When you refuse to move as your landlord has “nicely” requested, she could turn on you. You could be dodging fireballs and flying monkeys. Worst of all, she won’t melt if you douse her with a bucket of water.

Given your description of the ownership, I’m assuming that the building is owned jointly. In other words, your landlord owns her unit along with the rest of the owners as a tenancy in common or TIC. If that is the case, she could sell 25% of the building to a new buyer and that new buyer could evict you using an owner-move-in eviction. Of course you and your roommates would be entitled to receive at least $15,621.00 in statutory relocation payments providing you all live in the unit at least a year (Rent Ordinance §37.9C.)

If the unit is a condominium and the landlord sells the unit to a new buyer, Cheese Ball new owners are known to use the fact that the unit is now exempt from rent control provisions of the ordinance to try to increase the rent to avoid paying relocation payments.

The truly wicked landlords, incensed that you dare to assert your rights, just start to drop by, cursing and cackling, “I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!”

Given the current San Francisco real estate market buoyed by the bubble-headed notion that land is a commodity somehow governed by a free market, your situation is bleak. I’ve often said that when a landlord wants a tenant out, they can get them out. That’s the prerogative of the landlord class despite your anemic “rights.” My point? Fight as hard as you can, but have an exit strategy.

The moral of the story: San Francisco tenants who love their apartments and begin to believe “there’s no place like home” are those most in danger. Landlords don’t want you to feel comfortable in your apartment (their property) because that usually means you’re not paying enough rent. Like Dorothy, you may come to realize that Oz is a fiction and you’ll have to settle for Kansas.

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 Lie Can We Get Away With This Month?”

“What Lie Can We Get Away With This Month?”

by | Aug 7, 2013 | Security Deposits

“What Lie Can We Get Away With This Month?”

As we’re getting ready to move out of the house, the landlady is saying “there’s no deposit” because 2 years ago a tenant who doesn’t live here anymore asked to pay reduced rent over a couple months. Landlady agreed and never said or put anything in writing to anyone about wanting the back rent repaid until now, two years later. Isn’t she supposed to request repayment within one year?

I’ve received a couple of questions similar to yours in the last month or so. I also spoke to a tenant on the telephone about a landlord who claimed she couldn’t refund a security deposit for exactly the same reason. Different landlords, different tenants. What’s up?

Sometimes I wonder if there’s a “What Lies Can We Get Away With This Month?” working group of the Simple Minded Apartment Association of San Francisco. But that would be paranoid wouldn’t it?

Because landlords are not required to deposit security deposits in separate accounts, they’ve already spent your money. Landlords have forgotten about your security deposit. Why haven’t you? It comes as no surprise that a new lie to justify withholding a security deposit would surface from the landlords’ collective subconscious. This seems to be the bullshit du jour.

Fortunate for you that this merde doesn’t bake well.

California Civil Code §1950.5(k)(1) states in part: “In any action under this section, the landlord or the landlord’s successors in interest shall have the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed or the authority pursuant to this section to demand additional security deposits.”

Absent an agreement or other written proof, the landlord cannot meet her burden to prove that her “deduction” ever took place.

I am not aware of any requirement to request payment in a year. You may be confused with the requirement that a three-day notice to pay or quit can only demand rent going back one year.

When you write your demand letter, remind the landlord that she could be liable for statutory damages of twice the amount of the original security deposit for her bad faith claim.

Permit me to rant for a moment. Earlier this year State Senator Mark Leno introduced a bill (SB 603) to amend the security deposit law to include, among other things two issues I’ve noted here. It would have required landlords to keep security deposit in separate accounts and to pay interest on the amounts. It would have also required that a court must award statutory damages with a finding of a bad faith claim or retention of a security deposit. The current law says “may” and statutory damages are only assessed in about 3.5% of cases. The bill was defeated by Democrats! I can go on and on about fucking Democrats. Suffice it to say that Democrats are not necessarily tenant-friendly.

If landlords know they can lie to their tenants and the court about retaining a security deposit and only get a slap on the wrist, why wouldn’t they lie? Look out for more excretum tauri.

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?

Can I Be Evicted For Subletting Without Permission?

Can I Be Evicted For Subletting Without Permission?

by | Sep 6, 2012 | Roommates

Can I Be Evicted For Subletting Without Permission?

Recently a friend of mine was handed an eviction notice from her landlord for subletting one of the rooms in her apartment while she was traveling. It shocked me that out of nowhere, the landlord could evict someone for something like this. She was already back at the house, and the issues was solved. It makes me a bit nervous about my own situation.

I live in a two bedroom flat in the Mission with a third room; a small “office.” Like many tenants in San Francisco, we have rented out the small, extra room to a friend. Having a third tenant was expressly verboten by the landlord when I signed the lease. However, this third person has lived with us for almost three years and there is a good chance the landlord already knows about it; he has made comments in passing such as “let your roommates know,” has probably seen the third person around, etc. I get along very well with my landlord and always pay my rent on time.

I have two questions:

1. A lawyer friend of mine mentioned something about “implied consent,” in terms of tenant/landlord relations, where if there is sufficient reason to believe the landlord is aware of a situation that is in violation of the lease, he or she is implicitly consenting to the violation. Is there any truth to this?

2. Can a landlord serve someone with an eviction notice without warning, or without a notice telling the tenant he or she must fix the situation? If landlords find out you’ve been subletting your room, or you’ve got an extra person in your flat, can they just evict you on the spot without telling you to stop subletting or ask the extra person to leave?

Issues with sub-tenants and people living in laundry rooms are issues that will increasingly apply to San Francisco tenants; this is an expensive place to live. I think we would all benefit from some extra information on the matter.

Having a third tenant was expressly verboten by the landlord when I signed the lease. What can I say? If your lease prohibits a third roommate and your landlord decides that the rent is too low and decides to evict you, it’s his prerogative. He can serve a three-day notice to cure or quit and if the roommate is not gone in three days, boom, the landlord can serve an unlawful detainer (eviction lawsuit). End of story.

Your lawyer friend is referring to the concept of waiver. Waiver is defined as an intentional relinquishment of a known right. In your case the landlord must know about your roommate’s presence and essentially consent it. Notice the term “intentional relinquishment.” How are you going to prove that in court? Certainly not by alluding to vague comments in which the landlord used roommates in the plural form.

The landlord never can evict a tenant “on the spot.” They must follow the rigid procedures defined in state and local law. The first step would be to serve a three-day notice to cure or quit as I described.

A couple of years ago, my business partner Solvejg and I represented a tenant whose predicament was similar to your friend’s. In that case the landlord had served a three-day notice to quit for illegal subletting. By the time we got the case, the landlord had served an unlawful detainer. Our client had to come back from the East Coast to defend the action.

We wrote a demurrer to the complaint alleging that the complaint was defective because the notice did not allow the tenant to “cure” the default as required in the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, but not state law. The notice did not allow the tenant an opportunity to remove the illegal subletter. Our client got lucky, but it cost her about five thousand dollars to keep the tenancy. She was lucky because she had the money to defend the case, and she made a good business decision because her rent was well below market rate.

Most tenants don’t have the kind of dough to pay lawyers to assert their rights and that’s the real point. Yes, tenants have rights and various defenses to unlawful detainer actions, but they often don’t have the resources to adequately assert those rights or to allege a viable defense. Landlords are well aware of this.

Clearly you, and most tenants, don’t understand the stress, pain and costs of defending a lawsuit, otherwise you would not knowingly violate your lease.

Why would you put your roommate through this? He didn’t do anything wrong, yet he could be either forced to move in three days or be named in a lawsuit and potentially screw up his credit.

San Francisco is expensive and many landlords these days want to cash in on the new Twitter/tech boom. One of the easiest ways to remove rent-controlled tenants is to sue them for illegal subletting. Often subletting from which the landlord turned a blind eye in the past, but that was the past and now those eyes are open.

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?

Do I Have To Give My Landlord My Pot Rack?

Do I Have To Give My Landlord My Pot Rack?

by | Aug 29, 2012 | Security Deposits

Do I Have To Give My Landlord My Pot Rack?

I rent a single-family house in SF and gave 30-day notice to vacate.

My question is about the pot rack I installed in the kitchen. It was attached to a 2×4 that I screwed to the wall and then I screwed the pot rack to that. The Landlord said it is not allowed in my lease therefore it is now part of the house.

The landlord said the same thing applies to the towel rack and curtain rods that are screwed into the walls.

I want to keep my things. Can I fix the holes and expect my security deposit ($2500) back? What right do I have? What right does the landlord have?

Must be a great pot rack…at least your landlord thinks so. That’s why he wants it. The landlord’s rationale to steal your pot rack has been employed by the rich and powerful and two-year-olds for eons–I want it, so now it’s mine and here’s a rule I just made up to justify my keeping it.

Your landlord’s interpretation of the law is self-serving and illogical. Using his reasoning, does that mean that your dog, Brian, stays with the house because there is a “no pets” clause on the lease? Well, that may be a stretch unless the talking dog is tacked to the wall, but you can see what I mean. If the pot rack was an unwarranted alteration in violation of the lease, your landlord should have demanded that you remove it.

To be fair, your landlord is misstating a concept that applies to the sale of a house. If something is attached to the house like a light fixture or a pot rack it can be considered a fixture that must be sold with the house.

Say I’m a prospective purchaser. I view the house and love the pot rack. In fact I love the pot rack so much, I’m willing to spend an extra $100,000 on the place. (I’m a typical, irrational, San Francisco buyer with loads of Twitter dough.) I purchase the house and when I move in, the pot rack is gone. I have the right to claim the pot rack as a fixture and sue the seller. Of course, had your landlord been the seller, he would have removed the pot rack and installed it in his own kitchen before he put the house on the market.

California Civil Code §1950.5(a)(2) states that a landlord can deduct money from a tenant’s security deposit for “the repair of damages to the premises, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear, caused by the tenant or by a guest or licensee of the tenant,” not for an unwarranted alteration.

If the pot rack was your addition to the kitchen, take it down, remove the 2X4 and carefully repair any holes left in the walls. You should also touch up and/or repaint the affected wall with the exact, original paint color. You can take a paint chip to a paint store and get a match.

Either that, or offer to sell the pot rack to the landlord.

If you replaced old towel racks and curtain rods with new racks and rods, you should have saved the old ones to reinstall.

The “fixture” rule does apply to items you removed and replaced. You cannot leave a hole in the wall where you substituted a light fixture, but failed to save the old one to reinstall. Same with curtain rods and towel racks. You cannot leave a blank wall, even completely repaired, if there was something on the wall that was included in your original lease.

Frankly, sometimes it’s easier. less time-consuming and less expensive to leave items like curtain rods and towel racks. That is, unless you installed some Pottery Barn racks that set you back half a month’s rent.

Take photos of questionable areas before you move.

If the landlord keeps your security deposit and you sue him in Small Claims Court, imagine a scenario in which the judge asks the landlord two questions. Did the house come with a pot rack? Is the area where the pot rack damaged in any way? If the judge fails to ask those questions, request that she ask them.

If you are considering suing the landlord, take your documentation to the San Francisco Tenants Union and ask them to advise you how to proceed.

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?

Can My Landlord Hang On To My Deposit For Utility Bills?

Can My Landlord Hang On To My Deposit For Utility Bills?

by | Jul 19, 2012 | Security Deposits

Can My Landlord Hang On To My Deposit For Utility Bills?

My husband and I vacated an apartment in the Marina district in May.  We paid rent for 6 days more than we stayed in the apartment We have not received our deposit back even though California law states the landlord has 21 days.  

When I followed up with the landlord he said he is working on tallying up the bills for the past 15 months to deduct from our deposit and he just received some of the last month of bills.  Our rental agreement states we would pay 2/3’s of certain bills (water, garbage, electricity for the garage, cable) because he lived in the unit above by himself and there were 2 of us.

We were disappointed he did not give these bills to us monthly and is now deducting from our deposit. We had requested these bills multiple times while living in the unit and he always said he would work on putting a spreadsheet together showing what we owe and never did.  Unfortunately, we do not have any of these requests in writing.  

I am guessing he is legally allowed to deduct these from our deposit, but would appreciate confirmation.  Additionally, does the 21 day rule not apply since he was waiting to receive a utility bill?

I don’t think Civil Code § 1950.5, the statute dealing with the collection and refund of security deposits, is applicable to collect utility bills.

California Civil Code § 1950.5(b)(1-4) allows the landlord to deduct from the  tenant’s security deposit for four purposes: (1) For unpaid rent; (2) For cleaning the rental unit when the tenant moves out, but only to make the unit as clean as it was when the tenant first moved in; (3) For repair of damages, other than normal wear and tear, caused by the tenant or the tenant’s guests; and (4) If the lease or rental agreement allows it, for the cost of restoring or replacing furniture, furnishings, or other items of personal property (including keys), other than because of normal wear and tear.

In other words, there is no provision in the code to deduct utility bills from a security deposit.

The short answer to your question is that the 21-day period does apply. You can send a demand letter to the landlord requesting the return of your security deposit in, say, five days, and remind him if he fails to pay, you’ll sue him in small claims court for the deposit plus twice the amount of the deposit as statutory damages.

A more complex analysis will, however, recognize that the landlord will be able to file a cross-complaint for the utility bills if you sue him for the deposit.

I think you should send the landlord a demand letter if only to get him off his ass. If he provides the bills, they are accurate and you do owe the landlord, make an arrangement to settle the whole thing.

Check in with San Francisco Tenants Union to get advice about what to include in your demand letter.

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?