patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,888 comments by 15,055 users - ElYorsh, goofus online now
Housing rights question
invite response
2017 Apr 20, 9:15am 9,905 views 10 comments
by CL ➕follow (1) 💰tip ignore
Comments 1 - 10 of 10 Search these comments
CL
2017 Apr 20, 2:54pm
Ran into an Uber driver today
I hope you didn't hurt him too bad. How much was the car damaged?
I said, "LEARN-ED FOLKS"!! :)
SFace
2017 Apr 27, 1:48pm
"Apparently, the landlord said how they apportioned the bills was up to them."
in legal terms, that means nothing.
"What are his options for pushing back, squatting, winning, or whatever to ameliorate his situation (aside from not driving Uber)?. :)"
I would write where did I agree to pay half the utility? I agree to nothing and it is me that will sue you.
Indiana Jones
2017 May 1, 10:22am
What state and city are you talking about? CL says
he's living in an in-law unit
Oakland, CA
Well, that kind of says it all. On the other side, I can see a couple of other options for him. The best option would be to move - move as far away from CA as possible. However since logic is out of the picture his next option would be to find a different dog house to rent. Pick up his stuff in the middle of the night and leave. Shouldn't be too hard to find a cardboard box that he can rent out for what he is paying or a bit less. Third option, work Uber full time, say about 14 to 16 hours a day, then he will almost be able to live where he has chosen to live.
He (obviously) wants/needs to live in Oakland. So funny, when life/God is smacking you upside the head, rather than acknowledge that it's time to make some other choices, no - you get the, "thank you sir, may I have another" mentality that kicks in. Some folks just LOVE the pain.
RWSGFY
2017 May 1, 11:51am
He (obviously) wants/needs to live in Oakland.
That would be my choice too. It's not like he's leaving a great career tied to SFBA location behind. One can drive for Uber fucking anywhere.
Indiana Jones
2017 May 1, 12:27pm
Oakland is under rent control which means this guy practically has more rights than the owners. There are just causes for eviction and way more rights than under California state law. Did this guy sign a lease saying he'd pay half the utilities? If so, he may still be able to find a way out of this. He can have low-cost or maybe even free legal representation.
http://www.oaklandtenantsunion.org/know-your-rights.html
http://www.oaklandtenantsunion.org/help-and-support.html
If you are having issues with your landlord or would like advice about your legal protections and options, please call our tenant support line and leave a voicemail, (we will get back to you soon), email us, or come to an OTU monthly meeting.
Tenant Support Line: (510) 704-5276
Tenant Support email: help@OaklandTenantsUnion.org
anniecoyote
2017 May 1, 1:57pm
actually - if there is no separate meter for utilities to the "shed" it means it is an illegal unit. The landlord has no right to rent it if there is no certificate of occupancy, and as such, there is no "legal" lease. The guy living there could quit paying rent altogether as there is no legal lease for a place with no CofO. He can be evicted by the landlord but it must be a legal eviction to take the unit off the market to bring it up to code. The landlord would then be owning up to having an illegal unit and can't re-rent it. Landlord also will owe the tenant relocation fees despite the fact that it was an illegal rental - which fees are somewhere around $5600. The tenants in the main house can't require the illegal tenant to pay them anything. They could have said, however, to the landlord that they weren't going to carry this guy's utility bills and could go to the building department to report the illegal rental. If the landlord had been smart, he would have told the main house tenants they were responsible for the bills but that by tolerating the backyard tenant and incorporating the costs, he would discount their rent $100 or some such figure.
FortWayne
2017 May 1, 5:00pm
Did he sign anything? If not, he can pay nothing.
Also this might not be zoned for multi unit living, so it's landlord idiot problem.
Ran into an Uber driver today who said he's living in an in-law unit (a tool shed, in his description), and upon move-in, was told that he'd be responsible for a portion of the utilities (water, garbage). There is a real house on the property that he says is occupied by 4-5 people. Apparently, the landlord said how they apportioned the bills was up to them.
Naturally, the folks in the big house told him that he was responsible for half these bills, despite the fact that they use a much larger percentage of it.
They slipped him a bill for his "half" and it wound up being $570. After halfway giving up, he gave them $500, and they handed him the next bill for the next quarter, plus the amount he "shorted: them. The landlords sent him a letter telling him to pay or face eviction.
I'm under the impression that he'd have stronger tenant rights in Oaktown than in most cities. This whole deal smells wrong to me, but thought I'd toss it out there for the learned folks here.
What are his options for pushing back, squatting, winning, or whatever to ameliorate his situation (aside from not driving Uber)?. :)
Is there an agency he should reach out to, if only to discuss his options?
Thanks!
#housing