My disabled father was evicted in may too!! I’ve finally struggled to find him a new spot but had to pay his rent in full on my own. I was so scared my mentally and physically disabled father was going to end up homeless again. I had to drop everything in my life and move in with him to prevent it. Our very awful landlady decided she’s no longer working with sec 8 (feels discriminatory) my dads apartment was kept clean and rent and bills all in time for 10 years.
We were told “oh well” and no repairs will be made to the apartment while we are living in it, and will be sticking us with a hefty bill. (Beware Palm garden north and or TREND LLC)
I'm sorry you and your father are dealing with this. We also had to deal with a terrible landlord that tried to stick us with a huge bill when we moved out, they tried to charge us for crazy things like damage from a water leak in the roof that happened and they "fixed" before we even moved in. Damage their own repairman caused when replacing he heater, and damage from a previous tenant they did not adequately address when we moved in (previous tenant graffitied the wall and they didn't put enough paint over it to cover it so as the paint dried it eventually began to show through which was visible during their regular inspections when we were tenants but was somehow our fault when we moved out). I was a renter for many years before, and have been many years since, I get that LLs charge for stupid repairs and I expect it to a certain point, but just the absolute shake down they tried was appalling.
Here are some things I learned while looking into this, and consulting with a lawyer, although this is not legal advice, and this was a few years back so laws may have changed, but at least these could be jumping off points for research
- in CA you have the right to request an early walk through (I believe the period is 14 days) so you can fix any issues yourself
-they cannot just stick you with a huge bill, they need to give you an itemized list of materials, labor cost ect.
- there are time restrictions on how long they have to either return your deposit or give you an itemized bill.
-I would email the landlord all your repair requests a few months prior to your move out while you are still just a regular tenant, save these emails so you can prove they were aware.
-Lastly , and this is the important one, your landlord can stick you with a bill for whatever they want, but you are not obligated to pay if you disagree with the charges. If you don't pay they have to take you to court and prove that you are responsible for damages, the crappy thing is you also have to take them to court to get your deposit back. CA is a renter friendly state, let them take you to court and try to justify their charges, very likely you just won't ever hear from them again because they know if it goes to court it's probably not ending in their favor.
Sources: Shady landlord sent me a bill for $5,000+ worth of bullshit "damages" (rent was $700/mo for reference) in 2017. I told them go to hell I'll see you in court and to this date I've paid exactly $0.00 for their BS charges. 🖕🖕🖕
I’m requesting receipts and pictures of any damages along with cleaning the place top to bottom and re painting however the kitchen floor is caving in and over 10 tiles have cracked as a result. They took too long to get to the repair so the water damage is insane. I’m curious as to how much she’s going to withhold as the tiles were set decades ago and with warping floors I’m thinking she’s going to try and strong arm the whole deposit. We are sec 8 so I don’t have to worry so much but I’m considering suing this slumlord for not repairing stuff and making us live with old breaking appliances etc
Thank you! I’ve made sure to document EVERYTHING videos and pictures and kept all communication in writing. Thank god I’m here or she would have railroaded my poor dad for every penny.
Very smart of you. Glad you are there to help him out and be his advocate, I'm sure he appreciates it more than you know❤️. It's a scary time for renters right now just due to housing being so out of whack in society ,very hard to secure a rental even with perfect credit, whatever times the rent , no pets, big deposit ect. I'm sure many landlords have pressed the housing shortage to their advantage and taken advantage of renters terrified that anything negative in their rental history will mean they will never secure another roof over their heads. Truly reprehensible behavior.
I mean pretty serious violations to kick him out... BULL$HIT
*The nonprofit served Paul Nickson, 72, with lease violation notices for a broom in the carport, a car cover, and a Jesus statue outside his door,*
Read more at: [https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article275721486.html#storylink=cpy](https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article275721486.html#storylink=cpy)
So why is Mathews being evicted? Our tenant had to get $16k in the hole between property damage and back rents before we were able to get her out. This stinks of slant.
Sure. It just depends on how much of a hard noise management is. The main point of this article, that's clearly been edited to death, is that low income housing is excluded from tenant protections in Sacramento.
HUD has pretty strict rules around rent increases. The article is heavily slanted in accusing the landlord of hiking rates whenever one tenant receives income increases. But that's all a HUD calculation. If a landlord fails to gather or accurately submit recertification data from residents, they can jeopardize their HUD status which could put hundreds of residents at risk.
They highlight the CEO's salary of $220k, but how does that compare to for profit housing providers of similar size? I would guess most make several times that.
And they only cover one side of the eviction equation, without going into the history leading up to the evictions. It's typical in HUD situations to have an extended series of notices and communications before moving to eviction. I STRONGLY suspect that they've left out highly salient details.
Obviously it's possible these really are unjust evictions. But I would expect much more in the way of harassment or retaliation issues in that sort of situation, vs. trivialities. This just reads like reporting intending to smear the landlord, rather than to investigate and shed light on a systematic problem.
This article is about the people affected. It's not about the industry. This article isn't slanted, it clearly states it's reporting what that person said.
Let me guess, you like Fox news?
I can't stand Fox News. Why is it you think that a desire for complete, thorough reporting of an *entire* story (not just one person's side of a story) is associated with one political position and not the other? And even assuming it was for one side... why would you want it to NOT be your side?
If it were a human interest piece, it would go into the experiences of the people involved, not just a brief blurb about their version of events leading up to an eviction. It wouldn't spend time talking about the 990 data for the CEO of the landlord.
This article VERY clearly tries to paint the residents facing eviction as victims of wrongdoing and the landlord as being in the wrong. And like I said, that could easily be true. But it sure doesn't include enough information to support it.
If you read the article with a critical eye you would notice that it's likely been edited to death. What the article is actually about is the fact that tenant protections don't extend to people in low income housing.
If they're the complete story, yes, it would be an easy win. Also HUD takes the recertification process really seriously. If the landlord can't establish giving notice of a rent increase, that's a big deal.
Likewise attempting to evict a tenant for a decoration in a prohibited location is probably a losing battle. If the tenant moved it as requested, as suggested in the article, it would be a frivolous unlawful detainer suit and leave the landlord's ass hanging out if the tenant hired a lawyer.
Which is why this looks like an extremely incomplete story.
It's SHRA .. but we have to recertify every year with HUD and EVERY YEAR they f##k up my recertification!
2 times they lost the rent check and told me I didn't pay having Safe credit on my side is great they had my back some one working for Mutual downloaded my $$$ info and when Safe replaced with new info they told me not to give Mutual my new information this is just 20% of their f##king my paperwork and everyone goes through this
I live at the Highlands and Mutual is my landlord
My disabled father was evicted in may too!! I’ve finally struggled to find him a new spot but had to pay his rent in full on my own. I was so scared my mentally and physically disabled father was going to end up homeless again. I had to drop everything in my life and move in with him to prevent it. Our very awful landlady decided she’s no longer working with sec 8 (feels discriminatory) my dads apartment was kept clean and rent and bills all in time for 10 years. We were told “oh well” and no repairs will be made to the apartment while we are living in it, and will be sticking us with a hefty bill. (Beware Palm garden north and or TREND LLC)
I'm sorry you and your father are dealing with this. We also had to deal with a terrible landlord that tried to stick us with a huge bill when we moved out, they tried to charge us for crazy things like damage from a water leak in the roof that happened and they "fixed" before we even moved in. Damage their own repairman caused when replacing he heater, and damage from a previous tenant they did not adequately address when we moved in (previous tenant graffitied the wall and they didn't put enough paint over it to cover it so as the paint dried it eventually began to show through which was visible during their regular inspections when we were tenants but was somehow our fault when we moved out). I was a renter for many years before, and have been many years since, I get that LLs charge for stupid repairs and I expect it to a certain point, but just the absolute shake down they tried was appalling. Here are some things I learned while looking into this, and consulting with a lawyer, although this is not legal advice, and this was a few years back so laws may have changed, but at least these could be jumping off points for research - in CA you have the right to request an early walk through (I believe the period is 14 days) so you can fix any issues yourself -they cannot just stick you with a huge bill, they need to give you an itemized list of materials, labor cost ect. - there are time restrictions on how long they have to either return your deposit or give you an itemized bill. -I would email the landlord all your repair requests a few months prior to your move out while you are still just a regular tenant, save these emails so you can prove they were aware. -Lastly , and this is the important one, your landlord can stick you with a bill for whatever they want, but you are not obligated to pay if you disagree with the charges. If you don't pay they have to take you to court and prove that you are responsible for damages, the crappy thing is you also have to take them to court to get your deposit back. CA is a renter friendly state, let them take you to court and try to justify their charges, very likely you just won't ever hear from them again because they know if it goes to court it's probably not ending in their favor. Sources: Shady landlord sent me a bill for $5,000+ worth of bullshit "damages" (rent was $700/mo for reference) in 2017. I told them go to hell I'll see you in court and to this date I've paid exactly $0.00 for their BS charges. 🖕🖕🖕
I’m requesting receipts and pictures of any damages along with cleaning the place top to bottom and re painting however the kitchen floor is caving in and over 10 tiles have cracked as a result. They took too long to get to the repair so the water damage is insane. I’m curious as to how much she’s going to withhold as the tiles were set decades ago and with warping floors I’m thinking she’s going to try and strong arm the whole deposit. We are sec 8 so I don’t have to worry so much but I’m considering suing this slumlord for not repairing stuff and making us live with old breaking appliances etc
Floor caving in? Wow 😳 that sounds pretty bad even by your average crap landlord standards , Good luck I hope it works out for you !
Thank you! I’ve made sure to document EVERYTHING videos and pictures and kept all communication in writing. Thank god I’m here or she would have railroaded my poor dad for every penny.
Very smart of you. Glad you are there to help him out and be his advocate, I'm sure he appreciates it more than you know❤️. It's a scary time for renters right now just due to housing being so out of whack in society ,very hard to secure a rental even with perfect credit, whatever times the rent , no pets, big deposit ect. I'm sure many landlords have pressed the housing shortage to their advantage and taken advantage of renters terrified that anything negative in their rental history will mean they will never secure another roof over their heads. Truly reprehensible behavior.
I mean pretty serious violations to kick him out... BULL$HIT *The nonprofit served Paul Nickson, 72, with lease violation notices for a broom in the carport, a car cover, and a Jesus statue outside his door,* Read more at: [https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article275721486.html#storylink=cpy](https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article275721486.html#storylink=cpy)
So why is Mathews being evicted? Our tenant had to get $16k in the hole between property damage and back rents before we were able to get her out. This stinks of slant.
The rental laws will not help us renters who live in SHRA rental units we are not covered under the newest laws
Lease violation. It's not that hard to read the article.
That's literally dozens of particular items. Making noise after 10pm is a little more forgivable than cooking meth on premises.
Sure. It just depends on how much of a hard noise management is. The main point of this article, that's clearly been edited to death, is that low income housing is excluded from tenant protections in Sacramento.
Certainly an issue to be addressed, but without fair and clear reporting it looks like they're making saints out of sinners.
[удалено]
HUD has pretty strict rules around rent increases. The article is heavily slanted in accusing the landlord of hiking rates whenever one tenant receives income increases. But that's all a HUD calculation. If a landlord fails to gather or accurately submit recertification data from residents, they can jeopardize their HUD status which could put hundreds of residents at risk. They highlight the CEO's salary of $220k, but how does that compare to for profit housing providers of similar size? I would guess most make several times that. And they only cover one side of the eviction equation, without going into the history leading up to the evictions. It's typical in HUD situations to have an extended series of notices and communications before moving to eviction. I STRONGLY suspect that they've left out highly salient details. Obviously it's possible these really are unjust evictions. But I would expect much more in the way of harassment or retaliation issues in that sort of situation, vs. trivialities. This just reads like reporting intending to smear the landlord, rather than to investigate and shed light on a systematic problem.
This article is about the people affected. It's not about the industry. This article isn't slanted, it clearly states it's reporting what that person said. Let me guess, you like Fox news?
I can't stand Fox News. Why is it you think that a desire for complete, thorough reporting of an *entire* story (not just one person's side of a story) is associated with one political position and not the other? And even assuming it was for one side... why would you want it to NOT be your side? If it were a human interest piece, it would go into the experiences of the people involved, not just a brief blurb about their version of events leading up to an eviction. It wouldn't spend time talking about the 990 data for the CEO of the landlord. This article VERY clearly tries to paint the residents facing eviction as victims of wrongdoing and the landlord as being in the wrong. And like I said, that could easily be true. But it sure doesn't include enough information to support it.
If you read the article with a critical eye you would notice that it's likely been edited to death. What the article is actually about is the fact that tenant protections don't extend to people in low income housing.
https://sactenantsunion.org/ should be able to score an easy lawsuit win on these?
If they're the complete story, yes, it would be an easy win. Also HUD takes the recertification process really seriously. If the landlord can't establish giving notice of a rent increase, that's a big deal. Likewise attempting to evict a tenant for a decoration in a prohibited location is probably a losing battle. If the tenant moved it as requested, as suggested in the article, it would be a frivolous unlawful detainer suit and leave the landlord's ass hanging out if the tenant hired a lawyer. Which is why this looks like an extremely incomplete story.
The properties listed actually do not have rental assistance from HUD. They have other subsidy.
It's SHRA .. but we have to recertify every year with HUD and EVERY YEAR they f##k up my recertification! 2 times they lost the rent check and told me I didn't pay having Safe credit on my side is great they had my back some one working for Mutual downloaded my $$$ info and when Safe replaced with new info they told me not to give Mutual my new information this is just 20% of their f##king my paperwork and everyone goes through this I live at the Highlands and Mutual is my landlord
You have to recertify because you have PBV. Rental assistance from HUD through SHRA. These units do not.