My magnum opus...
Oct. 23rd, 2007 01:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
phynckeSo I have been dealing with my tenant issue and I spent a personal day off talking to legal advisers and the rent board. This is what we came up with--my legal response. My major WERK.
Here it is in its entirety. I am quite proud of this bit of writing and I did have help from the Rent Board of Berkeley staff.
October 23, 2007
*Addressee information redacted*
Re: Offer re. tenancy at ******* Street, email of Oct 16th, 2007
Dear *redacted*:
I am writing in response to your email dated October 16, 2007 and subsequent conversation on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 which took place in front of the ***** Street house. I want to be clear on all points with you and so I am responding in writing.
It was my impression from your email that you planned to make substantial capital improvements on my apartment which in your own words would “disrupt habitation for a substantial duration” and that was the cause for your e-mail offer. There are lawful provisions for such “evictions” by law and yours did not adhere to these in the procedure that you followed. You did not have permits, or any documentation from the City of Berkeley, backing up your claim of putting my apartment under construction and making it uninhabitable for the duration of the work. Such an eviction would be temporary and I would have the right to have my apartment back after the work is completed. You would also be responsible for any additional rent I paid while in a temporary residence (for up to 3 months) elsewhere and you would have to pay for all moving expenses. There are other costs as well. I refer you to the Rent Stabilization Board for more information in this regard.
You can understand my confusion when I asked you in person what improvements you had planned (our conversation on Wednesday, October 17, 2007) and I got no specific answer. You stated your desire to move into my apartment yourself. You essentially stated that it was a buy out offer only and you could not pinpoint any capital improvements to be made on my residence. I was quite honestly astonished at your vagueness on this matter as I took your communication at its face value. I thought you meant what you had said in your email. It was apparent to me, in our direct conversation that you do not have any “capital improvements” planned and thus I consider your warning to evict me for “capital improvements” an attempt to constructively evict me and a bad faith attempt to evict me for owner move in.
At this point, I will not accept your “buy out” offer and I would not even accept a temporary eviction for capital improvements that you requested in that email as I do not believe you have anything specific in mind as far as renovations are concerned.
As for the second point of your email, your request for a security deposit. The former landlord, *old landlord*, refunded my security deposit to me with accrued interest in January 2004. According to Berkeley Tenant Laws as explained to me by the Rent Stabilization Board and the East Bay Community Law Center, this effectively puts my security deposit at $0.00 for my apartment. I am currently under my old lease and will remain so as I do not need to sign a new lease agreement with you. I will not pay another security deposit. I have been a tenant in good standing in this dwelling for 14 years and because I was refunded my payment at an earlier date, collection of another deposit by you is not legally permissible and I am under no legal obligation to pay it. Additionally, I cannot be evicted for refusal to pay you this sum. I have attached the pertinent letters from *old landlord* documenting his refund of my deposit in 2004. Also see Rent Board Regulation 705. Prohibiting the Increase of Security Deposit during a Tenancy for the Berkeley law that prohibits you from increasing my security deposit.
I would like to remind you at this time, that as a tenant at ***** Street for more than 5 years, I am protected from an owner move-in eviction under the Berkeley Rent Ordinance. (13.76.130 9(a)(i)(iii) ). I cannot be evicted for an owner move-in eviction. **** Street is my home and I am content here. I do not foresee moving from here unless things in my life dramatically change and I relocate out of the Bay Area.
I hope that this clarifies my stance on my tenancy at this point. I will send you your rent in a timely manner, maintain this apartment in good condition and cooperate with you as the landlord.
Sincerely,
Yours Truly
CC: **Rent Dude**, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board
**Law Dude**, East Bay Community Law Center
Shall I say it again...HELL NO!
Sent in triplicate and file copy kept for my records. :P
Here it is in its entirety. I am quite proud of this bit of writing and I did have help from the Rent Board of Berkeley staff.
October 23, 2007
*Addressee information redacted*
Re: Offer re. tenancy at ******* Street, email of Oct 16th, 2007
Dear *redacted*:
I am writing in response to your email dated October 16, 2007 and subsequent conversation on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 which took place in front of the ***** Street house. I want to be clear on all points with you and so I am responding in writing.
It was my impression from your email that you planned to make substantial capital improvements on my apartment which in your own words would “disrupt habitation for a substantial duration” and that was the cause for your e-mail offer. There are lawful provisions for such “evictions” by law and yours did not adhere to these in the procedure that you followed. You did not have permits, or any documentation from the City of Berkeley, backing up your claim of putting my apartment under construction and making it uninhabitable for the duration of the work. Such an eviction would be temporary and I would have the right to have my apartment back after the work is completed. You would also be responsible for any additional rent I paid while in a temporary residence (for up to 3 months) elsewhere and you would have to pay for all moving expenses. There are other costs as well. I refer you to the Rent Stabilization Board for more information in this regard.
You can understand my confusion when I asked you in person what improvements you had planned (our conversation on Wednesday, October 17, 2007) and I got no specific answer. You stated your desire to move into my apartment yourself. You essentially stated that it was a buy out offer only and you could not pinpoint any capital improvements to be made on my residence. I was quite honestly astonished at your vagueness on this matter as I took your communication at its face value. I thought you meant what you had said in your email. It was apparent to me, in our direct conversation that you do not have any “capital improvements” planned and thus I consider your warning to evict me for “capital improvements” an attempt to constructively evict me and a bad faith attempt to evict me for owner move in.
At this point, I will not accept your “buy out” offer and I would not even accept a temporary eviction for capital improvements that you requested in that email as I do not believe you have anything specific in mind as far as renovations are concerned.
As for the second point of your email, your request for a security deposit. The former landlord, *old landlord*, refunded my security deposit to me with accrued interest in January 2004. According to Berkeley Tenant Laws as explained to me by the Rent Stabilization Board and the East Bay Community Law Center, this effectively puts my security deposit at $0.00 for my apartment. I am currently under my old lease and will remain so as I do not need to sign a new lease agreement with you. I will not pay another security deposit. I have been a tenant in good standing in this dwelling for 14 years and because I was refunded my payment at an earlier date, collection of another deposit by you is not legally permissible and I am under no legal obligation to pay it. Additionally, I cannot be evicted for refusal to pay you this sum. I have attached the pertinent letters from *old landlord* documenting his refund of my deposit in 2004. Also see Rent Board Regulation 705. Prohibiting the Increase of Security Deposit during a Tenancy for the Berkeley law that prohibits you from increasing my security deposit.
I would like to remind you at this time, that as a tenant at ***** Street for more than 5 years, I am protected from an owner move-in eviction under the Berkeley Rent Ordinance. (13.76.130 9(a)(i)(iii) ). I cannot be evicted for an owner move-in eviction. **** Street is my home and I am content here. I do not foresee moving from here unless things in my life dramatically change and I relocate out of the Bay Area.
I hope that this clarifies my stance on my tenancy at this point. I will send you your rent in a timely manner, maintain this apartment in good condition and cooperate with you as the landlord.
Sincerely,
Yours Truly
CC: **Rent Dude**, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board
**Law Dude**, East Bay Community Law Center
Shall I say it again...HELL NO!
Sent in triplicate and file copy kept for my records. :P
