Improper Rental Increase

[Zigner]

It looks to me like the LL DID violate the law. I could be wrong or you could be wrong, but that is all water under the bridge now. It is resolved now, so we'll never know if a judge would agree with you or me.

Just so long as you're happy

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I suggest you Google "typical fee for late rent in CA". I found one landlord that charges $5 p/day which would have been about 3 times what you were assessed.

 

[Ohiogal]

Proserpina,

I do agree with you on the rent being raised and tried to state that, but I may have done so poorly. Also, wasn't the tenant month to month, so it wouldn't matter anyway

My question was more pointed toward the late fee. Here are a few scenarios I was wondering:

1.) Tenant paysr rent minus $100. Tenant pays the $100 a month later, accounting for all rent. Would a $50 late fee seem excessive? - My thought would be yes (50% increase in amount of money due in a month).

2.) Tenant attempts to pay rent minus $100. Landlord rejects full amount. Tenant pays the rent late. Would a $50 late fee seem excessive? - My thought would be that it is not excessive.

I will note that I have no legal background, so it's still quite possible that I'm wrong, but reading this forum has helped me out quite a bit .

The late fee is not on the $100 -- it is on the total amount of rent. Until the rent is paid in full it is considered LATE and NOT PAID. Hence if the late fee is $50 for rent of $700 a month that is not excessive. You are looking at the numbers incorrectly. It is not a late fee on $100. It is a late fee on the FULL rent.

 

[Ohiogal]

I do not know how I can make it any clearer! But, here goes again!

"There was a rent increase for every tenant."
True, but my increase was 25.00 more!

"Nellie was late with the rent and being late isn't a protected act."
True, but the protected act I've been speaking about is that case law infers that paying a 50.00 late fee for being 100.00 late on rent is excessive! As such, I've now informed the LL that I will not pay such fee pursuant to the cases I've cited earlier in this thread! Read them!

Courts have already decided (in California) that an excessive late fee amounts to a penalty. Being late 100.00 on rent does not cause the owner of the property any major damages that would allow such a high late fee! This is the premise in which I am disputing the rental increase that is above the other tenants with a similar size apartment!

In the certified letter to the LL, I've asked her to be reasonable and that I would continue to pay the rent at the higher amount if she didn't want to try to resolve this matter, but that I would have to address it in court.

I should hear back in a few days to see what her response will be. Ideally, the LL will allow my rent to be the same as the other tenants like it has been for the last 5 years. I don't believe the LL wants me out as you surmise! She has had trouble getting tenants from time to time and would not want to lose one who has only been late on rent twice in a 5 year period.

The landlord should have just evicted you. Problem solved.

 

[TigerD]

The LL called me this morning and after I persuaded her that it wouldn't be beneficial for either of us to spend time in court over this, she reduced the rental increase by 25.00 and waived the late fee she was seeking.

So much for the wrongful opinions throughout this thread. Only FarmerJ and os478 gave informative responses! Tje rest of you can keep your day jobs because your opinions and advice is horrible.

Of course I'd rather successfully persuade the LL to decrease my rent than to persuade Proserpina that I have a case. The LL also complimented me on my longivity as a tenant, so my certified letter and negotiation worked out like I figured it would.

I call bull crap. OG effect in the house!

DC

 

[Proserpina]

I call bull crap. OG effect in the house!

DC

I CALLED IT!

*preen*

 

[Proserpina]

Just so long as you're happy

One word.

Whittier.

 

[Just Blue]

I can whole-heartedly agree with you, Farmer! And I appreciate it, too! But, I just can't sit idly by and let the LL do this to me. I'm not trying to make a big deal about it, but I feel like I need to respond to his rental increase.

I agree that the LL can and may LEGALLY succeed in getting me out at a later time, but still, I can't let this go. I may just send him a certified letter explaining my belief he is retaliating and that I can recover damages if proven. I'm just asking that he be reasonable. Perhaps, if he knocks off the extra 25.00, the issue will be resolved. I'll see how this issue takes its course within the next couple weeks and update a post, whether I'm successful or not. Thanks again Farmer for your 2nd response explaining in more detail your opinion as far as playing 'devils advocate'.

Perhaps you should move...That is you right.

 

[Nellibelle]

The landlord should have just evicted you. Problem solved.

How stupid! Evicted me for what?

 

[Nellibelle]

I call bull crap. OG effect in the house!

DC

You can call it anything you want as much as you want, but your Wrong!

 

[Eekamouse]

The LL called me this morning and after I persuaded her that it wouldn't be beneficial for either of us to spend time in court over this, she reduced the rental increase by 25.00 and waived the late fee she was seeking.

So much for the wrongful opinions throughout this thread. Only FarmerJ and os478 gave informative responses! Tje rest of you can keep your day jobs because your opinions and advice is horrible.

Of course I'd rather successfully persuade the LL to decrease my rent than to persuade Proserpina that I have a case. The LL also complimented me on my longivity as a tenant, so my certified letter and negotiation worked out like I figured it would.

Hahahahahahaha!!!! How fortuitous for you. Now you can feel vindicated even though you were absolutely and completely in the wrong.

 

[Proserpina]

Hey, I'm just glad one of the less-smart OPs managed to spell my screen-name correctly.

 

[Proserpina]

And yeah. We know, OP.

Let's just say, "we know".

 

[FarmerJ]

Nel unless your states laws require a so called just cause before telling a month to month tenant to get the H out via proper written notice that meets your state law then that`s just what the LL can choose to do , think about it, even if you think the LLs rent increase is not fair your LL doesnt have to tolerate you or any other tenant paying late and acting like your entitled to something not addressed in your states laws or your rental agreement ? (take a big deep breath here and try to see the bigger picture which is (unless your rent in a rent control community or can find law that says other wise you may well be moving in the future like it or not and if your LL gives to you proper notice to get out and you do not do it and cannot satisfy the court by proving the LL was wrong then whats gonna happen is the court will still order you to get out and then there will be a provable trail that other LLs would eventually see during the screening process and they may well choose to reject your application for that reason alone, since most lls do not want to have to put out for court filings if they do not have to then many figure ` oh this one already has a court history that shows a landlord in the past has had to take them into court to make them leave so why should I take the chance that Id have to do it with the same applicant if i approved this ` so they deny the application and select a tenant who doesnt have any history at all with other landlords and courts.

 

[Stephen1]

It's not retaliation, because the landlord isn't raising the rent based upon you not wanting to pay the late fee. He's raising the rent because you were late.

I have the slightest disagreement with you. I believe that it could be retaliation but just not something that is prohibited. I believe that is one of the points OP is hung up on. He's arguing that it is retaliation. We need to agree that it possibly is. Then move on to the question of: what law prohibits the LL's behavior? There is none that I know of.

Analogy: Let's say that years ago in a parking lot I was backed into by a Lexus. The driver was a jerk and yelled at me. So now when a prospective tenant drives up in a Lexus I automatically reject him/her. Is this discrimination? Yes, based upon the car they drive. Is it illegal? No (Would it be a poor business practice: Yes).

Oh, and to the poster who said they come to this site for humor - me too.