Tenant's Rent increased by $300/month

[trust_id_09]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I have someone who is caught in a quandary. She has been living in a non-rent -stabilized/regulated apt. for the past 21 years and had an immaculate record. However, the building has a new owner. Her rent was increased from $1200 to $1500.

she was told she has no legal recourse but to pay or move. Since the building is neither rent regulated nor stabilized, therefore LL does not have to abide by these code regulations.

The amount requested is way outside of her reach. What can be done aside the obvious?

I suggested that she writes a letter (certified) stating the exact above facts before her next month's rent becomes due. Hopefully, her and LL will reach a happy compromise.

Any help will be greatly appreciated,

Thanks

 

[Banned_Princess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I have someone who is caught in a quandary. She has been living in a non-rent -stabilized/regulated apt. for the past 21 years and had an immaculate record. However, the building has a new owner. Her rent was increased from $1200 to $1500.

she was told she has no legal recourse but to pay or move. Since the building is neither rent regulated nor stabilized, therefore LL does not have to abide by these code regulations.

The amount requested is way outside of her reach. What can be done aside the obvious?

I suggested that she writes a letter (certified) stating the exact above facts before her next month's rent becomes due. Hopefully, her and LL will reach a happy compromise.

Any help will be greatly appreciated,

Thanks

What are the above facts?

The facts are pay the increase or move out.

She can choose to be evicted...

terribly sorry.

 

[Isis1]

my only question would be, was the notice served in a timely matter per law?

when was the notice given, when is the rent's official increase supposed to start?

 

[atomizer]

I don't think the whole story is known here. Most landlords that want to increase the rent to the fair market value will do so gradually in order not to lose a good tenant. A tenant of 21 years is worth renting at slightly below market rate because of the guaranteed rent aspect. This sounds like the new LL has a reason to want the renter out. It may have been a case of first impressions, or the LL wants to move in, or it maybe the owner is inexperienced.

 

[Seanscott]

The landlord cannot raise the rent until the current lease has expired. Make sure to check the lease.

 

[Searchertwin]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I have someone who is caught in a quandary. She has been living in a non-rent -stabilized/regulated apt. for the past 21 years and had an immaculate record. However, the building has a new owner. Her rent was increased from $1200 to $1500.

she was told she has no legal recourse but to pay or move. Since the building is neither rent regulated nor stabilized, therefore LL does not have to abide by these code regulations.

The amount requested is way outside of her reach. What can be done aside the obvious?

I suggested that she writes a letter (certified) stating the exact above facts before her next month's rent becomes due. Hopefully, her and LL will reach a happy compromise.

Any help will be greatly appreciated,

Thanks

Let's look at this from LL view. Do you thing that the bank that holds the mortgage will keep the escrow the same because the raise was way out of my reach to meet? Do you think a letter will help me? The bank told me either to pay or foreclosure is in my future, even though I been on time with payments for over 20 years. The same answer here is the same for you.

 

[BL]

[U]http://www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/real_estate_finance/pdfs/tenants_rights_guide.pdf[/U]

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/attygenguide.html#1[/U]]NYC Rent Guidelines Board

You will find out the legal answers outlined in the links provided .

She can certainly request an lower amount and the LL can either agree or not .

If the LL agrees to a lower rent ,get it in writing .

Again this is covered in the links .

 

[trust_id_09]

Outrageous Rent Increase

I don't think the whole story is known here. Most landlords that want to increase the rent to the fair market value will do so gradually in order not to lose a good tenant. A tenant of 21 years is worth renting at slightly below market rate because of the guaranteed rent aspect. This sounds like the new LL has a reason to want the renter out. It may have been a case of first impressions, or the LL wants to move in, or it maybe the owner is inexperienced.

Of all the replies, you 've hit all the right points in the head.
There is only one undelying fact that the tenant did, a few months back requested a letter from the LL to forward to a senior apt. application she had filled out. Perhaps, the increase could be in retaliation. We can't prove that.
The other factor is, the new LL is financially strapped and owned the building where the present tenant is the only source of revenue stream for that property, the other apt has been vacant for months. Therefore, unless LL shares its name w/ Forest GUMP, in this kind of economy, anyone in their right mind wouldn't do such a thing. Unless, of course, that tenant would be a dead beat tenant and LL would want to get rid of her/him at all costs.
You were polite by saying inexperienced, IMHO, he is greedy, desperate and most of all DUMB. Even if he were to be, a bit upset, at the tenant for applying for more affordable housing, the process is very lengthy and might take years for anything concrete to materialize. Not to mention, it is within the tenant's right to request that letter and should not have any retaliation measures bestowed upon her.

Someone else suggested that the tenant request to pay the same amount in writting, which is what she did pending his reply. She is even willing to comply to a slight increase i.e $50 - $100. But, $300 is outrageous and he will eventually end up having his building forclosed on.

This is one instance whereby, Michael Douglas's quote " Greed, for lack of a better word, is good", means the opposite " DUMB" s/b chosen in lieu of good.
I fully understand in a free market, when the economy is booming, people have the resources I would agree w/ this guy 1000 %: Kick the tenant out, renovate, and rent the apt for $2500. Now is not such a time.
I am not one to side w/ tenants, I am a landlort myself. But, this guy is not too bright, new york city especially Kings county is a very tenant friendly place. If I were her, I would lawyer up and drag preceedings, should he chooses to go that route, for as long as I am allowed to under the law.
Teach him a lesson in greed, having a tenant living, in his house consuming his water/sewer/heat, free of charge. I know most LL don't deserve it, but this one is unconscionable.

Thanks for all your input.


My 2 cents.

 

[trust_id_09]

There is no lease per se (well implied month-to-month)

The landlord cannot raise the rent until the current lease has expired. Make sure to check the lease.

Actually, he can, legally, unless it is either a rent-controlled or stabilized dwelling.

 

[BL]

Of all the replies, you 've hit all the right points in the head.
There is only one undelying fact that the tenant did, a few month back request a letter from the LL to forward to a senior apt. application she had filled out. Perhaps, the increase could be in retaliation. We can't prove that.
the other factor is, the new LL is financial strapped and owned the building where the present tenant is the only source of revenue stream for that property, the other apt has been vacant for months. Therefore, unless LL shares its name w/ Forest GUMP, in this kind of economy, anyone in their right mind wouldn't do such a thing. Unless, of course, that tenant would be a dead beat tenant and LL would want to get rid of her/him at all costs.
You were polite by saying inexperienced, IMHO, he is greedy, desperate and most of all DUMB. Even if he were to be, a bit upset, at the tenant for applying for more affordable housing, the process is very lengthy and might take years for anything concrete to materialize. Not to mention, it is within the tenant's right to request that letter and should not have any retaliation measures bestowed upon her.

Someone else suggested that the tenant request to pay the same amount in writting, which is what she did pending his reply. She is even willing to comply to a slight increase i.e $50 - $100. But, $300 is outrageous and he will eventually end up having his building forclosed on.

This is one instance whereby, Michael Douglas's quote " Greed, for lack of a better term, is good", means the opposite " DUMB" s/b chosen in lieu of good.
I fully understand in a free market, when the economy is booming, people have the resources I would agree w/ this guy 1000 %: Kick the tenant out, renovate, and rent the apt for $2500. Now is not such a time.
I am not one to side w/ tenant, I am a landlort myself. But, this guy is not too bright, new york city especially Kings county is a very tenant friendly place. If I were her, I would lawyer up and drag preceedings, should he chooses to go that route, for as long as I am allowed to under the law.
Teach him a lesson in greed, having a tenant living, in his house consuming his water/sewer/heat, free of charge. I know most LL don't deserve it, but this one is unconscionable.

Thanks for all your input.


My 2 cents.

Gee , I didn't even read it . Who cares what Opt said .

I gave you the links to the law .

Doesn't matter the reason the LL decides .

 

[trust_id_09]

Served legally

my only question would be, was the notice served in a timely matter per law?

when was the notice given, when is the rent's official increase supposed to start?

Yes she was.

The tenant is not objecting to the way in which she was served, the astronomical increase is her bone of contention, though legal.
she understood, w/ any new owner, especially, when there was some miner easthetical improvement (not capital improvement), there will be a resonable increase. But the law can justify such an increase, if it were a major structural problem was addressed; in fact, there is a cracked wall from top to bottom in that building. which is, my view, considered major structural issue. It is a very old dwelling and s/b priced as such. Major roof leak and such. None of which were addressed. He patched things up and wants a fortune for the place. I wish I were a lawyer for the less fortunate and I would eat him alive in court.

 

[Zigner]

Yes she was.

The tenant is not objecting to the way in which she was served, the astronomical increase is her bone of contention, though legal.
she understood, w/ any new owner, especially, when there was some miner easthetical improvement (not capital improvement), there will be a resonable increase. But the law can justify such an increase, if it were a major structural problem was addressed; in fact, there is a cracked wall from top to bottom in that building. which is, my view, considered major structural issue. It is a very old dwelling and s/b priced as such. Major roof leak and such. None of which were addressed. He patched things up and wants a fortune for the place. I wish I were a lawyer for the less fortunate and I would eat him alive in court.

For doing something that is perfectly legal? Really?

 

[trust_id_09]

Legal, Yes. Unethical, an absolute YES.

For doing something that is perfectly legal? Really?

Never said anywhere here that it was illegal. That does not preclude me or anyone to argue such case in a court of law, should it be my wish. It is not as black and white as you may perceive it. There could be a retaliation premise hidden in the LL position; one might argue. And that is illegal. Provided that it can be proven; that is my point here.

 

[Zigner]

Never said anywhere here that it was illegal. That does not preclude me or anyone to argue such case in a court of law, should it be my wish. It is not as black and white as you may perceive it. There could be a retaliation premise hidden in the LL position; one might argue. And that is illegal. Provided that it can be proven; that is my point here.

An attorney would avoid filing frivolous suits that will get him sanctioned by the court...I'm just sayin'...

 

[You Are Guilty]

I am having a hard time following here. Is there a language other than English you would be more comfortable using? (I speak whatever languages Google Translate does).