Well, that's standard for all alterations. First, the landlord has to approve the alterations. Second, the tenant has to pay for it. Third, the tenant agrees to pay to change it back. That's obvious, because what landlord wants to deal with your purple walls with pink polka dots? However, in most cases, if the alterations are beneficial, I may consider it a fixture, in which case it becomes legally part of the property and not removed.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Advice for landlord situation in California
- Thread starter importon
- Start date
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
It depends on the city. If it happens in San Francisco, not only the tenant doesn't pay the rent, landlord can't evict the tenant in xxxx months.
I'm not familiar with San Francisco's local ordinances, but I assume you're referring to a rent controlled building. Are you saying in a non-rent controlled building, landlords also have to renew all leases? Are the majority of rentals rent controlled?
Cybermoose
Member
If a tenant tried to be tough and use laws that say I have to approve something, I would let them spend their money on it and then not renew them. Maybe even make more rent for having a EV charger for the next person.
One thing I've learned from being a tenant and landlord is you dont want to piss either off. Tenants can do awful things and landlords can just refuse to renew your lease.
One thing I've learned from being a tenant and landlord is you dont want to piss either off. Tenants can do awful things and landlords can just refuse to renew your lease.
It is not rent control or not. Evicting someone who doesn't pay rent for months is extremely hard in California. During COVID, landlords can't do it at all. The courthouse got swarmed too. Again, don't piss off the tenants. The landlords? California law is not on their side.
Current circumstances aside, yes, in CA it's difficult to evict tenants, but not impossible. It's just a matter of how long it might take. From a landlord's perspective, it's a number on a P&L sheet and the property manager's headache. From a tenant's perspective, it's a lot of stressing over where you actually live (and potentially impacting your credit report). It's not a good situation for anyone, and best to avoid it as much as you can.
To bring it back to Importon's situation, I suggest being empathetic. You don't necessarily know what the landlord's situation is. Sure, a charging station is important to you. But before rushing into serving your landlord, consider the affect on your overall relationship with your landlord. Is this where you make your stand?
It is downright disgusting to hear that kind of response. Expecting a landlord to not break the law is considered being a "problem tenant"? That's sick, and you should be ashamed for supporting a landlord breaking the law.
The law also says the tenant has to pay for a liability insurance policy covering property damage and personal injury related to the charging installation, and the policy must remain in effect until the tenant vacates.
Based on what I can tell from the photo, OP is looking at 2 or 3 grand worth of work. Probably a DCC energy management device, plus conduits, a Tesla Wall Connector, labor, etc. etc.
OP, my advice: move
Woah, let's not be overly dramatic. I don't know either the landlord or the OP, so I'm certainly not supporting either in anything. And since you're not the OP's legal counsel, you certainly do not know whether any law with all it's requirements, exceptions, and vaguarities has been broken. The law is not that black and white that anyone with a keyboard can say one way or the other.
If the OP were my tenant, and he is willing to pay for all the expenses, I'd be more than happy to allow him. But he's not, so I'm simply saying is look at the overall relationship with the landlord and decide whether this is worth it. If you sue a landlord, of course you're creating a problem for the landlord. Your best case scenario is that he says okay, put in a charger at your cost. After that, do you not expect him and his attorney to look through the lease and nitpick everything you do? Would you renew a lease with a tenant that has shown a propensity to sue you? How is this a healthy living situation?
Finally, we're talking about a charging station for a vehicle with a minimum cost of $40,000. It's a literally first world problem. Don't think all landlords are slumlords and all tenants are victims. Save your outrage for those cases.
You are correct that I am not this person's legal counsel, but the rest of this is plainly false. The law says very directly that the landlord MUST say yes. This landlord is saying no. The law actually is that black and white.
That is blatantly moving the goalposts. Your statement we were talking about was this:
This topic was not about actually filing a law suit. Sure, that would be a more harsh move from a tenant if they didn't try to talk this through about what the legal requirements are first. This is someone politely showing the landlord the text of the law just to show them what the law requires of them. The landlord can still just decide to accept that and comply with the law instead of refusing. It doesn't have to come to filing a law suit.
The Civil Code section 1947.6(b) has 5 factual questions which would make the entire section inapplicable. You cannot possibly know the answer to those, and if one of those conditions applies, the law very directly says the landlord CAN say no. The Code also three references to the lessor's approval process and requirements for modifications that also must be met. It does not say what happens if the approval process or requirements are unreasonably onerous, but this is an example of where the law IS NOT black and white. I'm sure there is administrative guidance on these, but it wouldn't be published on the internet, so unless you have actual experience dealing with this, you can not possibly say based on just reading the 812 words in the Code what the law is.
I'll say this for all the armchair lawyers out there. It's very easy to jump up and down on what you think is a right and wrong. However, this is an actual person who will have to deal with the consequences of his actions. Unless you are willing to accept the legal consequences of bad advice, don't give it as the Truth.
The OP has already spent several month quoting the law to the landlord. He has only received a terse "No" in response. At this point, I don't know of any other steps short of suing the landlord to force a resolution. If you have any suggestions, I'm sure the OP would appreciate hearing them.
If you want to continue this discussion, please private message me. I'm afraid we're derailing the thread and not adding anything particularly useful to the OP.
It's fascinating how you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this. In that first message, you say there are a lot of annoying, burdensome hoops of procedure the renter would have to go through, as if that is equivalent for the landlord being allowed to say no. Those are not the same thing. No one is denying that there is a ton of work, effort, bother, and expense that the renter would still have to go through to comply with all of the conditions that go along with the required "yes" answer.
And then in the next message, you admit that the landlord is saying no in violation of the law, and that it probably would take a lawsuit to enforce. That may be the case. Depends on what the renter is willing to go through to try to get this done. But the fact does remain that the landlord is still legally required to allow this.
And then in the next message, you admit that the landlord is saying no in violation of the law, and that it probably would take a lawsuit to enforce. That may be the case. Depends on what the renter is willing to go through to try to get this done. But the fact does remain that the landlord is still legally required to allow this.
Last edited:
Reading this thread has completely reinforced my decision not to own rental property and/or become a landlord.
I was going to ask if you even read the Code, or realize that "forcing a resolution" doesn't necessarily mean the resolution is going to be one you like. But then I got tired, so you win.
Similar threads
