≡Menu

Rent Increases

^$575,000

Recovered on behalf of a San Francisco couple who were forced to give up their home of over twenty years after their landlord's dog attacked and killed their dog.

^$800,000

Recovered on behalf of an Oakland tenant who suffered a serious injury due to her landlord's negligent maintenance of her home.

^$850,000

Recovered on behalf of a San Francisco tenant who suffered personal injuries and was forced to vacate his home of fifteen years after dealing with many months of environmental contamination and disruptive and nuisance construction conditions.

^$1.56 Million

Recovered on behalf of a group of 30 tenants living in an SRO in San Francisco who were living with horrendous conditions in their rent controlled apartments, including rodents, bedbugs, mold, water leaks, and harassment.

^$300,000

Recovered on behalf of three families living in a building in San Francisco's SOMA neighborhood who were forced to live with substandard conditions for years as a result of their landlord's negligence, including issues with lack of heat, lack of hot water, and cockroach/rat infestations.

^$750,000

Recovered on behalf of a couple living in a rent-controlled home in the outer Sunset neighborhood. Our clients were forced to vacate after the landlord served them with an Owner Move-In Eviction Notice. After the landlords failed to move into the property, our clients filed suit for wrongful eviction.

^$300,000

Recovered on behalf of a San Francisco tenant in Russian Hill. The tenant was forced to vacate her illegal apartment in retaliation for reporting unlawful rent increases to the San Francisco Rent Board. Our client was forced to vacate after her landlord served our client with a series of eviction notices and told her the apartment was unsafe to live in.

^$700,000

Recovered for a long-term tenant in San Francisco. Our client was forced to move out of his apartment as a result of extreme landlord harassment.

^$300,000

Recovered on behalf of three long-term tenants in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood who were constructively evicted due to noise and nuisance conditions created by their downstairs neighbors, which the owner refused to address.

^$575,000

Recovered on behalf of an elderly, disabled San Francisco tenant who was forced to move out of her rent-controlled San Francisco apartment of 50 years after the landlord/owner failed to resolve numerous building code violations that remained outstanding for over a decade.

^$325,000

Recovered on behalf of seven tenants living in a makeshift boarding house in East Palo Alto.

^$560,000

Recovered on behalf of two San Francisco tenants who were wrongfully evicted via a fraudulent owner move-in eviction where the owner failed to occupy the property as their principal place of residence.

^$375,000

Recovered on behalf of an elderly long-term tenant who was forced to vacate her long San Francisco apartment as a result of her landlord's refusal to address longstanding defective conditions, including lack of heat, mold, rodent infestations, and defective plumbing.

^$550,000

Recovered on behalf of a San Francisco tenant who was forced to vacate his home as a result of ongoing, disruptive construction and the owner's refusal to provide him with alternative housing.

^$375,000

Recovered on behalf of a San Francisco family that was constructively evicted from their home in the Richmond District as a result of unlawful rent increases, defective conditions, and tenant harassment.

^$525,000

Recovered on behalf of a tenant living in an illegal unit who was wrongfully evicted. Our client was forced to vacate under false pretenses while her landlord undertook supposedly necessary construction and then was never allowed to return.

^$395,000

Recovered on behalf of two long term San Francisco tenants who were fraudulently evicted from their home of over twenty years under the pretext of an owner move-in eviction.

^$450,000

Recovered for a San Francisco tenant who was injured when her stairway railing collapsed.

^$450,000

Recovered in action for a group of tenants forced to vacate their San Francisco apartment due to severe habitability defects, including mold and water leaks.

San Francisco Lawyers Representing Tenants Facing Unlawful Rent Increases

A landlord can increase rent without limitations whenever a unit becomes vacant. This is sometimes called “vacancy decontrol,” and is made possible by the 1995 state law known as Costa Hawkins, which counteracted some of the “strong” rent-control measures previously put in place by cities like Berkeley and SF.

Have you received a rent increase notice? Depending on the situation, we may be able to help.

Get Started

over

35

years of experience in representing tenants.

Original Occupants and Vacancy De-Control

In San Francisco, vacancy de-control is also regulated by city ordinance §6.14.

Costa Hawkins allows landlords to raise the rent on an otherwise rent-controlled unit to market rate when the “last original occupant” no longer lives in the unit.

In San Francisco, to raise the rent legally, a landlord must file a “Petition for a Determination Pursuant to the Section 6.14 and/or Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act” with the San Francisco Rent Board. A judge will hear evidence presented by the landlord and the tenant and issue a ruling on whether the current tenants are entitled to continued rent control.

What Does “Last Original Occupant” Mean?

Costa Hawkins Rent Increase Notices

No Rent Control for Single Family Homes or Condos

Rent Control and Eviction Control Limited to Buildings Built Pre 1995

What Does “Last Original Occupant” Mean?

Original occupant(s) means one or more individuals who took possession of a unit with the express consent of the landlord at the time that the base rent for the unit was first established with respect to the vacant unit. The original occupant doesn’t have to be named on the lease but must be able to show they moved in at the same time as the named person on the lease. A “Subsequent occupant” means an individual who became an occupant of a rental unit while the rental unit was occupied by at least one original occupant.

Costa Hawkins Rent Increase Notices

If you’re a tenant who’s received notice of this type of petition, it’s not a lost cause. Depending on your relationship with the landlord, the length of your tenancy, and other factors, you may still have a right to rent control. A tenant’s attorney can advise you on the validity of the landlord’s petition, and possibly represent you at the Rent Board.

No Rent Control for Single Family Homes or Condos

Costa Hawkins also is the reason why rent control measures can only apply to properties with two or more units. Single-family homes, as well as most condos (when a landlord owns only one unit in the building), are excluded from rent control (with some exceptions).

Rent Control and Eviction Control Limited to Buildings Built Pre 1995

Costa Hawkins also is the reason why newly constructed buildings are exempt from rent control and eviction control protections in California. While in San Francisco only buildings built prior to June 1979 are covered by the Rent Ordinance, Costa-Hawkins technically sets the cut off for applicable rent ordinances at 1995.

Awards & Associations

Get Started

For more information or to discuss your legal situation, call us today at (415) 649-6203 for a phone consultation or submit an inquiry below. Please note our firm can only assist tenants residing in San Francisco, Oakland & Berkeley.

We are committed to fighting for the interests of San Francisco, Oakland & Berkeley tenants.

facebook Twitter Linked-in google instagram

Contact Us

220 Montgomery St STE 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104

1901 Harrison St STE 1100
Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: (415) 649-6203

Fax: (415) 649-6739

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Attorney Advertising. This information is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Past results and testimonials are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of your case, and should not be construed as such. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any result in a single case is not meant to create an expectation of similar results in future matters because each case involves many different factors, therefore, results will differ on a case-by-case basis. By providing certain contact information herein, you are expressly authorizing the recipient of this message to contact you via the methods of communication provided.
Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved. | Accessibility Notifications | Privacy Policy

415-737-9795