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.Read More
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.Read More
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.Read More
Recovered on behalf of a San Francisco tenant in Russian Hill. Tenant was forced to vacate her illegal apartment in retaliation for reporting unlawful rent increases to the San Francisco Rent Board.Read More
Recovered for a single long-term tenant in San Francisco. Our client was forced to move out of his apartment as a result of extreme landlord harassment.Read More
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.Read More
Recovered on behalf of elderly, disabled tenant who was forced to move out of her rent-controlled San Francisco apartment of 50 years after landlord/owner failed to resolve numerous building code violations that remained outstanding for over a decade.Read More
Recovered on behalf of seven tenants living in a makeshift boarding house in East Palo Alto.Read More
Recovered on behalf of two former San Francisco tenants who were evicted via an Owner Move-In Eviction and owner failed to occupy the unit as her primary place of residence.Read More
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. Read More
Recovered on behalf of a San Francisco tenant who was forced to vacate his home as a result of ongoing, disruptive construction and the owners’ refusal to provide him with alternative housing. Read More
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.Read More
Recovered on behalf of a tenant living in an illegal “in-law” unit. In this case, a new owner purchased the building and then demolished our client’s unit without permits while she was displaced for seismic retrofitting.Read More
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.Read More
Recovered for tenant who was injured when their stairway railing collapsed at the tenant’s Mission District apartment building.Read More
Recovered in action for a group of tenants forced to vacate their San Francisco apartment house due to severe habitability defects including mold and water leaks.Read More
Although rent control applies to many properties in San Francisco, a landlord can impose an unlimited rent increase where a tenant is no longer “in occupancy” by filing a “1.21 Petition” with the San Francisco Rent Board. “1.21” Refers to section 1.21 of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance Rules and Regulations.
To implement a rent increase on these grounds a landlord must file a 1.21 Petition with the San Francisco Rent Board.
years of experience in representing tenants.
In many circumstances, landlords will file a 1.21 Petition without ever confronting the tenant about whether they actually live in the unit.
Landlords often hire private investigators to run a background check on their tenants in an effort to determine if a tenant actually lives in their unit. Depending on what the investigator finds a landlord may file a petition even if the tenant does live there.
To fight this type of petition, a tenant may submit evidence that the unit is, in fact, their principal place of residence, such as voter or DMV registration, utility bills, and declarations from friends or neighbors. After a hearing, a judge will determine the validity of the landlord’s claims.
Potentially yes. The Rent Board looks at a tenant’s ownership of a home very seriously in analyzing whether or not a unit is a tenant’s primary residence. One thing to be very careful about is taking a home owner’s tax exemption. To be eligible for such an exemption, the owner must claim that they live in the home. Since a person can only have one primary residence this creates a contradiction and will hurt a tenant’s chances of prevailing at the Rent Board.
Most of the factors for a principal place of residence listed under 1.21 of the Rent Ordinance have to do with your paper trail – your address on your driver’s license, where you get your mail, where you are registered to vote, and so on. By updating your information to reflect your current address you can reduce the chances that a landlord pursues a 1.21 petition/rent increase and that the Rent Board will find in a landlord’s favor.
Remember that your landlord may be keeping tabs on these things – especially if your rent is low, and be mindful of the home address your paper trail may reflect.
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.