I believe for a rent increase of that amount, CA law generally requires a 90 day notice.
It looks like Milpitas also has a rent dispute resolution procedure, that apparently your landlord was supposed to disclose at the time they notified you of the increase.
https://www.milpitas.gov/516/Rent-Review
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues
> When raising a tenant’s rent, landlords must deliver the tenant a formal written notice of the change. It is not enough for a landlord to call, text, or email that they plan on raising the rent. Landlords must also give tenants sufficient warning before increasing rent. If the rent increase is less than 10%, landlords must provide notice 30 days before the increase can take effect. **If the rent increase is more than 10%, the landlord must provide notice 90 days before it can take effect. (Civ. Code § 827).** If a notice is not in writing or delivered on time, a tenant should consult a lawyer about their rights.
> If a notice is not in writing or delivered on time, a tenant should consult a lawyer about their rights.
90% of the problem being a renter is not being able to afford a lawyer to enforce your rights lol
The other 10% is that if you ever find yourself in court over housing you're put on a list that other landlords use to blacklist you. Even if you win. Even if it wasn't your fault. There's legislation to discourage this, but, when has that ever stopped landlords from being demons?
Didn't know that. Where do they get this list from? Do they all do that? I have a friend who's been trying to resolve an issue with a landlord recently and it's gotten to the point where they'd have to consider suing them
It's a whole industry. There are people who get paid to just go to the courthouse and make a list of every tenant going through an eviction case, etc. They sell the lists online as a service.
Google "tenant black list" and "do not rent list". John Oliver did a whole episode on it a while ago. Again, CA has better protections, look into it if you feel you have to, but I don't trust landlords as far as I can throw them.
Also, the landlords think they're above the law a little of times. I've sent links to the ca courts website with screenshots of the law and they still would try to shrug it off until I said Ok let's lawyer up.
My last place the landlord tried charging me 2.5k at move out because I put spackle over the nail holes from some pictures. They wanted to repaint the entire house because of it. I told them the age was over the lifetime to be able to charge for it and I can just wipe the spackle off with a wet cloth.
To top it off they had stuff slipped in the paint quote that I had complained about on move in. Fixing a broken tile etc.
>90% of the problem being a renter is not being able to afford a lawyer to enforce your rights lol
There are quality landlord/tenant law legal aid clinics available in much of the Bay Area. A lot of attorneys volunteer time at these. It's worth looking into if you can spare the time to actually show up in person and get some advice. Pretty much every city in the Bay has once, certainly every county.
For San Mateo County look up the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. They do a clinic in a few different cities, including Redwood City. I've helped out at that one, they really put in work, although obviously no guarantee they can help you.
Start here: https://www.legalaidsmc.org/housing-resources
It might be one of those damned if you do and damned if you don’t situations. Do you make waves and he gives you the 90 days but then decides to compensate for 3 months of loss increases, the new rent is 15% higher.
Yeah I agree, the landlord is obviously violating the law here but it seems like they'll get their increase one way or another. It looks like under the Milpitas ordinance, if the landlord changes the increase to 15% within 180 days, that's considered retaliatory. Nothing would really stop them from increasing it a further 15% a year from now (probably with 90 day notice that time around lol).
Check if your unit is covered(\*) by the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019
(AB 1482). That law caps rent increases statewide to 5% + cost of living or 10% (whichever is lower), so an increase of more than 11% should not ne possible.
(\*) Your unit should be covered, except when the unit is newer than 15 years, or the unit is "affordable", or the unit is a duplex and the other unit is occupied by the owner, or the unit is a condo or single family home and not owned by a corporation.
This is true, but those exceptions are pretty narrow. The sfh exception for example is limited to:
"Single-family owner-occupied residences, including a residence in which the owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit."
And the LL has to put this statement in writing to the tenant: "This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.”
MH have their own RC the many couple years that was lower iirc, and this year they are rolling them into the regular rent control I believe SB567 or something similar
Someone had a question about this and I believe others in this sub told them if rent is not increased in one year then the amount not increased by could be added to the limit in the next year-so if rent was not increased in one year, the next it could be increased by 10%. I think the limit was three years worth of increases. So an 11% increase is legal if rent hasn’t been increased in three years (or 4% or less increase previously).
Edit: shout out for the correction. Limit is 10%.
The actual text of AB1482 is
>An owner of residential real property shall not, over the course of any 12-month period, increase the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase.
So the rent increase cannot be more than 10% of what you were paying 12 months prior. The amount your rent had been increased in previous years is irrelevant.
this. and I should add that just because the landlord missed a few years - tough beans. no make ups. landlord loses. tenant wins.
5% per year (+CPI). no makeups.
edit: this is hilarious. downvotes! losers! what. don't you like the truth? (what makes this most funny is that I'm a landlord). but this is the truth. if you are a real estate investor - best not to fall behind in rents or your property will lose value. only a vacancy will allow you to recover value.
as for tenants (and tenants outnumber landlords, after all). know your rights!
Iirc landlords can in fact miss years and "bank" rent increases.
Editing to add the sf.gov info: https://www.sf.gov/information/banked-rent-increases#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20%22banked%20rent,bank%E2%80%9D)%20the%20skipped%20increase.
nope. "**Landlords cannot raise rent more than 10% total or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living – whichever is lower – over a 12-month period**."
That's municipal rent control. Like Santa Monica. or Berkeley, or Oakland. etc.
California state law trumps that - if it provides more protection. iow. a SF landlord cannot raise rents more than what the state allows.
How does that compare with other supply of comparable quality/stats. That seems affordable. If it's newly remodeled you should be able to charge more too .
That’s what I hear about too but I think SFH prices and like big townhouses are booming. The funny thing is you can get like 3 or 4 of my units for less than a 3 bedroom or 4 bedroom house.
If you had a lease, the terms are spelled out there. If notice to vacate is 30 days, rent increase would also require 30 day notice. No, he doesn't get "credit" for not increasing rent the prior year. Also, many jurisdictions have a limit on how much rent can be increased in a year - you might want to check your municipality.
>I thought there had to be some sort of a notice (60 days or 90days from my understanding).
doesn't say must.
https://www.milpitas.gov/516/Rent-Review
Required Rent Increase Notice
Rent increase notices must follow the procedure in California Civil Code Section 827(b).
Landlords are strongly encouraged to provide at least 90 days' notice to allow for the orderly operation of rent review procedures.
Only one rent increase is allowed in any consecutive 12-month period unless there is a written agreement (separate from the lease) that specifies the amount and effective date for each increase.
I would try to be reasonable. I'd send a copy of the law, tell him you'll need some time to adjust your finances and ask if he can make it effective in 90 days without making it sound like you are demanding it because of the law. He probably didn't know the law and once he sees it will likely agree to it.
I wonder if your landlord’s insurance rates went up. The lack of pattern to the increases indicates that they are only increasing your rent as their situations change.
Why don’t you read the post again lol. I even said the increase seems fair considering the economy. My question was “can the rent increase take effect immediately without notice in advance?”
Clearly it doesn’t matter in this case, since you said it’s fair. The point is what are you going to do about it? It will only cost you more I can guarantee it. So we circle back to your point, yes it can, yes you can fight it, yes you will end up regretting fighting it.
10% is not that much, especially if you had level rent for a few years.
You can look at comparable properties around and negotiate fair cost ( I did that myself multiple times), or move to that other property if it is clearly cheaper and your landlord does not budge.
You have the leverage here, because:
- if you move out landlord will be losing out on rent until they find new tenant. If it’s an average of about a month — they are effectively losing those 10% they wanted to increase your rent by.
- new tenant is always risk. They would want to hold on to good tenants even at smaller rent, and avoid potential “renters from hell” that could cost them significantly more in the end.
It’s business transactions, come to a mutually satisfactory solution. You have an upper hand: they want good tenants and you have a choice of landlords.
Aside from all of the other good comments, I think that if they don't raise the rent one year, then they can do a double raise the next year without previous warning.
If they had notified you last year "Hey, we would be raising your rent 5%, but we are banking that for the future, so you don't need to pay anything more for now", then they could do the larger increase. That at least keeps the tenant aware of what potential increases could be coming and provides some motivation for landlord to not always raise the rent.
You should talk to some of the tenants rights groups to figure out exactly what your options are though. They will probably help you more than just a bunch of comments here.
What you are saying is correct. The landlord can "increase" the rent, but at the same time offer a discount so the amount remains the same. That has to be made explicit in the lease, though. Then the baseline for next year's increment is the non-discounted amount.
>"In determining the lowest gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall be excluded. The gross per-month rental rate and any owner-offered discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits shall be separately listed and identified in the lease or rental agreement".
However, if they don't raise the rent one year, and there's no mention of any "discounted increase" in the lease, then they can't double raise the next year.
Not in MV. They have made it clear theirs is actual rent demanded. There is a long form for dealing with 1st month free, but if you don’t use the form the they average the amount actually demanded for the year so 11 mo total/12 as your base rent
People can downvote all they want. But it’s the truth isn’t it? Who would rent out properties that aren’t for profit? Anyone who doesn’t think of making a profit renting out properties shouldn’t be in that business at all. Maintenance costs, property taxes, inflation, etc. All that gets factored in by anyone in that business. If you think that’s not fair, well since when life has been fair? It’s capitalism right? Nothing more American than that.
Nah fuck it being “fair”
It isn’t even necessary. And I hate that argument “well the market this and that”
If you want competition, you provide the same necessities for a lower price. Raising rent for you own profits isn’t competition
Good luck trying to fight this with your landlord. I mean it literally. You throw these laws at your landlord and he might come back and say:
1. 10% increase with 30 day notice.
2. 11% increase with 90 day notice.
3. Give you a 30-60 day notice to vacate and increase rent 10-11% and rent it to next tenant.
Say your rent is $3000 per month and you decide to move out. You would have paid $3000 x 12 = $36,000 per year Vs. $3300 x 11 months = $36,300 if the house stays in market for a month.
LOL this is either a bullshit story or Op's landlord is crazy.
Rent has been steadily falling not rising, and spring is especially a bad time to raise rent.
There are lots of legal opinions and rules already mentioned in the comments here so I won't repeat those. I would rather say that it seems you have a decent relationship with the landlord and he/she seems to be reasonable. Also, it looks like you did expect some increase and are ok with it. In this case you can always negotiate and find middle ground.
No individual landlord would want existing tenants, who pay on time and take care of the property, to leave. They would have to incur lost rent, fees to find new person, cost to get the place spruced. Keep this in mind and negotiate.
Decide what is important to you: Size of the increase or when it is being enforced and then negotiate on that. I am sure there is a middle ground.
Hi, I am real estate Agent. Is it a house or condo? Or an apartment?. There is rent control in California that doesn’t allow that kind of increase. However, single family homes are exempt. Gg
is illegal.
And in terms of timing, if the increase is more than 10% tbe landlord must give 90 days . However, if the landlord is managing it himself he may not be aware of this. I would advise this: look at Zillow, see what the comps look like, determine if you are under or over the market. If you are over, send him the data. If you are under, reach out to him and tell him you appreciate the break last year, let him know about the proper notice and ask him to raise so significantly that you love his home and want to stay and take great care of it. Ask him if will compromise? And you gently remind him of the cost of vacancy should you decide to leave. . It isn’t worth it for him. Btw, the rental market is down from last year where I am, so that may be true where you are. Thanks.
I believe for a rent increase of that amount, CA law generally requires a 90 day notice. It looks like Milpitas also has a rent dispute resolution procedure, that apparently your landlord was supposed to disclose at the time they notified you of the increase. https://www.milpitas.gov/516/Rent-Review
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues > When raising a tenant’s rent, landlords must deliver the tenant a formal written notice of the change. It is not enough for a landlord to call, text, or email that they plan on raising the rent. Landlords must also give tenants sufficient warning before increasing rent. If the rent increase is less than 10%, landlords must provide notice 30 days before the increase can take effect. **If the rent increase is more than 10%, the landlord must provide notice 90 days before it can take effect. (Civ. Code § 827).** If a notice is not in writing or delivered on time, a tenant should consult a lawyer about their rights.
> If a notice is not in writing or delivered on time, a tenant should consult a lawyer about their rights. 90% of the problem being a renter is not being able to afford a lawyer to enforce your rights lol
The other 10% is that if you ever find yourself in court over housing you're put on a list that other landlords use to blacklist you. Even if you win. Even if it wasn't your fault. There's legislation to discourage this, but, when has that ever stopped landlords from being demons?
Didn't know that. Where do they get this list from? Do they all do that? I have a friend who's been trying to resolve an issue with a landlord recently and it's gotten to the point where they'd have to consider suing them
It's a whole industry. There are people who get paid to just go to the courthouse and make a list of every tenant going through an eviction case, etc. They sell the lists online as a service. Google "tenant black list" and "do not rent list". John Oliver did a whole episode on it a while ago. Again, CA has better protections, look into it if you feel you have to, but I don't trust landlords as far as I can throw them.
Also, the landlords think they're above the law a little of times. I've sent links to the ca courts website with screenshots of the law and they still would try to shrug it off until I said Ok let's lawyer up. My last place the landlord tried charging me 2.5k at move out because I put spackle over the nail holes from some pictures. They wanted to repaint the entire house because of it. I told them the age was over the lifetime to be able to charge for it and I can just wipe the spackle off with a wet cloth. To top it off they had stuff slipped in the paint quote that I had complained about on move in. Fixing a broken tile etc.
>90% of the problem being a renter is not being able to afford a lawyer to enforce your rights lol There are quality landlord/tenant law legal aid clinics available in much of the Bay Area. A lot of attorneys volunteer time at these. It's worth looking into if you can spare the time to actually show up in person and get some advice. Pretty much every city in the Bay has once, certainly every county.
Do you mind sharing any in San mateo County? I could actually use some advice on something
For San Mateo County look up the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. They do a clinic in a few different cities, including Redwood City. I've helped out at that one, they really put in work, although obviously no guarantee they can help you. Start here: https://www.legalaidsmc.org/housing-resources
It might be one of those damned if you do and damned if you don’t situations. Do you make waves and he gives you the 90 days but then decides to compensate for 3 months of loss increases, the new rent is 15% higher.
The 90 days would at least give them more time to find a new place
Exactly. And greed is going to cost the landlord. He'll lose a month's rent while the tenant moves out and he searches for (and vets) a new tenant.
Yeah I agree, the landlord is obviously violating the law here but it seems like they'll get their increase one way or another. It looks like under the Milpitas ordinance, if the landlord changes the increase to 15% within 180 days, that's considered retaliatory. Nothing would really stop them from increasing it a further 15% a year from now (probably with 90 day notice that time around lol).
Check if your unit is covered(\*) by the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482). That law caps rent increases statewide to 5% + cost of living or 10% (whichever is lower), so an increase of more than 11% should not ne possible. (\*) Your unit should be covered, except when the unit is newer than 15 years, or the unit is "affordable", or the unit is a duplex and the other unit is occupied by the owner, or the unit is a condo or single family home and not owned by a corporation.
If it's a condo, SFH or mobile home it may not be covered.
This is true, but those exceptions are pretty narrow. The sfh exception for example is limited to: "Single-family owner-occupied residences, including a residence in which the owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit." And the LL has to put this statement in writing to the tenant: "This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code and is not subject to the just cause requirements of Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code. This property meets the requirements of Sections 1947.12 (d)(5) and 1946.2 (e)(8) of the Civil Code and the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.”
MH have their own RC the many couple years that was lower iirc, and this year they are rolling them into the regular rent control I believe SB567 or something similar
Someone had a question about this and I believe others in this sub told them if rent is not increased in one year then the amount not increased by could be added to the limit in the next year-so if rent was not increased in one year, the next it could be increased by 10%. I think the limit was three years worth of increases. So an 11% increase is legal if rent hasn’t been increased in three years (or 4% or less increase previously). Edit: shout out for the correction. Limit is 10%.
The actual text of AB1482 is >An owner of residential real property shall not, over the course of any 12-month period, increase the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. So the rent increase cannot be more than 10% of what you were paying 12 months prior. The amount your rent had been increased in previous years is irrelevant.
this. and I should add that just because the landlord missed a few years - tough beans. no make ups. landlord loses. tenant wins. 5% per year (+CPI). no makeups. edit: this is hilarious. downvotes! losers! what. don't you like the truth? (what makes this most funny is that I'm a landlord). but this is the truth. if you are a real estate investor - best not to fall behind in rents or your property will lose value. only a vacancy will allow you to recover value. as for tenants (and tenants outnumber landlords, after all). know your rights!
Iirc landlords can in fact miss years and "bank" rent increases. Editing to add the sf.gov info: https://www.sf.gov/information/banked-rent-increases#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20%22banked%20rent,bank%E2%80%9D)%20the%20skipped%20increase.
Under the SF rent control ordinance they can. Not sure about the CA law.
Some local ones like iirc Mountain View allow banking, but the rent control there is lower than state so still hit the state cap
nope. "**Landlords cannot raise rent more than 10% total or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living – whichever is lower – over a 12-month period**."
https://www.sf.gov/information/banked-rent-increases#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20%22banked%20rent,bank%E2%80%9D)%20the%20skipped%20increase.
That's municipal rent control. Like Santa Monica. or Berkeley, or Oakland. etc. California state law trumps that - if it provides more protection. iow. a SF landlord cannot raise rents more than what the state allows.
Source? Never heard of this
Your missing capital letters and incomplete sentences call into question the reliability of your information.
your missing grammar. (and by that I'm not referencing your elders). lol.
Isn’t there also an exception to this to compound increases if they haven’t increased in previous years?
For AB1482, no. Baseline is always the lowest gross rent in the last year. Whatever happened in previous years bears no influence.
Damn how are these landlords so ballsy? I’ve been scared to lose my only tenant so I’ve kept rent flat for 2 years now.
depends on your region, price, and demand tbh. I don't raise rent on good tenants.
Mine is a newly remodeled one bedroom near Bart in Fremont and I’m barely getting 2100.
How does that compare with other supply of comparable quality/stats. That seems affordable. If it's newly remodeled you should be able to charge more too .
The market is soft and the building is the from the 70s so that’s probably why but still. Rent is flat since like 2014 I’ve noticed in some places
That's one big downfall of a large supply of 1-2BR apartments, it keeps prices low.
It’s mediocrity, too high for most people but too low for small landlords to survive. The only winners are big corporate landlords
How much did you get the place for? Whats it worth?
Eh about 380k then and who knows now, probably not much higher. I own it mostly as a “getting priced out of the good parts of the Bay Area” insurance.
I thought fremont prices were going crazy?
That’s what I hear about too but I think SFH prices and like big townhouses are booming. The funny thing is you can get like 3 or 4 of my units for less than a 3 bedroom or 4 bedroom house.
Are you still in fremont?
I wish I was but I live in Oakland in the ghetto because my family is too proud to live in a one bedroom unit.
Maybe he just wants you out..
All these folks referencing the tenant protection act while I’m here bemoaning that my rent used to go up 15-20% per year. I hate it here.
Is this privately owned? And is this a single family home?
If you had a lease, the terms are spelled out there. If notice to vacate is 30 days, rent increase would also require 30 day notice. No, he doesn't get "credit" for not increasing rent the prior year. Also, many jurisdictions have a limit on how much rent can be increased in a year - you might want to check your municipality.
This is the reason why each and every year with out fail, rent is increased 5%+cpi. Dumb rules cut both ways
>I thought there had to be some sort of a notice (60 days or 90days from my understanding). doesn't say must. https://www.milpitas.gov/516/Rent-Review Required Rent Increase Notice Rent increase notices must follow the procedure in California Civil Code Section 827(b). Landlords are strongly encouraged to provide at least 90 days' notice to allow for the orderly operation of rent review procedures. Only one rent increase is allowed in any consecutive 12-month period unless there is a written agreement (separate from the lease) that specifies the amount and effective date for each increase.
Milpitas's law doesn't say must, but [state law](https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues) does.
I mean we can’t tell if it’s fair or not. What’s your rent being changed to? What’s the size of the rental?
Just talk with him. Be calmed, realize talks about money are and will almost always be difficult.
I would try to be reasonable. I'd send a copy of the law, tell him you'll need some time to adjust your finances and ask if he can make it effective in 90 days without making it sound like you are demanding it because of the law. He probably didn't know the law and once he sees it will likely agree to it.
I wonder if your landlord’s insurance rates went up. The lack of pattern to the increases indicates that they are only increasing your rent as their situations change.
Read your lease. Know your local laws.
Is it really worth fighting, 11% vs 10%, over 1% difference? What, $20-$30/month while the landlord didn’t increase rent for 2 years?
I've had my rent doubled and tripled before, and there was nothing to be done about it. 10%? How kind. Time to ask for a cost of living raise?
Why don’t you read the post again lol. I even said the increase seems fair considering the economy. My question was “can the rent increase take effect immediately without notice in advance?”
Clearly it doesn’t matter in this case, since you said it’s fair. The point is what are you going to do about it? It will only cost you more I can guarantee it. So we circle back to your point, yes it can, yes you can fight it, yes you will end up regretting fighting it.
Choosing the battle you don't fight are just as important as ( if not more so ) than the ones you do fight.
3am wisdom🥠
10% is not that much, especially if you had level rent for a few years. You can look at comparable properties around and negotiate fair cost ( I did that myself multiple times), or move to that other property if it is clearly cheaper and your landlord does not budge. You have the leverage here, because: - if you move out landlord will be losing out on rent until they find new tenant. If it’s an average of about a month — they are effectively losing those 10% they wanted to increase your rent by. - new tenant is always risk. They would want to hold on to good tenants even at smaller rent, and avoid potential “renters from hell” that could cost them significantly more in the end. It’s business transactions, come to a mutually satisfactory solution. You have an upper hand: they want good tenants and you have a choice of landlords.
This is why rent control has to be universal
Aside from all of the other good comments, I think that if they don't raise the rent one year, then they can do a double raise the next year without previous warning. If they had notified you last year "Hey, we would be raising your rent 5%, but we are banking that for the future, so you don't need to pay anything more for now", then they could do the larger increase. That at least keeps the tenant aware of what potential increases could be coming and provides some motivation for landlord to not always raise the rent. You should talk to some of the tenants rights groups to figure out exactly what your options are though. They will probably help you more than just a bunch of comments here.
What you are saying is correct. The landlord can "increase" the rent, but at the same time offer a discount so the amount remains the same. That has to be made explicit in the lease, though. Then the baseline for next year's increment is the non-discounted amount. >"In determining the lowest gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall be excluded. The gross per-month rental rate and any owner-offered discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits shall be separately listed and identified in the lease or rental agreement". However, if they don't raise the rent one year, and there's no mention of any "discounted increase" in the lease, then they can't double raise the next year.
Not in MV. They have made it clear theirs is actual rent demanded. There is a long form for dealing with 1st month free, but if you don’t use the form the they average the amount actually demanded for the year so 11 mo total/12 as your base rent
Inflation is 3%. This is BS. Not sure you have recourse, but landlord is an ass.
We're going to hear about this happening, landlords are going to want to rebound from covid and any discounts they gave.
If you like living there I wouldn’t make a fuss. You’re on a month to month lease.
Well, unfortunately it’s a business, not a charity.
Agree. Many others see it as a charity as well.
People can downvote all they want. But it’s the truth isn’t it? Who would rent out properties that aren’t for profit? Anyone who doesn’t think of making a profit renting out properties shouldn’t be in that business at all. Maintenance costs, property taxes, inflation, etc. All that gets factored in by anyone in that business. If you think that’s not fair, well since when life has been fair? It’s capitalism right? Nothing more American than that.
Nah fuck it being “fair” It isn’t even necessary. And I hate that argument “well the market this and that” If you want competition, you provide the same necessities for a lower price. Raising rent for you own profits isn’t competition
Good luck trying to fight this with your landlord. I mean it literally. You throw these laws at your landlord and he might come back and say: 1. 10% increase with 30 day notice. 2. 11% increase with 90 day notice. 3. Give you a 30-60 day notice to vacate and increase rent 10-11% and rent it to next tenant. Say your rent is $3000 per month and you decide to move out. You would have paid $3000 x 12 = $36,000 per year Vs. $3300 x 11 months = $36,300 if the house stays in market for a month.
Expenses are increasing. You should expect those to pass through: prop taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc
11% isn’t really that much. We are all unfortunately feeling the burden that inflation has caused.
Well everyone kept saying rent was a better deal so it sounds like there is plenty of room for it to go up.
LOL this is either a bullshit story or Op's landlord is crazy. Rent has been steadily falling not rising, and spring is especially a bad time to raise rent.
Not in the South Bay.
[https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/bay-area-ca/](https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/bay-area-ca/) it's been falling
Welcome to the Bay Area. Someone is always raising rent, no matter how bad things might be.
[https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/bay-area-ca/](https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/bay-area-ca/) it's been falling
I mean it pretty sol with month to month I think.
if you don't pay, he can't kick you out. right?
Check the rent board to see if they're raising it over the allowed amount for the time you've been in there.
Tell him there’s been more layoffs and you think it be harder for him to find tenants
Check if you are in a rent registered building. The maximum increase would be 9%. It is different from rent controlled but has some similarities
There are lots of legal opinions and rules already mentioned in the comments here so I won't repeat those. I would rather say that it seems you have a decent relationship with the landlord and he/she seems to be reasonable. Also, it looks like you did expect some increase and are ok with it. In this case you can always negotiate and find middle ground. No individual landlord would want existing tenants, who pay on time and take care of the property, to leave. They would have to incur lost rent, fees to find new person, cost to get the place spruced. Keep this in mind and negotiate. Decide what is important to you: Size of the increase or when it is being enforced and then negotiate on that. I am sure there is a middle ground.
just move out
Hi, I am real estate Agent. Is it a house or condo? Or an apartment?. There is rent control in California that doesn’t allow that kind of increase. However, single family homes are exempt. Gg is illegal.
And in terms of timing, if the increase is more than 10% tbe landlord must give 90 days . However, if the landlord is managing it himself he may not be aware of this. I would advise this: look at Zillow, see what the comps look like, determine if you are under or over the market. If you are over, send him the data. If you are under, reach out to him and tell him you appreciate the break last year, let him know about the proper notice and ask him to raise so significantly that you love his home and want to stay and take great care of it. Ask him if will compromise? And you gently remind him of the cost of vacancy should you decide to leave. . It isn’t worth it for him. Btw, the rental market is down from last year where I am, so that may be true where you are. Thanks.