Los Angeles, California.
The court, and the City argued essentially that I did not have a right to repairs and the position of (Mayor) Karen Bass and the city council was that I did not have any rights to any housing services, not listed in the rent agreement. The city, as well as the court would not examine the code violation complaints, refused to enforce the harassment by landlord law; refused to recognize that I was being denied housing services.
As seen on social media NextDoor.
I’ve lived in apartments across Los Angeles for years and many times had issues with code violation inspectors. One time I sat outside waiting for the inspectors and they never came. Once I saw two drive up in city cars, then quickly drove off without the inspection. Numerous times I have told them to see the resident manager for access but they refused. One time the inspector stood outside and when I tried to explain, the supervisor on the phone told the inspector to refuse to enter the property because I was “argumentative”.
State Civil Code section 1954 requires that landlords give an “approximate time” of entry. The notice picture shows that the landlord has refused to do that. On the other hand, the city inspector notice show the time as 9:00 am plus or minus 30 minutes, so I think that is an example of stating “approximate time”. My landlord has over the years repeatedly refused to follow that requirement.
Once I was trying to find out why routine repairs were being done until 9 pm at night and seven days per week. I imagined that the hours for repairs on vacant lots is different than the hours for repairs in occupied multifamily dwellings. Speaking with over ten code violation inspectors, their answers ranged from they did not know but most quoted a building code that allows construction six days a week and between 6 am to 9 pm. Finally I got an email from a person claiming to be an executive secretary in housing and said that I was correct that multifamily dwellings repairs (unless emergencies) are only allowed Monday through Friday from about 8:30 am – 6 pm. I am not surprised how many landlords violate this rule. I am dismayed that code inspectors do not know the law.
You claim that inspectors aren’t working the landlord to “plant” evidence; I suggest you read some of the city case files to see what lies city employees tell.
You state, “If your intercom isn’t working….intercoms are a safety feature, and a broken one can even be illegal”. My experience is that I have yet to see an inspector admit to what you claim. One inspector said that intercoms are mandatory (which would give inspectors jurisdiction), but I have not been able to track down a city code section. Another inspector said the city is still trying to figure what to do about intercoms not working, another said that the building code says intercoms are an amenity. I still cannot figure if thousands of buildings have intercoms, why is there no law in support?
If an intercom system does not work, there are numerous work arounds. The tenant’s peaceful enjoyment of the premises should not be infringed upon simply because the landlord does not want to spend the money for repairs.
You mentioned getting a ring camera for peace of mind, but my rent agreement prohibits tenants from supplying their own housing services. The owner supplies the key to the building and the key to the mailbox and the clicker for the parking gate and the key to the apartment door, so I’m not responsible for those parts even if it is Akuvox, which requires a phone and WiFi. The owner has an agreement with Akuvox so he should be providing those parts, not me.
I have been involved in court cases that have alleged housing discrimination and corruption by city government Los Angeles employees and landlords. In 2019, a lawyer Bekeris sued for his client due to non-working callbox (intercom), Nelson v. Fox Hills Drive Apt, LLC filed 5/19/2019, case 19STCV18302; owner, city, county, state sued 11/3/2016, case 2:16-cv-03236-JLS (denial of intercom repair due to racism, systemic pattern and practice discrimination, dismissed without prejudice); 19STSC14394 (re intercom repairs), management countersued tenant, case dismissed without prejudice, Commissioner Emma Castro.(Internet search lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission public file 25-0473 shows shocking los angeles racism). Corrupt Commissioner Emma Castro overturned appeal after landlord did not show at court hearing but she ruled in landlord (millionaire) favor and reversed the $400 judgement against him (re intercom). Castro said she was tired of hearing about the Intercom.
How does a tenant qualify for a working intercom? How does a tenant qualify for a tandem parking stall? Maybe or maybe not Mayor Karen Bass should know. Numerous cc section 1954 violations have occurred over the years. Of course, when this was brought to the attention of the city attorneys office on who work on behalf of Mayor Karen Bass, the city government told the judge that they did not want the code violations to be part of the court decision.
CD 10 has about 15 people working on staff, and most of them appear to be minorities. It would probably be unfair of me to expect that any of those minorities would be able to help me as a minority, that would be an unrealistic expectation, nevertheless there’s a whole staff of 15 people that cannot help me. They can’t even give me a response from their office. That’s what I call corrupt, unresponsive government.
Online advertisements, admit that some of the units have more amenities than other units which begs the question is the owner skirting the housing discrimination laws which require full and equal housing services for all tenants. For example, some tenants have free Wi-Fi and some do not. For example, even if a tenant was paying more money and that is the reason for them having more housing services, it still would be fair if all services will be offered to all tenants, even if there was an extra fee involved so we give those tenants an opportunity. Which brings us full circle to the tandem parking which the owner has said for $50 more per month tenant like myself can get an extra or two car parking stall, well that was said to me in 2014. The owner has frequently had extra tandem parking stalls that were not occupied, but still refuses to provide me with a tandem stall even though I pay my rent and my rent check says for tandem parking. I still do not have a tandem parking stall and the housing department as well as the state civil rights department refuses to do anything about it.
California state law only requires that provisions of a rent agreement be in writing if the agreement is for a year or more. Anything under a year does not have to be in writing therefore it could be an oral agreement or it could be based on the conduct of the parties. However, in the petition for writ case, the judge refused to hold the city government liable to provide housing services and despite the owner refusal to provide at least repairs. The court, and the City argued essentially that I did not have a right to repairs and the position of Karen Bass and the city council was that I did not have any rights to any housing services, not listed in the rent agreement. The city, as well as the court would not examine the code violation complaints, refused to enforce the harassment by landlord law; refused to recognize that I was being denied housing services.
The only good thing in the court transcript was that the judge said that housing services are services whether they’re in the rent agreement or not so that way he was basically supporting state law, but that does not mean the city is going to follow state law. But we can look at the city law LAMC code section which states that housing services are including, but not limited to (Housing services are services that are connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to, utilities (including light, heat, water and telephone), ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance including
painting. The term also includes the provision of elevator service, laundry facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities, janitor service, resident manager, refuse removal, furnishings, food service, parking and any other benefits, privileges or facilities. (LAMC Sec. 151.02, Definition of Housing Services so therefore the Housing authority really doesn’t have the authority to cut out or deny any housing services for any reason. Code violation inspectors take an equally confusing and corrupt route and repeatedly refusing to make inspections or refusing to inspect when called to the properties. A number of times I took off from work just to be there for the code enforcement inspector, and he did not show up or if he did show up he refused to enter the building or even examined the outside of the property so that became a waste of my time and of course a waste of taxpayer dollars. (Johnson v City of LA, 23STCP00644, filed 2/28/2023 ).
(Searchable lahousingpermitsandrentadjustmentcommission how Mayor Karen Bass and City deny blacks housing services)
IN THE BEGINNING
In the beginning in 2010, there was a working intercom system (building built in 1973 online pics show intercom at front door.) In 2010, the manager would years later say he unplugged the system and hid the wires in the wall. In another words, it still worked. The building entry door keypad always worked but separately and was not disturbed. Fast forward to 2014 and a new owner declares in writing that he is investigating why the door entry system is not working; it is assumed he is talking about the intercom system. At that point since it is the low rent rent controlled building, the owner is trying to push everyone out by means of harassment or paying them off. Eventually three tenants including myself refuse to take the payout and remain. I guess that is the owner grounds for retaliation; he installs a new intercom system (2015) and doesn’t replace ours which remains unworking to today.
Somewhere around 2015, the owner mounts a THP which I appeal and that results in a public hearing. The owner maintains he will relocate us to another unit for the current apt repairs; during the hearing I repeatedly ask will the intercom be repaired and I get no answer from the owner or the city. Shortly thereafter, the owner withdraws the THP application for my unit. (All other fifteen units that were renovated received new intercoms.)
The owner applies for a capital improvements rent increase and I along with two other tenants file written statement attesting to the non-working intercom and other objections. The cries of the tenants are ignored. Between oral testimony and written documents, I mentioned the word “intercom” about 42 times. No one responded. (The matter also appeared in a local newspaper in a full page online ad page 17, Random Lengths News, Feb 22, 2018.)
I follow this with a series of RSO complaints. The city claims they will not address the intercom because it is not listed in the rent agreement, or because it was not working at inception of tenancy, and other non valid excuses. (A Judge will later declare that the intercom is a housing service whether listed in the rent agreement or not). I disagree with the City because I am still entitled to maintenance and housing services by the payment of rent.
It is not easy to get other tenants to rally with me. Simply because the rewards are so slim. One of my RSO complaints awarded tenants a rent decrease because the resident manager position was not filled for six months. Each tenant was awarded $4.00. Hardly a reason to fight against such injustices. That is how the city law favors the landlords.
Racism Hi Point Apts
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 
