Adjacent Balcony Remains a Doggie Wasteland

QUESTION: I recently moved into the third floor of a Woodland Hills apartment complex. On the second floor, right below my balcony and next to my bedroom window, my neighbors let their dog use their balcony as a waste station. They never walk their rather large dog.

The first day I was there the smell was awful. I called management, and a representative came and took pictures of more than 15 piles of dog excrement on the balcony. That was two weeks ago.

I still cannot use my balcony and am forced to keep my windows shut and constantly run my air conditioning (an expense I would not normally have to incur). All my other neighbors get to barbecue and sit out on their balconies. It doesn’t seem fair.

I feel sick when I open my window or go on my balcony. Can I take legal action against anyone?

ANSWER: I sense your frustration after two weeks of coping with this situation, but if you haven’t yet asked the management company what it did with the pictures or what actions it has taken or is taking, legal action is probably premature.

It seems as if the tenants must have at least been put on notice of some kind of violation since the management took pictures. They probably already got a notice to clean up their act from management.

If they don’t comply with the notice, they may be served with eviction papers by the managers; however, evictions in L.A. County can take at least one month, if not longer, from the time all the required legal papers are filed, which takes some time (days to weeks) after your initial complaint. If management is already evicting, it probably has done its duty.

If management doesn’t take action, the tenants also may be cited by the Los Angeles County Health Department. To make a complaint with this department from Woodland Hills, call (818) 834-3370. To make a complaint elsewhere, call information for the number of one of the 20 other district offices.

According to Brenda Ballard, an environmental health staff specialist with the county Health Department, “They do have to clean up the dog droppings daily, but they do not have to remove them to the trash can for seven days. It’s seven days because the trash is picked up every seven days, and we want to prevent fly breeding. If they don’t comply, we will come out and cite the tenants.”

If you have grounds for a legal action against anyone (I’m not sure you do), you should probably file a lawsuit for “nuisance” in Small Claims Court against the tenants who are causing the problem.

Ex-Tenants Say Stains on Carpet Not Damage

Q: We are landlords in Lake Forest and are having a dispute with former tenants who moved out six weeks ago. After they moved, we found numerous permanent carpet stains where the children ate and spilled food and drinks on the carpet. The parents neglected to clean it up promptly, causing the permanent damage. The stains did not exist before the tenancy.

Two thorough carpet cleanings by professionals could not remove the stains, so our only option now is to replace the carpeting. We want to share the cost with the tenants, with them paying one-third of the cost.

Their attorney wrote to us, saying that food stains during a family tenancy are “ordinary wear and tear and, therefore, the landlord’s responsibility,” as opposed to damages, for which we may deduct money from the security deposit. They are threatening us with a Small Claims Court lawsuit.

Can you define the difference between ordinary wear and tear and damages?

A: Unfortunately, no one can definitively define the difference, which causes these problems. Even the judges in Small Claims Courts, who generally make such distinctions, don’t always agree on standards.

Since the carpet stains resulted from spilled food and drink that could have been cleaned up and prevented by the tenants, they appear to be negligent and the cause of the carpet “damages.” This does not seem to fit the definition of “normal” wear and tear.

Your tenant’s attorney is being creative when he refers to a “family tenancy,” which he seems to think changes the situation. There is no distinction in law between, for instance, a family and yuppie tenancy. A tenancy is a tenancy.

I think that your plan to charge the tenants one-third of the cost of the carpet is fair, and I would expect most Small Claims Court judges to feel the same.

L.A. Relocation Fees Not Just for Slumlords

Q: I own an apartment building in Los Angeles, and I want to know how the city’s rent stabilization division can force some landlords to pay their renters up to $5,000 to have them move out of their rentals even if the renters can afford to pay as much as $10,000 a month for rent.

Am I wrong in thinking that this relocation fee was established in 1978 for the slumlord situations in buildings that were built before 1978?

A: Los Angeles’ rent control ordinance, passed in 1978, exempted new construction from the law (anything first issued a certificate of occupancy after Oct. 1, 1978). The relocation fees were not specifically created for slumlord situations.

They were created for so-called no-fault evictions, in which the tenant is evicted through no fault of his or her own. For instance, relocation fees apply only to rent-controlled properties in the city of L.A. in evictions based on owner-occupancy, major rehabilitation, demolition or permanent removal from the rental market.

Because the law does not include any means for testing a tenant’s ability to pay moving expenses, it applies to everyone covered by it, regardless of financial wherewithal.

*

Postema is the editor of Apartment Age magazine, a publication of AAGLA, an apartment owners’ service group, and manager of public affairs for the California Apartment Law Information Foundation, which disseminates information about landlord/tenant law to renters and owners in California. Mail your questions on any aspect of apartment living to AAGLA, 12012 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025.