The owner offered the unit for rent illegally. This is like the proverbial drug dealer that calls the cops to report someone stole $10k of product and is upset that the police are unconcerned with returning his property.
Did they? That's what is being claimed but it's not clear to me that's actually the case, but maybe I read over it?
Regardless, I don't think this should matter for the eviction, although the city could imposes additional fines for the landlord if they wanted to. "You rented it illegally therefore I don't have to pay rent and I can stay here for as long as I want" is obviously not reasonable.
According to the article she paid $20k and her lawsuit says that she wants that money back since he didn't have a legal right to collect rent. Assuming her account is correct (and it sounds like the city agrees this was an illegal rental) why is it unreasonable for her to remain in the unit until he pays restitution? Why should the fine go to the city (and do you think the fine should be less than the amount collected in rent?)
Demanding all your rent back is ridiculous. That there may not have been a license is a matter for the appropriate authorities to deal with such matters.
Fact is the services were rendered and that some bureaucratic procedure may not have been entirely correct, something she did not suffer any damages from, is frankly none of the tenant's business but between the city and landlord.
This has all the hallmarks of someone intentionally trying to find flaws to exploit (also see the whole business with the shower).
If there’s any language regarding the dwelling being habitable, then the lack of a license makes it by definition not a habitable dwelling and thus the he never fulfilled his end of the agreement, making it necessary to refund the rent paid.
In other words, services might be rendered, but not the services as agreed upon in the lease.
The secondary matter would be if occupying someone’s property is an allowable remedy until the payment is made, which is a bit more thorny, on the other hand, occupation notwithstanding, it’s not uncommon to maintain possession of someone’s property until payment is made as a form of leverage (e.g. keeping a customer’s laptop until they’ve made payment for repairs made on said laptop).
What’s interesting is that he’s a Netherlands native, but then acts stumped about LA’s Just Cause requirement.
In the Netherlands leases for consumers are always under a Just Cause principle and pretty much the only way to cancel a lease as a landlord is non-payment.
End dates in leases are void, landlord wanting to occupy the property themselves is not a valid reason to cancel the lease, sale of property is not a valid reason to cancel the lease (lease gets transferred over to new owner).
Basically the only way to get a tenant out is if the tenant cancels the lease themselves or if there’s a significant period of non-payment.
That is quite insane. I guess many owners keep their flats empty rather than renting them under these conditions. Ultimately, this decreases supply and drives prices up.
The alternative is also insane, when the property owner can break your lease and kick your family out of your residence at their whim (often by claiming owner occupancy)
The legislature has to choose who gets the power in rental relationships and i see the arguments for either choice.
No, this is like a drug dealer that calls the cops to report someone stole $10k of product and exchange the police requires the drug dealer to keep supplying the one with the same product on the ground that product is on of satisfactory quality.
She paid $20,000. Her argument is that he stole $20,000 from her since he didn't have a legal right to rent the property but took her money anyway. She has offered to leave if he returns the funds. Analogies fall flat pretty quickly, but the fact is it does seem like this situation is an intended penalty for a civil infraction he committed.
She would have a better argument if she did not occupy the abode and then would claim fraud or whatever and ask for her money back. Here she's eating her cake AND having it too.
