raising rent new section 8 landlord
Wholesaler · Redondo Beach, CA · Member since 2016 · 35 posts · 2 votes
Hi guys,
I am in escrow on a house with a house currently occupied by a section 8 tenant in Los angeles county (Lancaster, CA). The tenant is on a month to month lease, which I am thinking about continuing after closing escrow as month to month. The tenant has a 1 bedroom voucher but the house is a 4b/2b (she stated she would be getting a 3 to 4 bedroom voucher soon), and currently pays $1150/mo. I think I can raise the rent because the FMR for a 4b/2b is a lot higher than 1150. I think it can be 1250+, and I've seen on gosection8.com, some 4b/2b in that area for $1500. My question is that if she has a 1 bedroom voucher, the FMR for LA county say the rent is $1154 (https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2016_code/2016summary.odn). Would my rental increase request be denied if the tenant just has a 1 bedroom voucher since the voucher wouldn't cover them for a higher rent? Is that how the housing authority determines if the rent can be increased? What should I do if I want to increase the rent?
I'm not familiar with Section 8 in LA, but in my experience with Sec. 8 in D.C., the rent the tenant pays is determined by their voucher, not the size of your unit.
I have 4BR units and I have had many applicants say that they currently have a 3 BR voucher and they will soon be getting a 4BR voucher and I always pass on them because I have found they want a larger place, but are unable to pay the increased rent. I think a lot of times they are hoping to get an extra BR voucher, but in reality they don't end up qualifying so you are stuck with the reduced rent. They may offer to pay you the difference between a 3BR and 4BR voucher, but be careful because that is illegal in D.C. and even if was legal, if they stop paying the difference between a 3BR and 4BR voucher, you are stuck with the lower voucher.
Unless the current tenant can show you paperwork that shows they have been approved for a 4BR voucher, I would evict this tenant and try to find one with a 4BR voucher so you can start collecting a much higher rent!
I'm not familiar with Section 8 in LA, but in my experience with Sec. 8 in D.C., the rent the tenant pays is determined by their voucher, not the size of your unit.
I have 4BR units and I have had many applicants say that they currently have a 3 BR voucher and they will soon be getting a 4BR voucher and I always pass on them because I have found they want a larger place, but are unable to pay the increased rent. I think a lot of times they are hoping to get an extra BR voucher, but in reality they don't end up qualifying so you are stuck with the reduced rent. They may offer to pay you the difference between a 3BR and 4BR voucher, but be careful because that is illegal in D.C. and even if was legal, if they stop paying the difference between a 3BR and 4BR voucher, you are stuck with the lower voucher.
Unless the current tenant can show you paperwork that shows they have been approved for a 4BR voucher, I would evict this tenant and try to find one with a 4BR voucher so you can start collecting a much higher rent!
So I am not sure if the tenant has gotten a new voucher for a larger house. Is it best to contact the case manager in this situation to see if they got the new voucher? The current landlord has already given her a 90 day notice to vacate too. Does that 90 day notice to vacate roll over to me or would I have to give her a new 90 day notice when I assume ownership?
@Larry Hucks The number you want to look at is the Payment Standard, as opposed to the Fair Market Rents. Each PHA (Public Housing Authority) starts with the HUD FMR, then tweaks it for their area/region.
Here's the latest pamphlet I could find on the payment standards for Los Angeles County. It includes contact info. I suggest you go to their office and make an appointment to talk to them about what you can do, including if you need a new contract, or have to honor the current one, etc.
Los Angeles County Section 8 pamphlet on payment standards, etc.
The HUD contract with the landlord, usually includes that the landlord can't evict the tenant except for cause. But, one of the accepted reasons, from what I have read, is if the landlord wants to raise the rent. This includes month-to-month agreements. You can't just kick a Section 8 tenant out with 30 or 60 days notice, unless you have "cause," according to HUD's definition of what that includes.
You can raise the rent as much as you want. It doesn't have to be within the Section 8 guidelines, unless you want to rent to Section 8 tenants.
Also, Section 8 tenants are allowed to rent units over the payment standard amounts, and pay the difference themselves - as long as the total out of pocket for them isn't more than 40% (if I'm remembering correctly) of their income.
But, talk to the Housing Authority. Just be honest and I'm sure they'll do the same. They are hurting for Section 8 landlords, and they'd probably love to get a family in your unit.
Ok thanks for the advice, will do. Just on a side note, actually the landlord can get rid of the tenant if the landlord does not want to renew the lease with the tenant. According to california tenant law:
Special rules may apply in cities with rent control. For example, in some communities with rent control ordinances, a periodic tenancy cannot be ended by the landlord without a good faith "just cause" or "good cause" reason to evict. In these communities, the landlord must state the reason for the termination, and the reason may be reviewed by local housing authorities.
207 However, incidents of domestic violence may not be used as a violation by the victim or threatened victim as good cause for the landlord to terminate the tenancy, occupancy rights or assistance of the victim.208
The landlord must give the tenant a three-day or 30-day or 60-day notice of termination under California law (see "Written Notices of Terminations"), and both the landlord and the tenant must give the public housing agency a copy of the notice.209 What if the landlord simply decides not to renew the lease, or decides to terminate the HAP (housing assistance payment) contract? In this case, the landlord must give the tenant 90 days' advance written notice of the termination date.210 If the tenant doesn't move out by the end of the 90 days, the landlord must follow California law to evict the tenant.211
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/moving-out.shtml#footnote210
by any chance would you know if a 90 day notice to vacate given from the seller would roll over to me after escrow ends?
First, yes, anything relating to the contract that you inherit, goes as-is to you. You basically step into the shoes of the current landlord. Unless there's some HUD rule about current owners selling the unit, but basic contract law about assuming contracts would say that you inherit the contract as-is, including the 90 day notice. But, I don't think a 90 day notice is allowed. It would have to include a reason that is "for cause," so I'm wondering if the landlord is yanking your chain about being able to get rid of the tenant. I think you need to check it out with the Housing Authority.
But, your quotes above are not related to the HUD contract with landlords. That's a federal contract and not affected by the laws you quoted above, as far as ending the Section 8 HUD contract.
Here's a link to a copy of a HUD contract with a Section 8 landlord. See page 10, regarding the requirement to only terminate for cause, and what their list is "for cause.":
@Larry Hucks You know what, I re-read page 10 of the contract, and it looks like giving notice if you are selling the property is accepted as good cause. It looks like he also had to have notified the housing authority of the notice to vacate at the same time.
If you want to keep this tenant, and keep that rent money flowing, I think you need to go talk to the housing authority.
But, my opinion, is that as long as the seller also notified the HA at the same time as the tenant, you would also have to honor the 90 day notice, unless you want to negotiate a new lease.
Obviously, I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm not an expert :-) I think your next step is the HA, and they'd be free to talk to, too.
Exactly what they all said; also, It is absolutely illegal to make "side deals" with the tenant for the difference in the rent vs the voucher value. Beware, not only will the tenant stiff you on the difference (actually doing you a favor) but if you accept any additional funds fund the tenant outside of what is obligate per program requirements, you would have comitted a misdemeanor crime, punishable by 6 months in jail and a minimum of a $1,000 fine.
Highly unlikely they will prosecute anyone but, the landlord will be bared from the sec 8 program and fined extensively.
Give that tenant notice and begin advertising for a new tenant.
@Larry Hucks You know what, I re-read page 10 of the contract, and it looks like giving notice if you are selling the property is accepted as good cause. It looks like he also had to have notified the housing authority of the notice to vacate at the same time.
If you want to keep this tenant, and keep that rent money flowing, I think you need to go talk to the housing authority.
But, my opinion, is that as long as the seller also notified the HA at the same time as the tenant, you would also have to honor the 90 day notice, unless you want to negotiate a new lease.
Obviously, I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm not an expert :-) I think your next step is the HA, and they'd be free to talk to, too.
I think your analysis is correct. The contract I signed with the seller even says I am to honor the 90 day notice to vacate and I can re-negotiate a lease if I wish. So if I don't renegotiate, she has to be out. But I just want to go back to the california tenant code I posted earlier...I don't see how this doesn't apply to section 8 as well? I thought if the tenant is living month to month, the landlord can give a notice to vacate without cause, as long as its 90 days: What if the landlord simply decides not to renew the lease, or decides to terminate the HAP (housing assistance payment) contract? In this case, the landlord must give the tenant 90 days' advance written notice of the termination date.210 If the tenant doesn't move out by the end of the 90 days, the landlord must follow California law to evict the tenant.211
It says what if the landlord "simply decides not to renew the lease, or decides to terminate the HAP", this applies to section 8 since its taking about the HAP right? I feel deep down my best bet is to have the tenant vacate after her 90 days. But my other investor friends tell me to keep her since she's already there. I just don't want to be locked into section 8. For instance, what if a landlord has intentions of selling their house, gives the tenant a 90 day notice, the tenant leaves, and the landlord takes the house off the market since it doesn't sell/they don't get the offers they want? How can anyone prove the landlord wasn't just trying to get the tenant out? The way I've interpreted it is that everything between a tenant and landlord is the same for section 8 as it is for non-govt funding. If the landlord wants to get the tenant out without cause, they should be able to by giving them a 90 day notice. Right?
it was ruled through Civil Code Section 1954.535, http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/wasatch-etc-v-d...
section 8 tenant was given 90 days to vacate without cause
@Larry Hucks I just read the entire opinion. The landlord lost because he didn't terminate for cause.
The issue regarding the amount of notice was a separate issue. The landlord gave 30 days notice, the tenant asserted he was supposed to give 90 days notice. The court agreed he had to give 90 days notice - IF he was evicting (terminating the agreement) for cause.
The court determined the point was moot, because he couldn't evict the tenant without good cause, anyway.
"...The parties appealed the judgment to the appellate division of the superior
court, which held that section 1954.535 applies only in rent-controlled
jurisdictions, but reversed the trial court’s judgment because Wasatch had not
provided Degrate with notice of good cause to terminate the lease, as required by
the lease and the HAP contract.
The appellate division of the superior court certified the case to the Court of
Appeal, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 63. The Court of Appeal
accepted certification and, in a published decision, held that: 1) the 90-day notice
provision in section 1954.535 applies in all jurisdictions, including those without
rent control ordinances; and 2) when a landlord terminates a tenancy agreement,
thereby causing the termination of the HAP contract with the government agency,
the 90-day notice provision of section 1954.535 applies. The Court of Appeal also
held that the notice Degrate received was inadequate because the lessor failed to
provide Degrate with notice of good cause to terminate her lease.
We granted review to clarify the proper interpretation of section 1954.535,
and declined to review the Court of Appeal’s alternate holding that the notice was
inadequate for failure to show good cause to terminate the lease..."
http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/wasatch-etc-v-d...
So, if you don't want to be stuck with her after you buy the place, you better get her out with the rule that says the seller can terminate for cause, if he is selling the place.
Otherwise, you can try the other for cause reasons, but this would be the easiest way. Just let the 90 day notice by the seller go forward.
@Larry Hucks You know what, I re-read page 10 of the contract, and it looks like giving notice if you are selling the property is accepted as good cause. It looks like he also had to have notified the housing authority of the notice to vacate at the same time.
If you want to keep this tenant, and keep that rent money flowing, I think you need to go talk to the housing authority.
But, my opinion, is that as long as the seller also notified the HA at the same time as the tenant, you would also have to honor the 90 day notice, unless you want to negotiate a new lease.
Obviously, I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm not an expert :-) I think your next step is the HA, and they'd be free to talk to, too.
the only reason I bring it up is because also on page 10 it says "initial lease". the tenant's initial lease ended on 2013 and has been living month to month ever since. Would "good cause" not apply here since it was past the initial lease? Again see civil code 1954.535 from above. And if my good cause were to raise rent, would I have to apply and get it approved through the housing authority to use that as a reason to get the tenant out? Or can I just say I want to raise rent and since she only has a 1 bedroom voucher for 1150, I know she cant pay it so she has to leave? Or can I say I want to raise the rent and only to the free market thats nonsection 8, because the HA won't accept my application for a rent increase since it's above fair market price in the area?
Thanks again - all the help is much appreciated.
@Larry Hucks You know what, I re-read page 10 of the contract, and it looks like giving notice if you are selling the property is accepted as good cause. It looks like he also had to have notified the housing authority of the notice to vacate at the same time.
If you want to keep this tenant, and keep that rent money flowing, I think you need to go talk to the housing authority.
But, my opinion, is that as long as the seller also notified the HA at the same time as the tenant, you would also have to honor the 90 day notice, unless you want to negotiate a new lease.
Obviously, I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm not an expert :-) I think your next step is the HA, and they'd be free to talk to, too.
the only reason I bring it up is because also on page 10 it says "initial lease". the tenant's initial lease ended on 2013 and has been living month to month ever since. Would "good cause" not apply here since it was past the initial lease? Again see civil code 1954.535 from above. And if my good cause were to raise rent, would I have to apply and get it approved through the housing authority to use that as a reason to get the tenant out? Or can I just say I want to raise rent and since she only has a 1 bedroom voucher for 1150, I know she cant pay it so she has to leave? Or can I say I want to raise the rent and only to the free market thats nonsection 8, because the HA won't accept my application for a rent increase since it's above fair market price in the area?
Thanks again - all the help is much appreciated.
I know it's confusing, and I've been confused, too. But, I think I have a better grip on it now.
I was also caught by the term regarding the "initial lease," but it's followed with "and any additional term, " it can only be terminated for the following reasons and according to the HUD contract.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?i...
Page 10 again:
8. Termination of Tenancy by Owner a. Requirements. The owner may only terminate the tenancy in accordance with the lease and HUD requirements. b. Grounds. During the term of the lease (the initial term of the lease or any extension term), the owner may only terminate the tenancy because of: (1) Serious or repeated violation of the lease; (2) Violation of Federal, State, or local law that imposes obligations on the tenant in connection with the occupancy or use of the unit and the premises; (3) Criminal activity or alcohol abuse (as provided in paragraph c); or (4) Other good cause (as provided in paragraph d).
Then, paragraph d, section 3:
(3) After the initial lease term, such good cause may include: (a) The tenant’s failure to accept the owner’s offer of a new lease or revision; (b) The owner’s desire to use the unit for personal or family use or for a purpose other than use as a residential rental unit; or (c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).
It's not particularly clear. But, based on the court's ruling, it looks like what they mean is that to end either the initial lease or after it goes month to month, you need to terminate for cause only. And you have to notify HUD at the same time you notify the tenant.
I wonder how much their lawyers got paid to write such a garbage contract? LOL. No wonder it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
(c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).
the higher rent part - can't a landlord just decide they want to rent it out for a higher price? and just like that, its good cause? right? Or would a landlord have to apply for a higher rent 1st and be approved or denied? And how would the voucher come into play? For example, if the tenant's voucher is for 1150 and current rent is 1150. The landlord says they want to raise rent. the tenant cant afford a higher rent. is the good cause? or do I have to apply with HA and get the rent approved first before i can say I want to raise rent? I just don't understand how a landlord can be FORCED to rent to someone...no matter how great the tenant is, why would a landlord bind themselves into that? The language in the contract is ridiculous. Even just trying to talk to someone from section 8 is a hassle. They never pick up their phones! I'm trying to get a hold of the case manager so I can ask all of these questions!
But what if the landlord just chooses to no longer accept section 8 vouchers? A landlord cannot be forced to accept a section 8 voucher right? according to the civil code:
Indeed, the legislative history of section 1954.535 suggests that the 90-day
notice provision was meant to address issues of statewide concern. The Senate
Judiciary Committee’s comment on the proposed 90-day notice provision
explained the purpose of the increased notice period as follows: “Proponents assert
that the current requirement of 30 days notice is insufficient time for a Section 8
tenant to find replacement income and housing when the property [owner] decides
to no longer accept Section 8 housing vouchers, thereby forcing the tenant to
move. They assert that this proposal, requiring 90 days notice of the effective date
of the landlord’s termination or nonrenewal of a Section 8 agreement and freezing
5
the tenant’s rent for that period, does not impose an undue burden on the property
owner. The only burden is to advise the affected tenants of the owner’s decision
60 days earlier, thereby giving the affected tenants more time to prepare. This is
fair, assert the proponents, given the tight market for low income housing and the
unique relationship between the Section 8 tenant and his or her landlord.” (Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Apr. 7, 1999, p. 5.)
@Larry Hucks You know what, I re-read page 10 of the contract, and it looks like giving notice if you are selling the property is accepted as good cause. It looks like he also had to have notified the housing authority of the notice to vacate at the same time.
If you want to keep this tenant, and keep that rent money flowing, I think you need to go talk to the housing authority.
But, my opinion, is that as long as the seller also notified the HA at the same time as the tenant, you would also have to honor the 90 day notice, unless you want to negotiate a new lease.
Obviously, I know enough to be dangerous, but I'm not an expert :-) I think your next step is the HA, and they'd be free to talk to, too.
the only reason I bring it up is because also on page 10 it says "initial lease". the tenant's initial lease ended on 2013 and has been living month to month ever since. Would "good cause" not apply here since it was past the initial lease? Again see civil code 1954.535 from above. And if my good cause were to raise rent, would I have to apply and get it approved through the housing authority to use that as a reason to get the tenant out? Or can I just say I want to raise rent and since she only has a 1 bedroom voucher for 1150, I know she cant pay it so she has to leave? Or can I say I want to raise the rent and only to the free market thats nonsection 8, because the HA won't accept my application for a rent increase since it's above fair market price in the area?
Thanks again - all the help is much appreciated.
I know it's confusing, and I've been confused, too. But, I think I have a better grip on it now.
I was also caught by the term regarding the "initial lease," but it's followed with "and any additional term, " it can only be terminated for the following reasons and according to the HUD contract.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?i...
Page 10 again:
8. Termination of Tenancy by Owner a. Requirements. The owner may only terminate the tenancy in accordance with the lease and HUD requirements. b. Grounds. During the term of the lease (the initial term of the lease or any extension term), the owner may only terminate the tenancy because of: (1) Serious or repeated violation of the lease; (2) Violation of Federal, State, or local law that imposes obligations on the tenant in connection with the occupancy or use of the unit and the premises; (3) Criminal activity or alcohol abuse (as provided in paragraph c); or (4) Other good cause (as provided in paragraph d).
Then, paragraph d, section 3:
(3) After the initial lease term, such good cause may include: (a) The tenant’s failure to accept the owner’s offer of a new lease or revision; (b) The owner’s desire to use the unit for personal or family use or for a purpose other than use as a residential rental unit; or (c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).
It's not particularly clear. But, based on the court's ruling, it looks like what they mean is that to end either the initial lease or after it goes month to month, you need to terminate for cause only. And you have to notify HUD at the same time you notify the tenant.
I wonder how much their lawyers got paid to write such a garbage contract? LOL. No wonder it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
(c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).
the higher rent part - can't a landlord just decide they want to rent it out for a higher price? and just like that, its good cause? right? Or would a landlord have to apply for a higher rent 1st and be approved or denied? And how would the voucher come into play? For example, if the tenant's voucher is for 1150 and current rent is 1150. The landlord says they want to raise rent. the tenant cant afford a higher rent. is the good cause? or do I have to apply with HA and get the rent approved first before i can say I want to raise rent? I just don't understand how a landlord can be FORCED to rent to someone...no matter how great the tenant is, why would a landlord bind themselves into that? The language in the contract is ridiculous. Even just trying to talk to someone from section 8 is a hassle. They never pick up their phones! I'm trying to get a hold of the case manager so I can ask all of these questions!
But what if the landlord just chooses to no longer accept section 8 vouchers? A landlord cannot be forced to accept a section 8 voucher right? according to the civil code:
Indeed, the legislative history of section 1954.535 suggests that the 90-day
notice provision was meant to address issues of statewide concern. The Senate
Judiciary Committee’s comment on the proposed 90-day notice provision
explained the purpose of the increased notice period as follows: “Proponents assert
that the current requirement of 30 days notice is insufficient time for a Section 8
tenant to find replacement income and housing when the property [owner] decides
to no longer accept Section 8 housing vouchers, thereby forcing the tenant to
move. They assert that this proposal, requiring 90 days notice of the effective date
of the landlord’s termination or nonrenewal of a Section 8 agreement and freezing
5
the tenant’s rent for that period, does not impose an undue burden on the property
owner. The only burden is to advise the affected tenants of the owner’s decision
60 days earlier, thereby giving the affected tenants more time to prepare. This is
fair, assert the proponents, given the tight market for low income housing and the
unique relationship between the Section 8 tenant and his or her landlord.” (Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Apr. 7, 1999, p. 5.)
@Account Closed, i noticed digging into the language, that only part B contains the words "extension term:
(1) During the initial lease term, other good cause for termination of tenancy must be something the family did or failed to do.
(2) During the initial lease term or during any extension term, other good cause may include: (a) Disturbance of neighbors, (b) Destruction of property, or (c) Living or housekeeping habits that cause damage to the unit or premises.
(3) After the initial lease term, such good cause may include: (a) The tenant’s failure to accept the owner’s offer of a new lease or revision; (b) The owner’s desire to use the unit for personal or family use or for a purpose other than use as a residential rental unit; or (c) A business or economic reason for termination of the tenancy (such as sale of the property, renovation of the unit, the owner’s desire to rent the unit for a higher rent).
the higher rent part - can't a landlord just decide they want to rent it out for a higher price? and just like that, its good cause? right? Or would a landlord have to apply for a higher rent 1st and be approved or denied? And how would the voucher come into play? For example, if the tenant's voucher is for 1150 and current rent is 1150. The landlord says they want to raise rent. the tenant cant afford a higher rent. is the good cause? or do I have to apply with HA and get the rent approved first before i can say I want to raise rent? I just don't understand how a landlord can be FORCED to rent to someone...no matter how great the tenant is, why would a landlord bind themselves into that? The language in the contract is ridiculous. Even just trying to talk to someone from section 8 is a hassle. They never pick up their phones! I'm trying to get a hold of the case manager so I can ask all of these questions!
But what if the landlord just chooses to no longer accept section 8 vouchers? A landlord cannot be forced to accept a section 8 voucher right? according to the civil code:
Indeed, the legislative history of section 1954.535 suggests that the 90-day
notice provision was meant to address issues of statewide concern. The Senate
Judiciary Committee’s comment on the proposed 90-day notice provision
explained the purpose of the increased notice period as follows: “Proponents assert
that the current requirement of 30 days notice is insufficient time for a Section 8
tenant to find replacement income and housing when the property [owner] decides
to no longer accept Section 8 housing vouchers, thereby forcing the tenant to
move. They assert that this proposal, requiring 90 days notice of the effective date
of the landlord’s termination or nonrenewal of a Section 8 agreement and freezing
5
the tenant’s rent for that period, does not impose an undue burden on the property
owner. The only burden is to advise the affected tenants of the owner’s decision
60 days earlier, thereby giving the affected tenants more time to prepare. This is
fair, assert the proponents, given the tight market for low income housing and the
unique relationship between the Section 8 tenant and his or her landlord.” (Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Apr. 7, 1999, p. 5.)
@Larry Hucks You're quoting the synopsis of what the arguments were. Not the decision. They determined that 90 days notice was correct even for Section 8 contracts. AND they determined that the landlord had to terminate for cause.
I did a little more searching, and it looks like in CA, a landlord can terminate the original lease without cause, with proper notice.
After that, it seems that the federal laws take over and then the agreement can only be terminated for cause, even in CA.
This has been an interesting discussion. But, I think I'll let you find out the answers from the housing authority and I hope you will enlighten us all. It's given me a headache :-)
I know someone who rents to Section 8 tenants in Oakland, and I'm pretty sure he told me he's stuck with them until they decide to move out. Even when he complains about a tenant, for instance one started a day care without his permission, the Oakland housing authority has always sided with the tenant and then made him put up fences and locks and all kinds of nonsense. He's converting all of this Section 8 units as the tenants finally move out.
It may have to do with rent control, but I'm not sure.
@Account Closed So ultimately section 8 tenants in CA can have their tenancy terminated by the landlord without cause if there is proper notice (90 days)? Am I interpreting what you're saying correctly?
Anyways, yes, I will let you know what HA says!
@Larry Hucks I'm finding conflicting information. It seems that in CA, if it's the first year contract, you can give them 90 days before it's over, and end it. But, after that, in some jurisdictions, the landlord can't do that without cause. It seems it's in "eviction control" areas, which my guess is rent controlled areas. In those areas, which appear to include Oakland and Los Angeles, you can't ever terminate them without cause.
But, I'm confused by conflicting info I'm finding.
Pretty consistently, though, they have all said you can get out of the contract after the first year. Also, apparently different housing authorities allow you to start with just a 6 month lease, if you only use them across the board.
I don't know if you could just do 1 year section 8 leases, then not renew and start over with a new one every year. It seems they'd have some reason you can't do that, too, ha ha.
Too much govt interference for my taste. I rent in subsidized tax credit buildings that sign on for this stuff. For instance, I can't be evicted without cause as long as their contract is in place as a Low Income Housing Tax Credit property (LIHTC), and the contracts are for 30 years. But, they sign on for that, and get a great deal to develop these buildings.
But, I don't like private landlords being held hostage by some of these rules, like rent control. Anyway, I'm really looking forward to learning what you learn. I find this stuff interesting, although headache-making ha ha.
@Account Closed The property is in a non-rent controlled area. I did read the HUD document and it is very conflicting with other things I've read. Especially since I am taking the current lease - which ended in 2013 and is now month to month. I don't see how I could not be able to end it without cause. Not that I would ever want to have a tenant leave for no reason, but it just doesn't make sense how I can be forced to rent to someone. Especially if I want to raise the rent, but the tenant doesn't have a voucher to cover my desired rent increase. I guess this would be grounds to terminate, but I'm not sure if I would have to apply to get the rent increase with HA first, and what would happen if I was denied the rent increase. If anyone else knows these answers it would be greatly appreciated.
I'm not familiar with Section 8 in LA, but in my experience with Sec. 8 in D.C., the rent the tenant pays is determined by their voucher, not the size of your unit.
I have 4BR units and I have had many applicants say that they currently have a 3 BR voucher and they will soon be getting a 4BR voucher and I always pass on them because I have found they want a larger place, but are unable to pay the increased rent. I think a lot of times they are hoping to get an extra BR voucher, but in reality they don't end up qualifying so you are stuck with the reduced rent. They may offer to pay you the difference between a 3BR and 4BR voucher, but be careful because that is illegal in D.C. and even if was legal, if they stop paying the difference between a 3BR and 4BR voucher, you are stuck with the lower voucher.
Unless the current tenant can show you paperwork that shows they have been approved for a 4BR voucher, I would evict this tenant and try to find one with a 4BR voucher so you can start collecting a much higher rent!
do you know if a 90 notice to vacate given to the tenant by the seller would roll over to me after escrow since I am taking in the current lease? the lease ended in 2013 and they have been living month to month since.
You will have to go visit the HA in person in order to talk to someone here in LA. One advantages to landlords is you go to the front of the line at their office. Other landlords will probably be ahead of you, put not many. If you can get the case worker's email would be much more expedient. Also some of the larger eviction service here can tell you exactly what the exact requirements to get your section 8 tenant out.