Attachment RSO LAHCID Complaint June 21 2016
from [tenant name redacted]. Los Angeles California.
Via website and Email
1522 Hi Point St
Los Angeles CA 90035
Continuing complaint re Intercom and Parking stall rent reduction and rent reimbursement for reduction of housing services
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added).
“Section 1983 was enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act” because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan. While the existing law protected all citizens in theory, its protection in practice was unavailable to some because those persons charged with the enforcement of the laws were unable or unwilling to do so. The Act was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of federal law, and has subsequently been interpreted to create a species of tort liability.”
To: Alan Chen
This is what the California DFEH said the white plantation owner of 1522 Hi Point St 90035 said in response to charges of racism DFEH case number 712769-195727, decision letter dated May 18 2016:
“The Respondents asserted none of the intercoms in the building were working when they took over management, but they began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had a chance to renovate the empty units.”
“They [Respondents] stated the four units with non-working intercoms, including your apartment, are occupied by long term tenants, which is why those units continue to have intercoms that do not work.”
The quotations are for the purpose of what the DFEH said, I did not receive quotes nor have I received any written communication from the owner regarding the parking stall or intercom complaints.
The DFEH can be reached at Ravinder Rangi at 916-585-7090.
This complaint is pursuant to California Government Code 815.6 and is based on the new evidence of rent paid June 1 2016 and based on the new evidence May 18 2016 letter decision of the DFEH re Hi Point Apts LLC.
According to the DFEH comments herein, the owner admits the intercoms came with the building. As such his responsibility was to repair or replace under state law. The owner admits to replacing intercoms in certain apartments and admits that he did not repair or replace the intercom in apartment 9, and has not repaired or replaced the intercom in apartment 9.
The owner essentially admits that for the tenants, majority of whom were Black, that no repairs were done to those non-working intercoms while the units were occupied, thus admitting that those tenants including apt 9 were entitled to a rent reduction but never received one, making the city government liable. The other statement by the owner is unintelligible because it appears to say that it is the fault of long term tenants their intercom does not work; at all times mentioned herein, when the owner replaced/repaired the first vacant unit intercom June 2014, he had the duty and “chance” to simultaneously repair/replace the intercoms of all tenants including tenants in apt 9. That tenants are long term tenants is not an excuse recognized under any law or local ordinance as a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason why Black tenants #9 should be denied repairs.
I disagree with the comment of the owner that the intercom in apt 9 was not working at the inception of tenancy because the rental agreement with tenants apt 9 clearly states all facilities in the apartment were in good working order upon inception of tenancy.
I disagree with the city and state government’s misguided and racist contention that tenant [name redacted], a white, knew the apt 9 intercom was not working. [White tenant] did not live in apartment 9 and is not a reliable witness.
Under RAC regulation 410.04, “ordinary repairs or replacement” is considered a “housing service.” The owner, as well as the city and state, understand what a housing service “ordinary repair” is because the city, county, and state are witness that the owner has made repairs to the plumbing effecting apartment 9 as well as repaired holes in the bathroom wall circa October 2015.
By reducing apt 9 parking from a two car stall to a one car stall, the owner has reduced the parking entitling apt 9 tenants to a rent reimbursement and rent reduction. The rental agreement with apt 9 has spaces for two cars, the city CFO 1972 for the building shows two car stalls available, thus two car stalls were available at the inception of tenancy as a housing service, benefit, privilege, and facility at 1522 Hi Point St.
“Under RAC regulation 410.04, “ordinary repairs or replacement” is considered a ‘housing service.'”
By not repairing or replacing apt 9 tenants’ intercom, the owner has in effect made a reduction in housing service, i.e repair to the intercom. Since it is undisputed under the rent agreement, owner letters stating that maintenance will be performed, and that the owner has been in the unit 9 making other repairs, and based on state health and safety law that the owner has a duty to repair, there has been a reduction in repairs as a housing service.
RAC regulations 411.01 and 411.02 determine that the city has a mandatory duty to determine a reduction in rent; that the tenants apt 9 are entitled to a reduction in rent due to loss of housing services as stated herein, and to rent reimbursement as well as trebled damages. This mandatory duty of the city to award damages to the tenants arises not only from city ordinance but from applicable state law.
The names of former or current tenants at the 1522 Hi Point St property include [names redacted]. No tenant is neutral.
[Los Angeles] SCEP specific mission….. “To identify and facilitate the abatement of physical conditions and characteristics of substandard and unsanitary residential buildings and dwelling units which render them unfit or unsafe for human occupancy and habitation, and which conditions and characteristics are such as to be detrimental to or jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of their occupants and of the public”…… Why hasn’t the SCEP inspection cited the owner for the non-working intercoms?
Why are tenants forced to reimburse for the SCEP fee [RSO fee] when parts of the intercom system are non- operational? Why has the city given the owner SCEP/RSO approval and ignored the non-working intercoms?
If the DFEH, the county of Los Angeles, and the city government of Los Angeles, cannot protect myself as tenant from injury in this regard, then I submit federal funding to the state, county, and city should be suspended or revoked due to unlawful discrimination and retaliation against myself as a Black American.
All rights reserved.
Text of voicemail left today for the owner, city, county, and state officials/employees:
“This is tenant #9 at 1522 Hi Point St. Still trying to get that Intercom. Still trying to get that tandem parking stall. This message is being sent out to the property owner, to the management real estate agency, various city and state officials. Again this is tenant #9 at 1522 Hi Point St; you have the phone number already. The word is “today”, today, today, I’d like to have that intercom installed today, it can be installed today. And also an email went out to you June 14 and I have not received answers from any of you in writing, I need those answers in writing, today, today, today, today is spelled t-o-d-a-y. Again this is tenant #9 , we are available for the intercom to be repaired today, in apt number 9, at 1522 Hi Point St, repaired or replaced. I’m available today to receive a tandem parking stall at 1522 Hi Point St. “Today” is the operative word. Today, I need this taken care of today. Please respond today in writing, non-electronic means: intercom and tandem parking stall. This is tenant #9. Today is June 21 2016.”
42 U.S.C. section 3604 and section 3617.
“Racists Among Us”
“If the DFEH, the county of Los Angeles, and the city government of Los Angeles, cannot protect myself as tenant from injury in this regard, then I submit federal funding to the state, county, and city should be suspended or revoked due to unlawful discrimination and retaliation against myself as a Black American.”