#legal advice | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bursting-at-the-seems · 4 months ago

Text

Housing Disability Discrimination Support

Hi everyone,

I'm reaching out to share my experience with my LL and to seek advice or support as I believe I am experiencing disability discrimination.

Questions:

Am I on the right track? Are they in violation?

What to I do next?

Can I represent myself? Do I need an attorney?

Is it time to file state and federal reports?

Know of an AZ attorney who can help?

Summary:

I've been facing significant issues with my landlord (LL) regarding delayed disability accommodations and incorrect billing. Despite requesting accommodations over three months ago, they has not resolved the issue. Additionally they have made billing errors, including unauthorized charges and fees that are connected to my accommodation request, and they have failed to communicate effectively. Additionally, their legal counsel has used ableist language and derailed conversations about accommodations, seemingly to discourage me from pursuing my rights; I also think they are misrepresenting the law. This situation has caused undue hardship, and I believe their actions may constitute harassment and discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Americans with Disability Act, and Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ARLTA). At this point I am prepared to take legal action if necessary and am seeking advice or support from others who may have faced similar issues.

Context:

- I and two roommates have lived here for 4 years. In December, my symptoms got worse, and I was diagnosed with chronic conditions. We have been in an ADA unit for 3 of the 4 years.

- I pay for a garage, one roommate pays for a carport, and the other utilizes the free parking option. There is no ADA parking on the shortest route to our ADA dwelling. Free ADA parking spaces are not accessible to me due to having to cross a parking lot and other spaces or walk through a handful of hallways.

- Many tenants complain of a lack of parking and often need to park far from dwellings, park illegally, in another’s paid spot, or leave the complex to park elsewhere.

- All dwellings aside from ADA units have top-loading washers. E-check payments can only have 2 fails before being revoked. During my flare of symptoms and unexpected medical costs, we had two fails. Our first two in 4 years.

- This is a privately owned complex with more than 4 units, built in 2009. AZ has one-party consent recording laws. LL office has a history of not answering the phone.

Timeline:

April:

-Concern (confidential per agreement)

-During this concern I began learning about my rights with regards to my disabilities

-Concern resolved

-Accommodations requested

-documentation submitted (doctors note, state issued Handicap Card)

-Maintenance staff states it would be easy to provide top loading washer, could do it right away

May:

-Attorney pushback need new medical note (dr signature not seen), states ADA doesn’t apply, doesn’t understand nexus

-New Medical Note submitted

-Detailed explanation o f nexus over and above required

-Lawyer states LL Not obligated to pay for modifications

-Approves some modifications at my expense

-Approves reinstatement of my ability to make echeck payments, one additional chance only

-Does not approve transition to top loading washer or elevating washer per doctors note or accessible parking

-LL legal rep implies I should be grateful for the upgrade despite stating why it is not accessible for me

-LL legal rep states ADA has no relevance

-LL states they have other top loading machines available but don’t want to have to deal with/ store our front loading.

-LL legal rejects accessible washer and dryer accommodation and accessible parking does not offer alternative solution

-LL states they will have maintenance build block under washer to raise it despite LL legal rep decline (this has been provided)

-LL legal rep states keep paying for garage or use covered parking space, despite covered spot irrelevance as it is another tenants

June:

-payed June invoice via e-check since ability reinstated (documented)

-Lease on dwelling needs to be renewed at the end of month, in reviewing contract notice garage rent has increased by ~67%

-Called City of Gilbert to review ada parking codes, informed that if in an ADA unit FHA states that there must be an ada parking space on shortest route to dwelling. Recorded call.

-Emailed regarding lease renewal and ongoing parking discussion pushing back on increase and restating my request for accessible parking accommodation

-LL legal rep states there is no such thing as an ADA unit, despite the property management referring to it as it and it being a colloquially accepted term.

-LL rep states they do not see why I need accessible parking when I pay for a garage, and we have a covered spot and nothing LL needs to do. That the city is incorrect.

-Push back on this, reexplain that I would give up my garage if g tr here was a free accessible parking option and once again that the covered spot belongs to another tenant.

- nearing lease deadline, reached out asking if we can sign bur leave the garage terms out until resolved or have an extension without fee

-Followed up again with no response onexpiring lease options, highlighting unresolved disability accommodations initially requested in April (over 3 months without resolution).

- LL acknowledged the need for review and suggested a month-to-month (MTM) option at no extra cost until disputes over increased garage rent and the request for accessible parking are resolved.(Documented)

- Received recurring payment reminder, states billing amounts may change based on account balance, account balance is controlled by LL

- while not required as auto pay established, checked ledger around 10pm on 6/30 and saw an amount of $99.76. (Documented)

July:

- In July 1 discovered LL increased the bill and auto-billed $2,943.81, including fees previously agreed not to charge (MTM fee and disputed garage cost).

- Called LLtwice, no response.

- Visited the leasing office with roommate 1; charges were adjusted but a refund was refused. LL assistant manager (am) asserted that only a credit for the following month could be issued, leaving us without $500 in our budget. LLAM said, “It’s not fair but that’s how it is.” Suggested we stop check if we needed another solution. The conversation was recorded.

- Emailed LL with an update.

- Called the bank and was informed of a $30 fee for stopping the check.

- Called LL and spoke with LLAM she stated LL would not cover the canceled check fee. Reminded LLAM this issue arose due to LL oversight and they should bear the fees. -Discussed an alternative solution of letting the check bounce, which LLAM confirmed would not incur a fee and would allow continued e-check payments per the accommodation terms, without a late fee. This call was witnessed by another resident.

- Emailed LL to summarize the call and communicated that we would not return from our holiday until July 7 and would make the payment once there was confirmation that the check had not gone through.

- LL acknowledged the situation, mentioned a grace period for late fees but incorrectly stated that we chose to make an overpayment.

-July 4 Leasing office closed.

-July 8 Received notice that the check was rejected by SanTan upon our return from holiday, attempted payment but was unable to do so online, called the office but was unable to connect with staff.

-July 9 Attempted payment again and found additional fees despite agreements from LL,LLAM

- Received a threatening eviction notice on the door with no prior communication from the leasing office.

-Emailed LL all the above, proving that we did not choose to make this payment; it resulted from LL error in not updating the system per the agreement to not charge for MTM or the disputed garage fee. The auto payment was triggered by LL incorrect managing of account balance despite stating we would not be charged fees and late payment was due to LLAM not following through with commitments on being able to make e-check payment and no fees.

-July Three calls to the office from various residents of 1086 went unanswered.

- Sent an email to LL seeking resolution.

- Follow-up emails from LL and LLAM stating they will get back to us

- Conversation with LL over the phone, who inaccurately asserted that the overpayment was our mistake and held us responsible for all fees. Clarified that the June 30 and July 1 amounts were both incorrect, and the automated payments were managed by LL. Call recorded.

- Left a voicemail for LL corporate office

- Paid July rent, excluding disputed fees and deducting $10 for the cashier check charge that was only needed to be obtained due to LL Error. LL spoke to other roommates incorrectly stating they didn’t understand why I chose to over pay. Roommate 2 states, auto payment controlled by them, and we had checked which we should not have needed to do -no one is checking their Spotify auto payments - recorded

- Submitted formal complaint for delayed accommodation and billing error highlighting the above information

- LL said was not needed as they had been communicating and that the billing and requests are a separate issue - says accepted partial payment as curtesy

- LL legal rep responds to earlier email, not formal complaint, and again rejects accessible parking accommodation, says not needed despite documentation, to keep paying or use other tenants spot, no other option provided, states rate increase is not discriminatory, says this is the last of the matter.

-LL states we are to sign lease by Aug 1, no reinstatement of epayment, offered to cover $80 of fees and we are responsible for over $250

-LL sends this in three separate emails

- Forwards Formal complaint to senior LL corporate staff, LL legal rep, and LL. States that billing errors and the 3 month delay in accommodation are inherently linked as the LL said no fee to extend while we sort through accommodation, then failed to ensure their billing was correct and put burden on me.

Key Points:

Untimely Resolution of Accommodation Request: Over three months have passed since the initial request for disability accommodations, an excessive and legally questionable delay under the Fair Housing Act.

Potential Delay Tactics: It appears that LL may have deliberately delayed the accommodation process, which coincided with our lease renewal period. This delay tactic is concerning as it suggests an attempt to force us out of the premises, especially given the sudden notice of five days provided after their billing mistake.

Legal Counsel's Conduct: LL legal counsel has repeatedly used ableist language and derailed conversations about accommodations by fixating on irrelevant information and nitpicking colloquial language. This appears to be an intentional strategy to wear out disabled tenants and discourage them from pursuing their rightful accommodations.

Legal Implications: Potential disability discrimination due to unresolved accommodation requests and mishandling of billing.

Definition of Harassment in Housing Context: Harassment in a housing context includes actions that create a hostile living environment, repeated and unreasonable demands, or failure to make necessary accommodations, particularly when these actions are taken against someone because of their membership in a protected class (such as individuals with disabilities).

Legal Case Summary:

LL actions constitute a blatant disregard for Arizona state law and federal housing regulations. Under the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ARLTA), landlords are required to maintain fit and habitable premises and make all repairs necessary to keep the premises in a livable condition (A.R.S. § 33-1324). LL repeated billing errors and failure to address accommodations contravene these obligations. Furthermore, under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), it is illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities, including failing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The excessive delay of over three months in addressing my accommodation request is unreasonable and likely a violation of the FHA. Additionally, the rent increase after the accommodation request, the assertion that paying for accessible parking is the only option, followed by an increase in garage rent (the accessible parking option), and the mishandling of July rent with associated fees and penalties, are all linked and indicative of a pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory behavior by LL. These actions, taken together, create a hostile living environment and impose undue financial and emotional stress potentially constituting harassment. Federal guidelines and best practices indicate that accommodation requests should be acknowledged within 3-5 business days, an interactive process should begin immediately and be completed within 1-2 weeks, and simple modifications should be addressed within a few weeks. The delay of over three months in resolving the request for accessible parking is excessive and fails to meet these standards. Timeline above illustrates LL failure to uphold agreed-upon lease terms and accommodate disability needs regarding accessible parking. Their actions have led to undue financial burden and threats of eviction, potentially violating both the FHA and state law. SanTan's conduct could be construed as harassment and discrimination, subjecting them to significant legal liability.

Action Needed from LL:

Immediate correction of billing errors, waiver of unauthorized fees, reinstatement of e-check payment ability, resolution of the accommodation request, and execution of the lease agreement. LL must address communication shortcomings and ensure compliance with the FHA and the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to prevent further legal consequences, including potential lawsuits for discrimination, harassment, and breach of contract.Failure to comply to result in legal action seeking damages, including punitive damages, for the distress and financial losses incurred due to LL unlawful practices. We are prepared to pursue all available remedies under state and federal law to protect rights and ensure fair treatment.

Any advice, support, suggestions on the above much appreciated!

8 notes · View notes