extra space storage

Violation of CA. Civil Code § 827.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:49:00 -0700

BLOG UPDATE.

Of my three complaints to Extra Space Storage, shown
further down in the next blog entry, it's the second one, (which Extra Space Storage didn't want to talk about) turns out to be the biggest of my three complaints to Extra Space Storage.
This is a violation of CA. Civil Code § 827.
2). I pay $210. a month, and Extra Space Storage advertises the same size unit at the same location for $130. to $137. They have raised my rent twice in three years while at the same time advertising a nearly 40% lower rent online.
This is an unconsionable and unfair business practice because they have never offered me the lower rents.

http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/827.html
CA. Civil Code § 827 concerns any change of terms to a lease by a landlord; but it is mainly concerned with changes in rent; and the requiremants that a landlord notify a tenant of any changes.

A lease is composed of two main parts. The item being
leased, and the amount of rent being paid to lease it.
All other items in a lease are just bells and whistles, they cannot stand alone without the two primary parts of a lease; what the item is, and how much you pay to lease it.

Most people think that they've rented their apartment or storage unit for the total time they've been a tenant, ("I've been a tenant for three years") but that's not accurate.
When you rent for month to month, it's just that. You rent for one month, followed by the next month, followed by the one after, etc.

A periodic tenancy (month to month) ends on the end of each month term, it carries over to the next month on the understanding between tenant and landlord that nothing in the lease agreement has been changed.

For a landlord to hold a tenant to a higher rent, while
advertising a lower rent online without telling the tenant
about the lower rent is a deceitful business practice because the landlord has changed the terms of the lease from one rental amount to multiple rental amounts, without notice to the tenant as required by CA. Civil Code § 827

A periodic (month to month) lease is a contract of adhesion.
Blacks Law Dictionary: Adhesion Contract (1949)
'A standard-form contract prepared by one party, to be signed by another party in a weaker position, usu. a consumer, who adheres to the contract with little choice about the terms.'
(consumer = tenant)

The advertised price of an item is regarded as the fair
market value of an item; regardless of what that item is.
I was paying $210 per month, Extra Space Storage was
advertizing online the same unit size, same location for $130 to $137.
Extra Space Storage never told me about these lower
online prices, so I never had the chance to renegotiate my lease or move out.
This is in direct violation of CA. Civil Code § 827
I estimate that Extra Space Storage has overcharged me
about $1,500 in three years.

Extra Space Storage operates in 33 states, many of those
states have the same or similar laws to CA. Some of those
states have specific consumer protection laws. Plus there may be Federal statutes regarding this based the United States Supreme Court decision in the Cartwright case.

United States v. Cartwright:

"The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts."

United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 1713, 1716-17, 36 L. Ed. 2d 528, 73-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 12,926 (1973) (quoting from U.S. Treasury regulations relating to Federal estate taxes, at 26 C.F.R. sec. 20.2031-1(b)).
The term fair market value is used throughout the Internal Revenue Code among other federal statutory laws in the USA including Bankruptcy, many state laws, and several regulatory bodies.[1]
United States v. Cartwright

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4964174066744569590

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value
1). Selling and renting are in effect the same thing, in that both refer to an item being exchanged for money. In rental terms, that item is the right to use a certain thhing or property in exchange of rent.

2). "relevent facts": A landlord having multiple levels of rent is a very relevent fact. Without this fact, a tenant cannot make a valid decision about rent or continuing his tenancy; but is in fact having the decision made for the tenant by the landlord, against the tenant's best interests.

Extra Space Storage operates 740 facilities nationwide, 14 of those are in California. How many storage units in each?500? 1,000? More? How many tenants does Extra Space Storage have in California? How many millions of dollars is Extra Space Storage overcharging their tenants in California?
How many tens of millions of dollars is Extra Space Storage overcharging from all their tenants nationwide?
Or has it been hundreds of millions of dollars over the years?

ARTICLE OF EXTORTION BY EXTRA SPACE STORAGE
The blog at this link explains the illegal attempts by Extra Space Storage against me to prevent anyone finding out. These attemps include, burglary, theft, extortion, abuse of the court system and abuse of a mentally disabled veteran.
http://extraspacestoragelegalbullshit.blogspot.com/

Extra Space vs Steve Zobel

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:08:00 -0800

NOTICE:
This blog has been reduced to a simple synopsis of the case.
Because of my mental disability which I'm pretty certain is post trauma stress disorder, this blog originally was very loud, angry and had a lot of emotional confusion which made it difficult to read and made a lot of people angry.
It complicated things rather than resolved them; and was the wrong way for me to have approached the situation.

These are the three complaints that I made.
1). I had urine poured into my unit by another tenant as revenge for his eviction because the live-on site manager caught him sleeping on the premises at night due to information I'd given her about him coming onto the premises just before 10:00 P.M. curfew, and apparently not leaving the grounds until the morning.
I believe the live-on site manager wasn't doing her nightime grounds checks or she would've caught him without my having to tell her about it. These grounds checks are apparently part of her job description.
(See footnotes 1. and 3.)

2). I feel that I'm being overcharged on rent. I pay $210. a month, and Extra Space Storage advertises the same size unit at the same location for $130. to $137. They have raised my rent twice in three years while at the same time advertising a nearly 40% lower rent online.
I feel this constitutes an unconsionable and unfair business practice because they have never offered me the lower rents.
(See footnote 2. Second para.)

3). I think I'm being denied service when I'm late with my rent. This appears to be in violation of California Code: Business & Professions. Section 21703
After a tenant is six days late with rent, Extra Space Storage suspends the gate access from full access hours, reducing it down to office hours. This reduces the access hours by more than half.
Normal gate hours are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. 365 days a year.
Office hours are 9:30 to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Office hours are 9:30 to 5:30 p.m. Saturday.
Office is closed all day Sunday.
This approximates 2.5 to 3.0 months of time that I feel I've paid for and not recieved service for.
(See footnote 2. First para.)

I paid my rent on Dec 16, 2009, Extra Space Storage then terminated my lease on Dec 17th. I paid the January rent which the manager accepted thereby cancelling the termination notice.
Extra Space then gave me a new termination notice, and when I tried to pay rent the manager refused a cash payment. I went online and paid the rent with my PayPal credit card. The rent was accepted, then the funds were returned to my account. I have a reciept fron my PayPal account which verifies this.
I believe the actions by Extra Space Storage are retaliatory because they refused to address or correct my three complaints; two of which may address possibly unlawful business practices by Extra Space.
I believe I had a legal right to make these complaints and to expect these issuues to be remedied. To date, Extra Space Storage has done nothing to address or correct the three issues that I complained about.

Extra Space Storage terminated my month to month lease citing the clause in my lease allowing them do do so. However I believe this action by Extra Space Storage was retaliatory, and was based on my complaints, my blog, and possibly because I'm homeless.

I feel that their second eviction notice and refusal of rent is an attempt to avoid the original issues. That they are trying to make it seem a simple case of my having breached contract by not paying rent, trying to make me a tresspasser rather than a tenant.
On January 22nd, Extra Space Storage cut the lock off my unit and locked me off the property, with nothing more than the clothes on my back, my sleeping bag, and my tablet computer. I do not think this was legal.
The duress this put me under produced such a state of mental anquish that I became mentally and emtionally disbalanced and suicidal.
I believe I'd made it clear to Extra Space Storage that I have severe mental health problems brought about by being sexually assaulted and nearly murdered in the last five and a half years of my being homeless. I think this should've amply evident to them by reading my original blog entries.
(These blog entries have been dropped, but remain in draft form and will be made available as needed.)
Those entries included links to three of my other blogs that describe my being sexually assaulted by my landlord http://loza-shoe-spot.blogspot.com/ five years ago, which is why I'm homeless. And the attack a little over a year ago by five punks that tried to murder me and videotape the killing.

FOOTNOTES:
Footnote 1.)
This is an excerpt from an email from someone who had worked for Extra Space Storage as a site manager.

I asked this question:
"Was it part of your job description, (or a verbal command given to you) to walk a 10 p.m. / night time closing grounds check to make sure everyone was off the grounds?"
This was her reply:
"It is part of the job description to make sure that everyone is off the property at closing. To make sure that lights are out and doors are closed. No one ever follows that, but it is part of the job. That is why resident managers were created. So they could be the security also."
The Extra Space Storage, on-site manager wasn't doing her night-time grounds checks, which is why she was unaware of that tenant sleeping on the grounds at night.

Footnote 2.)
This are excerpts from another email by that same ex-manager.
"California Law states that the code cannot be lock out until you are late for 30 days. Please remind them of this. They are unlawfully denying you access to your property."

"This company chooses to raise peoples rent after the 5th month of tenancy and then every 9 months after that. Even when the managers complain that they are the ones having to deal with the flack from angry tenants."

Footnote 3.) My original email complaint.
Last Sunday, October 25th, 2009 between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. while I was not on the facility grounds, another tenant poured about a gallon of urine over the top door jamb of my storage unit #xxxx.

The urine poured down the inside of my door splashing on items nearest the door and then flowed out underneath my door and into the hallway. I have photos of the results.
That tenant blamed me because he was caught on site after hours.
For several weeks I'd observed this tenant entering the storage facility grounds as I was leaving just before the 10:00 P.M. gate lock-down. I would also see him in the morning leaving the grounds as I was entering.
One evening after I'd seen him enter just before 10:00 P.M. I watched the gate from a block away for about fifteen minutes and never saw him exit.
I told Ms. "S", your on-site live-in manager, that I'd observed this very obvious pattern, and that she apparently had a "sleeper" on site.
This other tenant had harassed me three times before the urine event by coming downstairs from his unit, walking down my hallway and swearing at me as he walked by my unit.
I didn't report the first two incidents because it seemed weird, rather than threatening, but I did report the third time to "B", the assistant manager, when he lurched towards me and yelled in my face; his spittle striking the right side of my nose and cheek.Your manager apparently knew that tenant was angry at me because she told me on Sunday after the urine event, that he'd blamed me for getting caught. But Ms."S" didn't tell me this, so I had no warning that he might do something against me.
The harassment and urine events would not have happened had Ms."S", your on-site live-in manager been doing her 10:00 P.M. security grounds checks. And if she'd been reviewing her computer gate log in the mornings, she'd have seen him logging on site just before 10:00 P.M. gate lock-down, and not leaving.
This tenant was being so obvious that he was practically waving a red flag in your on-site live-in manager's face. She would have caught him very easily. She should not have needed a tenant to tell her she had a sleeper. Not if she was doing her job right.
Having another tenant harass me and pour urine into my unit is a gross violation of my covenant of quiet enjoyment: California Civil Code. Section 1927.
I am clearly owed some form of compensation for this gross episode. I think that some months of free rent is reasonable.
Speaking of rent, I see the on-line price for a 10 x10 unit like mine at this same facility is $130.00 to $137.00. Yet I have been paying $210.00 for some time now.*
I have been a tenant for nearly three years, and right now I am a very unhappy tenant.
Sincerely,
Steve Zobel
*This rent thing may be legal, but it raises ethical questions, and it stinks!