As a tenant of 10 years, paying more than $130,000 on time in rent, I’ve received communications from management which lack the necessary regard for tenant rights. This document aims to address the issues raised in a recent eviction threat, demonstrating a pattern of communication that fails to support a constructive relationship.
The recent notice sent by management on April 25, 2024, was shocking in its tone and approach. It stated that the tenant had violated their lease due to "Poor Housekeeping/Sanitation." The letter emphasized that the tenant did not need to be present during a manager's inspection on May 1, 2024, between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm. It claimed that the unit was not being maintained in a clean and safe condition and warned that further violations would result in a 21-day notice to vacate. Any future similar violation would lead to immediate eviction proceedings with a 30-day notice.
The notice employed a harsh and threatening tone, indicating that failure to comply would result in eviction. It mentioned legal sections (e.g., section 55-248.31 of the VRLTA) to stress the severity of the situation. Unlike previous instances where communication was respectful and constructive, this letter conveyed an immediate threat to the tenant's housing security, causing undue stress and anxiety.
The stains in the bathtub originated from a malfunctioning hot water heater. The problem was documented before and after the heater was replaced, confirming that black magnesium particles from the corroded anode rod stained the bathtub. The bathtub was cleaned to the best of our abilities given the source of the discoloration.
The replacement of the stove drip pans was confirmed during the last inspection. This issue had been previously resolved, contradicting the claims made in the landlord's notice.
Past Incident with the Ceiling Fan: Approximately eight years ago, a similar communication issue occurred concerning the bathroom ceiling fan. A neighbor complained about noise from the fan, which led management to inspect the unit. Maintenance technicians confirmed the noise, noting a whistling and rubbing sound, but did not follow up with any repair. Instead of addressing the mechanical issue, a threatening letter was sent to the tenant, stating any further noise would result in eviction, without offering a solution or repair.
This incident demonstrates a longstanding pattern of using threatening communication as a first resort, without adequate resolution of underlying issues. This method has been noted in local tenant forums and reviews, showing a consistent approach over time.
On the day of the supposed management inspection, a door knob note was left, which documented that the maintenance visit lasted only two minutes, according to the arrival and departure times noted. However, one tenant observed a maintenance worker under the sink, working near the garbage disposal for a period exceeding two minutes.
After the maintenance worker's departure, a drip container was found placed under the garbage disposal. That evening, a significant sewage leak occurred, originating from the garbage disposal and flooding the apartment floor.
These incidents cumulatively highlight ongoing concerns about the transparency, legality, and safety of maintenance visits without tenants being present, raising significant trust issues with management practices.
As a long-standing tenant, I request to not be threatened and to be treated with respect. Improving the lines of communication and addressing maintenance issues proactively will foster a healthier tenant-landlord relationship.