🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve, I feel for you. This is definitely a violation of the law. If 
there was damage caused by the cable co., then they should pay for it. 
Your landlord should require this of them so he/she is not stuck with the 
bill. They must have some kind of insurance/whatever to cover these types 
of things. 

California state law clearly states that tenants have a basic right to 
privacy and that the landlord can only enter a rental unit for these 
reasons: 1) emergency (which this definitely was NOT), 2) to make 
necessary or agreed upon repairs, alterations, improvements--after giving 
24 hrs prior notice, 3) to show rental unit to tenants/buyers or workers who 
are doing repair after giving 24 hr. prior notice, 4) when tenant has moved 
out, 5) if court order permits landlord to enter. Any other time the 
landlord must have permission to even enter. 

I used to do volunteer work for a tenants' right hotline and heard often
of this kind of thing and experienced "unlawful entry" several times
myself.  Unfortunately the courts have not been too helpful in that they
feel no great harm was done by somebody being in your apt. I wonder how
they'd like it if we just let ourselves into their homes and wandered
around while they weren't there? If you can't get the landlord/cable co.
to repair the damage, you might try getting an estimate of the repair cost
and taking the cable co. to small claims court for the amt. Often just
threatening someone with court is enough to get action--has worked for me
with landlords who kept my security deposit after the legal time limit. 

A place to call in SF that may be helpful is the Housing Committee at Old
St. Mary's--a tenants' rights organization. Their # is 415-749-3700. You
might also check out the book by Nolo Press called Tenants' Rights. 

What worked for me (and is recommended in the Nolo Press book), is to put
a chain lock on the door that opens with a key. It's a bit of a nuisance
to have to unlock this each time you want in your apt. but keeps the
landlord out yet can be easily broken if there were a true emergency and
he/she needed access. I made sure to let them know about it and that if
they followed the law, which I also spelled out to them, there would be no
problem with them getting in when they had a legal right to and gave
proper notice as the chain lock would be left off. Good luck and hope this
helps! Linda (frugal@best.com)

Steve Portigal (stevep@rahul.net) wrote:
: Last week the super of my complex entered my apartment to let the cable
: installers work on someone else's apartment. They ripped a pieice of paper
: out of my address book and wrote me a note explaining that installing
: cable was an "emergency". I wrote them and complained about the use of
: my property and also about the fact that cable was NOT an emergency. They
: replied that they didn't write the note, that it must have been the
: cable installer and that in fact, installing cable *IS* an emergency
: because the person had been without cable since they moved in.

: this is so stupid and outrageous, and it makes me very helpless. They let
: the person into my apartment and supposedly watched them, which makes them
: responsible, but *someone* damaged my place, and they of course deny
: it was them. So I'm going to contact cable but I expect that they will also
: deny it was them. To me, the super is responsible - since THEY let the person
: in.

: the other issue is this idea of just using the word emergency to describe
: any situation and then you're covered. I think it's ridiculous. A burst
: pipe is an emergency. A cable installation isn't. Calling it doesn't make it
: so.

: Any advice on higher authorities to deal with here to enforce proper
: entry or to obtain some kind of responsibility for (however minor) the
: damage done to my place...much appreciated.   This sense of one's space
: being one's own is so easily violated by insenstive abuse like this.

: Steve
: -- 
:        |   steve portigal
:  G V O |   user interface dude
:        |   culturally aware interface design