What laws prohibit dirty water and poor sewage systems at apartment complexes in California? What law requires habitable living conditions that require clean water and no bad sewage smells coming from the bathroom at an apartment?
What law requires habitable living conditions that require clean water and no bad sewage smells coming from the bathroom at an apartment? The landlord's implied warranty of habitability is mentioned in sections 1942.3(b), 1954.06(i) of the California Civil Code. It can be adduced also from other sections such as 1942.4(a)(1) regarding the &quot;endanger[ment of] the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling&quot;. Additionally, see Green v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.3d 616, 627, 637 (1974): [P]ublic policy compels landlords to bear the primary responsibility for maintaining safe, clean and habitable housing in our state [...] This implied warranty of habitability [...] does mean that &quot;bare living requirements&quot; must be maintained. Grabowiec v. Schopmeyer, CoA (unpublished, March 2014), cites precedents in the sense that &quot;the leaking of sewage from the bathroom plumbing, [...] lack of proper plumbing connection to sewage system in bathroom [has] supported a breach of implied warrant of habitability claim&quot; (brackets added).
No crime is committed if a person performs a service and ineptly describes the service. To change the context a bit, I might contract with a guy to build a wall and he says he will charge me for installing a "Swedish drain" when in fact what he will install is called a "French drain". If he installs the thing, it does not matter (legally) whether he calls it by the conventional name. I am not relying on the distinction between French and "Swedish" drains, and that is not material. However: he may specify that the drain will use 18 inches of 1.5" drain rock, but he uses (and intends to use) 18 mm of 3/8" crushed rock, and that is a material fact. In the latter case, he has committed fraud. The same considerations go into dealing with "unnecessary" service, which however is more about "what he said". Let's assume that you come in with a flat tire and the mechanic offers to overhaul the engine. If you agree to this service, that is not fraud, because he did not say something false that you depended on. If, however, you ask "Why would overhauling the engine be necessary" and he says, I dunno, "Because by law, I can't repair a tire without first overhauling the engine", or "Because you flat was caused by astral radiation from a poorly-tuned engine", then that would be fraud – the statements are false, and you relied to their truth, in agreeing to the service. On the third hand, reasonable statements like "it might help", "it could work" are not deceptive, even if it turns out they are not true. Fraud is not about statements that "turn out not to be supported by the facts", it is about statements that you know to be false.
Taking California as an example, California Labor Code section 6314 (a) provides: To make an investigation or inspection, the chief of the division and all qualified divisional inspectors and investigators authorized by him or her shall, upon presenting appropriate credentials to the employer, have free access to any place of employment to investigate and inspect during regular working hours, and at other reasonable times when necessary for the protection of safety and health, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner. So, the only requirement is that the inspector has been authorized by the chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. In principle the chief could limit this authority to those periods when the instructor has been assigned to work, but I don't see any evidence that this is the case. In particular, you can find here the policy manual on inspection procedures that inspectors are assigned to follow, and it says nothing about "only perform an inspection when you are on duty". (You might also note the discussion on page 2 about unprogrammed inspections and the criteria for performing them. One indication is "Complaint about, or observance by anyone of, an imminent hazard", which could include a hazard observed by the inspector himself.) So to your specific questions: Do any states provide legal authority by statute for an OSHA compliance officer to inspect a site when they are in their own words "not working"? Yes, California provides authority for an inspector to inspect a site "during regular working hours, and at other reasonable times when necessary for the protection of safety and health". That is the only time-related restriction in the statute. I don't think that the inspector's comment that he's "not working" has any legal significance. What is the test to determine if an individual is acting in their official capacity or acting in their individual capacity? I do not know of any reason to think that any such legal distinction exists. If Joe Smith has been authorized as an inspector by the Chief of the Division, then Joe Smith can perform inspections and is to be given free access to do so. End of story. What is the legal "bright line" for state administrative agency employment as to acting in their official capacity as an agent of the state? Based on what I said above, I think this question is meaningless.
One option is an odor complaint filed with pscleanair, however Seattle's Department of Planning and Development opines that marijuana smell is not harmful. You can always try suing -- nuisance, breach of statutory duty to keep the premises habitable, breach of the common law covenant of peaceful enjoyment, negligence, harassment, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress – these guys (non-smokers) are not very encouraging about legal options. Also trespass, which was the first thing that came to my mind but they didn't mention. Merrill v. Bosser, No. 05-4239 COCE 53 (Broward County Ct., June 29, 2005) is an example of successful litigation based on trespass.
Here is the state of California code regarding the question. I am sure a state by state inquiry could reveal other statutes. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&amp;group=00001-01000&amp;file=565-566 In California there is no specific registry but registration is performed by marking the container with a registered brand.
It wouldn't quite be theft; California theft, like theft in many places following English legal tradition, requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of property. However, it fits section 499b of the Penal Code to a T: 499b. (a) Any person who shall, without the permission of the owner thereof, take any bicycle for the purpose of temporarily using or operating the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding four hundred dollars ($400), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding three months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Not in the state of California. California law prohibits discrimination based on source of income; only discrimination based on amount of income is allowed. See the California Government Code, section 12955. It is not even legal to indicate a preferred source of income in the advertisement; landlords may ask prospective tenants about the source of income, but may not discriminate or indicate preference for a particular source (provided it's a lawful source). Also, you can't really force a city to re-zone based on "I'll make sure this bad thing doesn't happen." If the city doesn't want to re-zone, they won't re-zone. You have no right to force them to re-zone; this is especially true when the property was purchased under those zoning rules (if the buyer didn't like them, they didn't have to buy).
A tenant has a right to "live in a property that’s safe and in a good state of repair". There are additional regulations possibly applicable in your situation if this is a "house in multiple occupation", summarized here. "Hazards" are explained here. However, these rules pertain to the condition of the building, not other tenants (except that "overcrowding" is also a hazard). They also say you should "report anti-social behaviour to your local council". It is legal to rent a room in the UK to a person convicted of a violent crime, so it would also be legal to rent a room to a person who hasn't committed a crime (assuming he is legally in the UK). If the person did not engage in actual anti-social behavior towards you, there is nothing to report to the local council. The landlord has no affirmative duty to disclose such a fact, and it might be illegal to do so under the Data Protection Act, since this is "sensitive personal data".