Carbon Monoxide Devices
Some Questions & Answers
* * * * * *
Q1
Do you have information about the location where the mandatory “carbon monoxide devices” are supposed to be installed in the CA single-family home rentals per the new SB183 that is effective July 1, 2011? Some people recommend installing them on the ceilings while others say to install them on the lower half of the walls. My rental property is located in San Jose, CA.
A1
The text of the subject SB 183 can be found on the Web. Although I will provide some discussion regarding my understanding of the law, you should read and understand the law yourself, at least those portions that are relevant to your particular properties.
In brief summary, effective July 1st, 2011:
1) All existing single family dwellings that contain a fossil fuel burning heater or appliance, fireplace, or an attached garage must install carbon monoxide alarms. In other words, unless you live in an all-electric home not having a fireplace with a detached garage and you don’t use a hibachi, you are covered by this law.
2) All other existing dwellings (multi-family) shall comply by January 1, 2013.
3) CO alarms must be either battery powered or plug-in with battery backup.
4) CO alarms must be installed outside of sleeping areas and on every level of a dwelling, including the basement.
5) If the device is a combined smoke detector and CO detector, the combined device must comply with the law for each type detector and the combined device must emit an alarm or voice warning that clearly differentiates between a carbon monoxide warning and a smoke warning.
6) The devices must be ones that have been certified by the State Fire Marshall. It will be illegal to sell detectors that have not met the Fire Marshall’s certification requirements.
7) With respect to the number and placement of carbon monoxide devices, the devices must be installed in a manner consistent with building standards applicable to new construction for the relevant type of occupancy or with the manufacturer’s instructions. Manufacturers must have their instructions approved by the state.
8) The law creates disclosure requirements with respect to carbon monoxide detectors upon sale of a property.
As you are aware, there have in the past been differences in opinions and instructions among manufacturers and “experts” regarding which living spaces should have CO detectors and where they should be installed within a particular room, with opinions regarding the where to install them varying from “on the wall close to the floor” or “on the ceiling.” This has always been an important issue regarding combination smoke and CO detectors because some experts have considered that the two types have different optimum locations.
As seen in item 7 above, SB 183 does not itself provide installation instructions, but basically leaves it up to the State Fire Marshal. In general, past recommendations have been that CO alarms be installed on every level of a dwelling, including basements, and outside each sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom(s). However, it is important that you obtain correct information for both the new state law and for any more restrictive local ordinance.
In my opinion, your best choice for obtaining correct information on this aspect of the subject is to inquire of governmental entities which are responsible for enforcing the state law and any local ordinance for San Jose with the issue and/or are responsible for enforcing the law. I would further suggest that you consult more than one agency that might provide such information in hope that the same answer from all or at least a majority of those consulted provide you with the same information, giving some confidence that you have the correct information. You should include the city (or county) building department, a couple of fire stations in the area, and any local rental housing agency. You might also see what kind of information you can obtain from your local landlord association(s) or any property management companies who are willing to respond to your request. I would also suggest that you attempt to obtain for your files printed materials regarding the subject from anyone providing information.
* * * * * *
Q2
I have a tenant who is a foreign born US citizen. Since he moved in, he married a young lady for whom he is trying to acquire citizenship. She has a social security number, but the credit reporting company could not find her. Is there any documentation I should ask for prior to signing her up on a lease amendment?
A2
The fact that a person has a social security number does not mean the person has a credit history with TransUnion, Experian, or Equifax. Reasons why a person will not have a credit record include:
- They have never obtained credit from a merchant or lender who reports to credit bureaus. Even if a credit event is reported to one credit bureau, it may take time before all credit bureaus have the information.
- A person may have always utilized cash or checks and never borrowed money (at least from a lender who reports to credit bureaus), obtained a credit card, or rented from a landlord who reports to credit bureaus (few landlords do) and, hence, may never have a record with any credit bureau.
- It may take months for a first credit event to appear at any credit bureau for someone who has only just recently obtained credit.
One may need to obtain a Social Security Number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number for employment or tax reporting reason, but may never obtain credit. For example, someone who has significant interest income in the U.S. would need either a SSN or ITIN.
The above being said, “no record found” reports sometimes results from the fact that the SSN or ITIN and name that were provided were not correctly entered. It’s even possible that an applicant mistakenly provided an incorrect number. However, incorrect SSNs will often result in a report that indicates the number and name do not match.
Regarding documentation that should be required, all applicants (all co-tenants of legal age, including spouses) should be screened using the same procedures; including verifying identity (potentially the most important item) and screening reports – e.g., credit reports, eviction records, criminal record reports, employment or business history, and previous landlord checks. When there is no information from one or more of the reports, landlords must evaluate the applicant from information received.
Finally, you should not hesitate to ask applicants why they have no credit record.
* * * * * *
Q3
As a landlord in the state of Washington, can I restrict my rental properties to be no smoking?
A3
I cannot state that a particular rental property location is not subject to some unusual local ordinance related to prohibition of non-smoking rules, but I’d probably bet a lot of money against there being one. Nationwide, the trend has for years been to limit smoking. Many states have passed laws and many local governments have passed even more restrictive ordinances against smoking in public places. Some jurisdictions even prohibit smoking in bars.
Most basically, there is no law that prevents landlords and property managers from regulating smoking on the premises, whether inside individual units or outside in common and private use areas. This is because (1) there is no constitutional right to smoke and (2) smoking is not protected by federal Fair Housing laws and is very unlikely to be protected by any state or local laws. HUD does not prohibit non-smoking policies in affordable housing. In fact, in 2009 HUD released a memo that encourages public housing authorities (PHAs) to implement non-smoking policies.
In Washington State a number of PHAs have adopted non-smoking policies including those in King County Housing Authority, Wall Walla Housing Authority, and Clallam Housing Authority.
There is now increasing action against smoking by owners and managers of properties. Tens of thousands of apartments and condos have gone smoke-free in the past five years, including those managed by the owner and those managed by management companies. Some municipalities are passing ordinances related to smoking prohibitions, not only in public places, but also in multi-unit housing.
Many landlords prohibit smoking in their units rather than discriminate against smokers per se because it is the act of smoking in the unit rather than the fact that a tenant is a smoker that is important. Most, perhaps all experts feel that owners have the right to protect their properties against damages from smoking and to protect other occupants from secondhand smoke. However, now the problem becomes one of detecting violators without running afoul of privacy rights. The solution is to both prohibit smoking inside of units, as well as on associated patios and balconies, and to make tenants responsible for damages resulting from failing to adhere to the prohibition.
This requires that applicants first be made aware that the unit is a non-smoking one in order to avoid wasted time and money in processing applications for those who might be unwilling to sign a lease that includes non-smoking provisions. Upfront notice can be accomplished in advertising, in an information sheet attached to the application form, or within the application form itself.
The lease agreement should, of course, contain very specific clauses related to the non-smoking issue. In addition to a clear statement of the prohibition, acknowledged by the tenant upon signing the agreement, the lease should also set out in some detail a list of damages resulting from smoking for which a violator will be responsible. The list would include items such as burns or stains on any component of the unit, odors, smoke residue on any surface, and potential other liabilities such as damages resulting from smoking-related fires.
The lease agreement should clearly make the tenant responsible for the cost of repairing, cleaning, painting, or replacing any items so damaged. Of course, the tenant must be initially provided with a unit that has no evidence of previous smoking-related damage or such previous damage must be noted in the move-in checklist.
For multi-unit properties, prohibiting smoking inside units and in common area hallways and within some distance of residents’ patios, balconies, doors, etc, can actually reduce the risk of problems
Because second hand tobacco smoke is often considered a nuisance in the same way that loud noise would be considered a nuisance, if tenants are complaining about drifting tobacco smoke, landlords must take action to protect them. Landlords and property managers who fail to accommodate non-smoking tenants who complain about secondhand smoke may be exposing themselves to lawsuits. If a resident or prospective resident has a disability or chronic illness which is made worse by exposure to tobacco smoke, Fair Housing Laws will require a ”reasonable accommodation.”