Town Square

Post a New Topic

Woodland Park residents forced to show ID to pay rent

Original post made on Oct 10, 2018

Tenants of East Palo Alto's largest affordable apartment complex are being made to show identification if they want to pay their rent, about 50 protesters said on Tuesday evening.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 10, 2018, 8:43 AM

Comments (8)

35 people like this
Posted by Disgusted
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 10, 2018 at 11:02 am

Disgusting and shameful...

16 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 10, 2018 at 11:09 am

It's not like you even need to be a citizen to have a Driver's license... [Portion removed.]

10 people like this
Posted by MAGA
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 10, 2018 at 11:53 am

[Post removed.]

4 people like this
Posted by A human cannot be 'illegal'
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 10, 2018 at 12:00 pm

[Post removed.]

4 people like this
Posted by TheVoiceofGod
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 10, 2018 at 12:17 pm

TheVoiceofGod is a registered user.

[Post removed.]

10 people like this
Posted by CheckIsReceipt
a resident of Palo Verde
on Oct 10, 2018 at 6:59 pm

CheckIsReceipt is a registered user.

If you pay by check, the cancelled check is your receipt.
Just drop the check in the box.
Want something else to be angry about?
Wells Fargo requires an ID to deposit cash in an account.

33 people like this
Posted by Consumer Rights
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 10, 2018 at 7:02 pm

Consumer Rights is a registered user.

"The tenants said they see the new rules as an attempt to intimidate people to move out or to force nonpayment of rent evictions that would then allow the landlord to raise the rent to market levels."

Asking for the ID is an unnecessary way to hassle the tenants, such as in the examples above. It clearly is a way to hassle the tenants because there are examples of a person exactly following the rules who was still denied the ability to pay the rent. Erring on the side of following the scam is a characteristic of such scams. The whole point of it is creating hassle and a record of non-timely payment.

I'm sure many tenants don't want to put the rent in the drop box because an untrustworthy landlord like this could claim they did not pay the rent. Especially if the tenant needs to pay in cash, they will need a receipt, they cannot just put the rent in the slot. Additionally, a receipt will have a date on it. If tenants put their rent in the slot, the landlord could always claim they were late and the tenant has no proof the payment was timely. A check is not receipt enough because the landlord could just cash them a few days late and claim the payments were late.

It is a ridiculous excuse that they cannot provide a receipt. There is no reason a receipt has to have anything on it except the apartment number for which the rent is being paid, the amount that was remitted, and the date. This gives away zero private information.

According to California Civil Procedure Code 2075: "Whoever pays money, or delivers an instrument or property, is entitled to a receipt therefore from the person to whom the payment or delivery is made"

The civil code says the payee has a legal right to the receipt, it does not say the landlord has a right to withhold the receipt because of privacy issues related to information that does not HAVE to be on the receipt.

I hope there is recourse in the East Palo Alto rent control ordinance against landlords running such schemes like this that overtly try to hassle and stress tenants to get them to move.

19 people like this
Posted by RickMoen
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 11, 2018 at 5:15 am

RickMoen is a registered user.

A check is not a receipt. It cannot possibly be a receipt. Claiming it is a receipt suggests the speaker is unclear about what the term 'receipt' even means a all. This is an important distinction, worth IMO spending a moment to clarify:

It's sadly far too common for payees to misplace, usually accidentally but in rare cases deliberately, payment tended to them (such as a check). This is why is in payers' interest to insist on a receipt, defined as a signed (or equivalent) and dated piece of paper formally acknowledging having accepted a certain sum of money: The payer, or the party for whom the payer served as payment agent, can then if necessary produce that sheet of paper if accused of having missed a deadline or failed to make payment entirely.

On the flip side of that, in rare and regrettable cases, payees seek to obscure the fact of timely payment for improper or unlawful reasons, and evasion of that contemporaneous documentation requirement, e.g, by telling the payee 'Your check is your receipt' and hoping he/she hasn't noticed the sleight of tongue, makes it easy to do so.

Documented proof of timely payment can of course be vital in any potentially contentious business relationship -- or, heck, any business relationship. For the payer to make sure that contemporaneous and certain -- not contingent, as with a cancelled check -- documentation gets created at the time of payment and has been secured is common sense and cheap insurance. Any honest payee should be happy to provide that simple and easy proof without imposing peculiar and irrelevant requirements, and any that's unwilling should be regarded with grave suspicion and face legal consequences.

Rick Moen

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Downtown Redwood City gets Japanese kaiseki restaurant
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 3,019 views

Gobbledygook goings on in Palo Alto
By Diana Diamond | 3 comments | 2,087 views

Couples: Child Loss, "No U-Turn at Mercy Street"
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,465 views

A bad beginning makes a bad ending: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 2 comments | 1,358 views

Which Cocktail Has the Least Calories?
By Laura Stec | 10 comments | 1,251 views