3

I live in a 70 unit, 3 story apartment building in California. Access to the building entrance doors and individual apartments is with Schlage Smart locks. Access has historically been granted with the use of fobs which are programmed for individual users and provide access to the building, the apartments, the gym, the community room, etc. I was provided a fob for my dog walker (for a $50 fee) which granted her access to entrance doors and my apartment only. In October of 2022, I moved to another unit in the same building. The property manager at the time mentioned that fobs where "going away" and we would have to use an app installed on our smart phone to access the building. I surrendered my fob and my dog walker's fob. The smart phone lock access was spotty and my dog walker was unable to access the building and I was unable to access to gym and community center. Cell phone signal strength in the area around the building was poor. After a week and under threat of legal action, the landlord replaced the fobs for my dog walked and myself. Now, March 2023, I have a housekeeper and have asked for a fob for her. We have a new property manager who stated, "we never issues fobs for housekeepers or dog walkers, we only use the smart phone app to grant access." I have asked again for a fob with limited access to the entrances and my apartment.

Where is the legal line on a landlord requiring a functioning smart phone to access an apartment and subsequent refusal to provide a fob when they are routinely issues to tenants and was issued to my dog walker in the past? I am aware of a landlord's right to install whatever lock they choose; a fob is reasonable, but requiring a smart phone and app to access the lock with no alternative for someone who does not have a smart phone seems unreasonable.

0

0

Browse other questions tagged .