When she first took up residence in the fourplex late in 2006, there was considerable damage to the place including holes in the walls and doors, damaged floors, missing and broken faceplates on outlets, mold in the bathroom and laundry areas, termite evidence, and much more. But at the time, she had little choice but to accept it - with promises from the landlord that the mess would be fixed. She and her teenaged daughters moved in. First payment included the usual deposit.
The repairs were never made; the damaged appliances were never fixed - in fact, things got worse. A broken stove was removed and never replaced; the family was reduced to using a hotplate. The refrigerator was also broken; she bought another to replace it and the owner removed them both. Other repairs were requested but refused as "too expensive". The landlord also had a habit of entering the unit without notice, even during certain hours when the young girls were home alone and he was specifically requested not to.
During all this time she paid the rent as promptly as her circumstances allowed; the few times she was a week or two late she wrote the owner and got his assurance that there would be no consequences. She also took in a dog, with the landlord's knowledge and consent. Throughout all this she tried in great good faith to work with the landlord, keeping in written and telephone touch, and accepting his repeated assurances that things would be set right - to no avail. So she did what she could, on her own, to make the place livable.
Fed up at last, the long-suffering Sra. H went to the Austin Tenant's Council with her complaints. A hearing was set, but because she was working two jobs and had no car she could not attend it - so again, nothing was done.
In April of this year, Sra. H responded to NACA's call for volunteers to clean up the neighborhood and better the living conditions of the area as a whole.
A few weeks later, she was evicted.
The reasons for the eviction were a mixture of charges: payments alleged to be late (she had always gotten his acceptance); the dog alleged to be unauthorized (he knew about it for a year); a payment not received (she replaced it immediately by certified mail). In point of fact, she had already informed him in writing that she was moving out because of the terrible living conditions. That makes the eviction appear to be nothing more than a display of pique.
But even free of the environment, her troubles were not over. The landlord withheld her deposit, despite the fact that the energetic Sra. H, from her own pocket and through her own efforts, had left the place in better condition that she found it.
That began a campaign by Sra. H and NACA to retrieve the deposit, through small claims court if necessary. We got the usual runaround from the landlord even after the threat of going to small claims court - he knew, because the money almost always goes to those with the money, that the odds were in his favor. After several weeks, despite advice, intervention and monetary offers of support, Sra. H decided to drop the matter. She had a new job she did not want to jeopardize by making her immigration status more public.
Sra. H is still in our hearts, and she remains a member of our community. We can only hope that the cruelty visited upon her won't so discourage others that our efforts to help our neighbors are in vain. If others come forward and stand together, we can make a difference. There is great strength in numbers.
