Can a Landlord Give a Discount for Electronic Payment of Rent

My landlords (husband and wife team) originally stated I can pay with electronic payment if I would like. I have been renting here for over 2.5 years and it is a 3-unit apartment building. I never obliged because I have had problems with online bill pay from my checking account in the past.

Almost just over 6 months ago they raised the rent (in writing). When it was raised, it offered a "discount" on rent if I submitted via electronic payment. What I do know is that the downstairs neighbors went ahead with it early on, before the rent increase. (I was the first of 3 leases after the owners acquired the property and performed basic and very inexpensive renovation to the 100 year old building) The upstairs neighbor tried it and had late fees for a couple months or three (one of the problems I experienced in the past), and then stopped it. We all received rent increase notices at the same time. The upstairs neighbor said c'est la vie and accepted submitting online bill pay early to make rent on-time.

I sent an email to the landlords that I would not pay what I called an upcharge rate because I could not imagine it being legal. I explained to them it was an upcharge rate because either I had to pay $20 for each bank ACH push for immediate electronic payment or I had to submit an online bill pay payment at least 10 days in advance. The online bill pay goes through a process whereby a physical check is mailed out from my bank to the person/business I send it to. I did ask them if they could initiate an ACH pull; they said no because it would cost them $20. I also added my further reasoning of my as to why it would not be legal, that being I have rented in CA for 13 years and have never seen this before, including from corporate-run, large-scale apartment complexes. Surely the "big guys" would be leveraging this if it was legal.

Fast forward to this past week, and I receive a letter from the husband stating they have verified all of there terms and conditions with their attorney and they have no reason to believe that certain regulations are uneforceable or outside of California law. The letter that they "strongly encourage" me to pay the delinquent $270 ( of discount or upcharge amount, depending upon perspective) balance by next month's rent payment.

Since, I've found out about and looked up 1947.3, which basically states a landlord has to accept cash or check and cannot require electronic payment. I would take this to mean that cash or check needs to be considered of/an equal value by the landlord. Is there any precedent on this or is my understanding correct? I should add my checks have never bounced.

I'm also not sure if this came about because I have brought up issues with the property, primarily the doors and windows which are stuck closed, do not have proper knobs or locks, and no weather stripping, etc. Stuff I've mentioned from the beginning, verbally stated by the landlords would be fixed, but never was. I have been trying to avoid a hassle and increased rent so I was always hesitant to bring it back up!

Code:

---

1947.3.  (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a landlord or
a landlord's agent shall allow a tenant to pay rent and deposit of
security by at least one form of payment that is neither cash nor
electronic funds transfer.
  (2) A landlord or a landlord's agent may demand or require cash as
the exclusive form of payment of rent or deposit of security if the
tenant has previously attempted to pay the landlord or landlord's
agent with a check drawn on insufficient funds or the tenant has
instructed the drawee to stop payment on a check, draft, or order for
the payment of money. The landlord may demand or require cash as the
exclusive form of payment only for a period not exceeding three
months following an attempt to pay with a check on insufficient funds
or following a tenant's instruction to stop payment. If the landlord
chooses to demand or require cash payment under these circumstances,
the landlord shall give the tenant a written notice stating that the
payment instrument was dishonored and informing the tenant that the
tenant shall pay in cash for a period determined by the landlord, not
to exceed three months, and attach a copy of the dishonored
instrument to the notice. The notice shall comply with Section 827 if
demanding or requiring payment in cash constitutes a change in the
terms of the lease.
  (3) Paragraph (2) does not enlarge or diminish a landlord's or
landlord's agent's legal right to terminate a tenancy.
  (b) For the purposes of this section, the issuance of a money
order or a cashier's check is direct evidence only that the
instrument was issued.
  (c) For purposes of this section, "electronic funds transfer"
means any transfer of funds, other than a transaction originated by
check, draft, or similar paper instrument, that is initiated through
an electronic terminal, telephonic instrument, computer, or magnetic
tape so as to order, instruct, or authorize a financial institution
to debit or credit an account. "Electronic funds transfer" includes,
but is not limited to, point-of-sale transfers, direct deposits or
withdrawals of funds, transfers initiated by telephone, transfers via
an automated clearinghouse, transfers initiated electronically that
deliver a paper instrument, and transfers authorized in advance to
recur at substantially regular intervals.
  (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the
tenant and landlord or agent to mutually agree that rent payments may
be made in cash or by electronic funds transfer, so long as another
form of payment is also authorized, subject to the requirements of
subdivision (a).
    (e) A waiver of the provisions of this section is contrary to
public policy, and is void and unenforceable.

---

They are giving a discount for e-payment, not a surcharge.

Is there a definition of "discount" and "surcharge" when it comes to rent charges?

Is it acceptable for a landlord to offer a "discount" based upon a contingency that is not equally obtainable or met by all tenants? In my case, to get the discount, I would have to use my banks online bill pay, which effectively requires payment leaving my bank account 2 weeks before rent is due and hopefully the bank processing is correct and timely. Or I have to pay a $20 fee to push an immediate electronic payment out.

And what if I didn't have a bank account that has these provisions? If this was acceptable, how come it is not very prevalent among large scale operations where the management can save time (money) by having direct electronic payments?

What if the scenario was the landlord is requiring electronic payment only (not legal), but the tenant can only pay with a check, the landlord decides to penalize by charging greater rent? Is it not just a matter of word play as to whether it is a discount or surcharge/penalty?

Should not the rent price have a value that is independent of the payment method?

Quote:

---

Is it acceptable for a landlord to offer a "discount" based upon a contingency that is not equally obtainable or met by all tenants?

---

"Acceptable" is a matter of perspective. But if you're asking if it's legal, the answer is yes, it's legal.

Quote:

---

And what if I didn't have a bank account that has these provisions?

---

Then you don't get the discount. It is not at all illegal to offer discounts to some people, but not to others. (Senior Citizen discount, Military discount, Student discount.)

If the discount is sizable enough that you're here looking for a way to sue your landlords, why aren't you looking into low fee electronic payment methods, like PopMoney?