January 18, 2000

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services during a period of construction work was denied. The landlord’s consolidated petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted. However, the hearing officer determined that a rent increase given in 1993 exceeded limitations and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $400.61. On appeal, the landlord asks that the Board reconsider his liability for the one unlawful increase, since he has charged the tenant less than the maximum allowed throughout the tenancy.

The landlord’s petition for certification of the cost of seismic retrofit of the building was granted, resulting in a $25.44 monthly passthrough to the tenants in 8 units. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship; one other tenant asserts that the Board’s hardship criteria is too stringent, and that a tenant’s rent should not exceed 1/4 of their monthly income. All of the tenants claim that there were insufficient invoices provided to substantiate the costs of the work; and that, for purposes of allocation, a hallway was excluded when assessing the size of a commercial unit in the building.

Two tenant petitions alleging substantially decreased housing services were granted and the landlord was found liable to one of the tenants in the amount of $9,920.00 and $9,180.00 to the other. The landlord appeals as to one of the units only, asserting that: the tenant failed to give notice to the landlord regarding the defective conditions in his unit and communicated only satisfaction with the premises; the tenant had been the on-site manager of the building, and is estopped from claiming rent reductions during that period of time; any claims from the period prior to February, 1996 were dissolved pursuant to the landlord’s filing for bankruptcy at that time; the Notice of Violation relied on by the hearing officer pre-dates the tenancy; and the tenant’s claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

The landlords’ petition for rent increases for nine of eleven units based on increased operating expenses was denied due to insufficient documentation of the aggregate expenses for the building over a two-year period. A consolidated petition for certification of capital improvement costs for ten of the eleven units was granted, in part. On appeal, the landlord provides copies of two post-hearing submissions documenting capital improvement costs which were not received by the hearing officer.

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $250.00 due to a cracked and peeling kitchen ceiling and walls. The landlord appeals on the grounds that: no capital improvement costs have been passed through to the tenant; the tenant failed to provide access in order for the landlord to effectuate the repairs; the kitchen was still available for the tenant’s use; the base rent amount in the Decision is incorrect; and, in a 1992 case, non-repair of a kitchen ceiling was valued at only $20.00 per month.

The tenants’ petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to the landlord’s failure to approve a replacement roommate was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $2,688.00. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: the hearing officer was mistaken in finding that the lease agreement between the parties expressly stated that three persons could occupy the premises; the "Leno" legislation, which allows for a decrease in services rent reduction when a landlord unreasonably withholds consent to subletting even in the presence of an absolute prohibition, was not in effect at the time the instant petition was filed; and awarding penalties for the landlords’ statement that the lease prohibited subletting violates the landlord’s free speech rights.

The landlord’s appeal was filed two days late because the landlord was out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday.

This case arose pursuant to a landlord petition for certification of capital improvement costs, which was granted and resulted in a monthly passthrough to the tenants in the amount of $14.25. One tenant appealed the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The appeal was accepted and remanded for a hearing on the hardship claim. In the Decision on Remand, the hearing officer found sufficient hardship to warrant deferral of the passthrough for a one year period from the date of issuance of the Decision, in order for the tenant’s medical condition to improve or for the tenant to avail himself of public benefits to which he would be entitled. The landlord appeals the remand decision, asserting that the hearing officer granted the tenant too long a time period to apply for Social Security Disability benefits and/or Section 8, and that the effective date of the passthrough (August 1, 1998) should be reinstated.

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $1295.00 to $1395.00 after less than one year was denied. The hearing officer found that the relevant lease provided for a $100 monthly discount as long as the tenant was employed by the landlord and that revocation of the discount after the tenant had terminated his employment did not constitute a rent increase. The tenant appeals, claiming that: the landlord failed to prove that $1395 constituted the original base rent for the unit; the increase violates the Ordinance in that the amount is excessive and it occurred prior to one year of residency; the tenant felt coerced to sign the lease agreement; and, since his employment was not tied to the building in any way, his rental and work situations should not be linked.

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services because of second-hand smoke coming into her unit from the unit below was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $520.00 ($40 per month). On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenant failed to prove that the problem exists; the landlord has been in the tenant’s unit and did not smell cigarette smoke; the landlord provided documentary evidence from a licensed plumbing and electrical contractor; and the landlord and his witness provided credible testimony, but the hearing officer only found the tenant to be credible.

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

A. The office workload statistics for the month of November, 1999.

B. A new staff roster.

Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that legislation raising the relocation payments to low-income tenants displaced pursuant to an Ellis eviction to $4,500.00 will take effect on January 29th, as will legislation changing the "Hearing Officer" job title to "Administrative Law Judge."

The landlord involved in the appeal concerning 1615 Jones Street (U001-50A) requested clarification regarding his right to banked rent increases and expressed his opinion that the issue of second-hand smoke seems like a "nuisance case." The landlord involved in the hardship appeal concerning 400 Hyde Street (U001-52A) asked that the Board explain what deferral of a capital improvement passthrough means.

January 25, 2000

Special Legislative Session: Rules & Regs. Section 6.14 (Costa-Hawkins)

February 1, 2000

11 appeals

Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m.