- 1080 Bush St. #600 S001-50R
(cont. from 2/3/98)
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claimed to have misread the hearing date listed on the Notice of Hearing, and thought that the hearing was scheduled for the following day. At the meeting on February 3, 1998, the Commissioners continued consideration of this case in order for staff to investigate whether the tenant had appeared at the Rent Board office on the day he asserted that he believed the hearing was to be held. The tenant subsequently submitted a sworn statement that he had re-read the hearing notice on his way out of the house, and realized his mistake in time to avoid a trip to the Rent Board office for no reason.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing.
(Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
- 201 - 11th Ave. #5 S001-33A
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $30.00 per month because the security system was changed and tenants are now only issued one key to the front door. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: there was no decrease in housing services because the landlord had no contractual obligation to provide the tenant with a duplicable key; and the hearing officer failed to consider the impact that the increased security had on all tenants in the building, including the tenant-petitioner, which should negate any claim of decreased housing services.
MSF: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing to determine whether or not the owner made adequate efforts to accommodate the tenant’s needs and to make a technical correction. (Marshall/Becker: 2-3; Gruber, Justman, Lightner dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing to determine whether or not the landlord made adequate efforts to accommodate the tenant’s needs; to make a technical correction; and, to ascertain whether or not the landlord had knowingly permitted key duplication by the tenants.
(Justman/Lightner: 4-1, Gruber dissenting)
- 184 Hartford St. S001-34A
The tenant’s petition alleging the landlord’s failure to repair and substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $930.00 due to lack of access to certain portions of the rental unit during a period of renovation; the condition of the bathroom floor; and a rear door that would not fully open. A rent increase was also deferred until certain code violations at the premises were remedied. On appeal, the landlord claims that the hearing officer erred regarding the dates that the bathroom floor was in disrepair, and disregarded her contention that the tenant and his friends caused the damage; that she was not notified as to the condition of the door until August, rather than February; and the hearing officer erred as to the dates that various phases of the construction ended and different facilities again became available to the tenant, which should be broken out with separate rent reductions for each.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
- 1369 Hyde St. S001-35A
Nineteen tenant petitions alleging substantial decreases in housing services were granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable for rent reductions to each tenant for a period of time during which one of the two elevators in the building was non-functioning; and for the lack of a resident manager on the premises sufficiently often to accept deliveries on behalf of residents. The landlord appeals, maintaining that: the reliability of elevator service was not substantially reduced during the period that one of the two elevators was not operational, since the functioning elevator had an improved level of emergency response service; granting rent reductions for reduced services during periods of necessary repair creates a disincentive for landlords to maintain and upgrade their properties; and there was no evidence that there was a building-wide policy that managers would accept parcels for residents, rather, this was an occasional and infrequent favor provided by a former manager.
MSC: To recuse President Lightner from consideration of this case. (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal on the issue of receiving parcels. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
The elevator issue was continued to the next meeting in order for staff to find out the status of current litigation in a similar matter.
- 1399 - 30th Ave. #101 thru 304 S001-36A & S001-51R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to the tenants in nine units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The landlords appeal the allowance of only the imputed interest rate on the capital improvement costs because the work was financed by a variable rate loan and no actual rate of interest was established. The landlords maintain that the interest rate on the permanent financing that was recently secured is a fixed rate loan at a rate of 10.25%.
MSC: To remand for consideration of the owner’s fixed rate loan, which was recently obtained. A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant’s hardship appeal was continued to the next meeting so that staff could inquire as to the number of tenants living in the unit and request that a hardship form be completed by the second occupant if there are, in fact, two tenants residing in the unit.