Consideration of Appeals
A. 3417 Lincoln Way R002-09R
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant provides proof that she was ill and undergoing treatment at a medical facility on the day of the hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Moore/Marshall: 4-0)
B. 1730 A Oakdale Ave. R001-51A
The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreased housing services was granted only as to a problem with sewage backup into a common courtyard area in the amount of $75.00 per month. The landlord appeals, claiming that it would be impossible to permanently resolve the problem of sewage backup since tenants put debris into the sewer; and that the hearing officer’s decision provides an economic incentive for people to continue doing so.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Moore: 4-0)
C. 740 Rhode Island St. R001-50A
The landlord’s petition for rent increases for 8 out of 17 units based on increased operating expenses was granted, but not for the maximum 7% requested. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: the hearing officer misunderstood the evidence regarding the amount of payroll taxes paid on resident manager income, a highly technical area of employment law; the petition incorrectly allocated cash wages paid to an employee at another property to this building, which should be corrected; the allowable annual increase amount in effect at the time of filing of the petition should be used for purposes of determining the landlord’s eligibility for an operating expense increase; documentation of the costs of a building office phone were not provided for the requisite two-year period because the phone was recently installed as a new service; the last invoice for the costs of the intercom phone was inadvertently omitted; payment of principle should not have been included in the debt service category but, rather, interest only should have been considered; and ordinary business expenses (e.g., accounting and legal services, postage fees, copying costs, etc.), while not part of the on-going operation and maintenance of the building, should be allowed to encourage efficient, professional management practices.
| MSC: |
To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this appeal. (Murphy/Mosser: 4-0)
|
| MSC: |
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on issues 1 through 6 in the landlord’s appeal, specifically: management costs; to use the annual increase amount in effect at the time of filing of the petition for purposes of determining eligibility for operating expense increases; and to re-examine the determination regarding both the intercom and building office phones. For any issues where the only problem is missing documentation, the landlord will be provided the opportunity to supply any necessary evidence. A new hearing will be held only if necessary.
(Marshall/Moore: 4-0) |
D. 3718 - 24th St. R002-10R
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was denied because the hearing officer found no credible evidence that delivery of the notice of rent increase was damaged and, therefore, delayed by the Post Office. On appeal, the tenant asserts that the hearing officer misinterpreted applicable sections of State law regarding proper service of notice to change the terms of a tenancy.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosser/Moore: 4-0)
E. 143 Graystone Terr. R002-11R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses for the tenants in three units was granted, in part. The tenant in one unit appeals the decision, asserting that: she should not be held liable for replacement of a 45-year old deck that had originally been improperly installed; and that the costs for installation of a new garden were clearly excessive.
| MSC: |
To deny the appeal but to authorize the tenant to phase in repayment of the retroactive amounts owed in equal installments over an 8-month period commencing with the June 1, 1997 rent payment.
(Mosser/Lightner: 3-1; Marshall dissenting) |
F. 505 - 26th Ave. #1 R002-12R
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses for the tenants in two units was granted. On appeal, the tenant in one unit disputes the base rent amount authorized in the decision because the figure provided by the landlord allegedly included a prior capital improvement passthrough; and claims that the landlord failed to adequately document his debt service costs.
| MSC: |
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to obtain clarification of the proper base rent for the tenant in unit #1. A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Marshall/Moore: 4-0) |
G. 2450 Lake St. #2 R001-52A & R002-14R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted on remand because the hearing officer found that conditions pertaining to defective plumbing resulting in backups in the sink and bathtub and pest control had recurred since having been deemed abated by the Department of Building Inspection. Additionally, the determination that the landlord was liable to the tenant in the amount of $20.00 due to a defective light switch was upheld. The landlord appeals the remand decision, claiming that: since the drain in question services the whole building, if a pipe was clogged, there would have been water backup in a common courtyard and into other units in the building; sufficient pest control measures were employed, and only one cockroach was found during the exterminator’s last visit to the property; and the tenant was not authorized to deduct $100.00 from his rent as compensation for moving dishes and belongings in preparation for extermination. The tenant also appeals the remand decision, claiming that the hearing officer’s determination that the problems had been abated was erroneous.
MSC: To deny both the landlord’s and tenant’s appeals. (Marshall/Moore; 4-0)
H. 2714 Webster St. #3 R002-13R
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable rents for the subject unit was denied but the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $14,550.00 due to rent overpayments. On appeal by the landlord, the Board voted to remand the case for a new hearing on the issue of comparables; and to hold a Board hearing on the issue of the rent overpayments. The Board hearing was stayed pending the issuance of a remand decision on the comparables claim. The Decision on Remand grants a rent increase based on comparables from the corrected base rent amount of $400.00 to $976.24. The tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that the hearing officer erred in rejecting the tenants’ evidence regarding comparable rents, taken from the Tenants Union database and census data, and in finding that the subject unit is not comparable to other units in the building. The tenant also requests a stay of the comparables rent increase until the overpayment portion of the case can be heard before the Board.
| MSC: |
To recuse Commissioner Moore from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Lightner: 4-0)
|
| MSC: |
To deny the tenant’s appeal, including the claim of financial hardship. The rent overpayment issue will now be scheduled for Board hearing. (Mosser/Lightner: 3-0) |