- 2410 - 27th Ave. #1 S001-22A
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was
granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the
amount of $9,216.36. On appeal, the landlord maintains that the
hearing officer erred in not including banked amounts from rent
increases that were declared null and void in the decision when
determining the legality of increases imposed at a later date,
even though the excessive amounts were still being paid; that
the tenant consented to the unlawful amounts, even though she
was aware of the rent increase limitations in the Ordinance; and
that the tenant sat on her rights for over ten years, to the detriment
of the landlord.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
- 1049 So. Van Ness Ave. S001-36R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable
to the tenant in the amount of $5,445.00 due to defective conditions
on the premises. The tenant’s claim of unlawful rent increases
was only granted in the amount of $55.54, because the hearing
officer found that the tenant had been a co-owner of the property
during a portion of the time period in question. On appeal, the
tenant provides documentary evidence showing that he paid rent
to the new owners of the property during a period of time when
the hearing officer determined that he was not a tenant.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing
on the issue of the rent history only, including terms of the
sale of the property and representations made by the parties.
(Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
- 700 - 29th Ave. #8 S001-37R
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was
denied. Although the tenant’s rent was increased nine days prematurely
in 1985, the tenant had filed two previous petitions challenging
rent increases and had failed to raise the instant claim on either
of those occasions. Therefore, since the tenant’s base rent amount
had been held to be valid in two prior decisions, the hearing
officer found the issue to be res judicata. On
appeal, the tenant asserts several factual inaccuracies and bias
against him on the part of the hearing officer; and that the timelines
for scheduling a hearing and issuing a decision in this case exceeded
those mandated in the Ordinance.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
- 1217 Kearny St., Apt. D S001-38R
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing
services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly
noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims that he mistakenly
entered the hearing date on his calendar as October 9th instead
of October 7th, and asks the Board’s indulgence in granting him
another hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing.
In scheduling the remand hearing, every effort will be made to
accommodate the landlord. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
- 707 - 711A San Jose Ave. S001-23A
The landlords’ petition for rent increases based on increased
operating expenses and certification of capital improvement costs
was granted, in part. The landlords had performed much of the
capital improvement work themselves, and were compensated at either
the prevailing labor or licensed contractor rate. Interest on
their uncompensated labor costs was denied as not being an actual
cost. The landlords appeal the decision only on the issue of
imputed interest on uncompensated labor costs, alleging that:
this policy unfairly penalizes small property owners, who do
not necessarily have the financial means to hire an outside contractor;
the costs to the tenants would have been greater if an outside
contractor had been used, but the landlords would have received
interest on those costs; and the Board’s policy on this issue
is depriving them of a fair return on their investment.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner
dissenting)
- 259 Peralta Ave. S001-39R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs to the tenants in one unit of a two-unit building was granted,
in part. The tenants appeal the decision on the grounds that:
the capital improvement work was the result of deferred maintenance;
the newly constructed carport does not have a roof and is of no
real benefit to the tenants; and the tenants should not have to
pay for the demolition of the garage because it was in a dilapidated
condition and they had been unable to use it prior to its having
been torn down.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing
on the issue of the benefit of the newly constructed carport to
these tenants, considering their individual circumstances and
the unique facts of this case. (Marshall/Justman: 5-0)