December 07, 1999

The tenant’s petition was granted as to various decreased housing services claims and the landlord, who failed to appear at the hearing, was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,802.50. On appeal, the landlord claims not to have received notice of the hearing timely, because it was delivered to the subject building; that she ought not to be held responsible for problems that had existed for many years under prior ownership of the building, especially since she has undertaken repairs; that the tenant accepted the condition of the unit when she rented it; that the tenant was uncooperative in providing access to the unit; and the tenant’s petition is in retaliation for her rent having been increased.

This case was continued from the November 9th meeting in order for staff to write to the landlord and obtain a statement under penalty of perjury regarding her failure to appear at the hearing.

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part. The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,866.39 due to the landlord’s failure to allow the tenant to obtain a replacement roommate, even though the governing lease contains a consent clause. The tenant failed to meet her burden of proving that certain repair issues constituted substantial decreases in housing services; however, an otherwise allowable rent increase was deferred until the time that the repairs were effectuated. The landlord appeals, maintaining that the hearing officer ignored the fact that the tenant is violating the rental agreement by having house guests, for which he could recover possession of the premises; that there are factual errors in the Decision; Rules and Regulations Section 6.15(d) is inapplicable to this case; and the standards for reasonable withholding of consent found in the Kendall case are inapplicable in a residential context.

Since the landlord appellant only received the first page of the Hearing Officer’s two-page response memorandum, consideration of this matter was continued from the November 9th meeting in order for the landlord to have an opportunity to reply to the memo.

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to the loss of his right to park in a space in front of the building was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,900.00. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: the tenant failed to produce a lease that showed that parking was included in his tenancy but, rather, the tenant "usurped" the use of the space; the tenant did not pay additional compensation for use of the parking area, and therefore no rent reduction is warranted; the $100 valuation is excessive for an uncovered, unsecured space; and there is plentiful off-street parking available in the area, so no substantial decrease in services exists.

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $600 to $1,500 per month was granted. The hearing officer found that the landlord did not have the right to increase the rent based on Costa-Hawkins because the landlord had accepted rent from the tenant over a protracted period of time and had waived a prohibition against subletting through his conduct. On appeal, the landlord argues that the hearing officer erred by not explicitly making a finding that the tenant entered possession of the premises as a subtenant; that the tenant became an assignee after his mother, the original tenant, vacated the premises; that the landlord’s acceptance of rent from the tenant did not constitute a waiver because the landlord did not receive written notice of the tenant’s occupancy of the premises and thereafter accept rent; and that the tenant attempted to deceive the landlord into accepting rent by claiming to be residing on the premises only temporarily.

The landlords’ petition for certification of the costs of new roofs, roof decks and glass doors to 3 of 12 units was granted only in part. The hearing officer found that the tenants should be responsible only for the costs of the new tar and gravel roofs, but that the sliding glass doors and roof decks installed adjacent to the units one floor above primarily benefit the tenants residing in those units. On appeal, the landlords maintain that the hearing officer’s finding that the new roofs alone provided sufficient waterproofing for the units below was in error, and contrary to opinions from licensed contractors. They claim that only improvements deemed necessary to eliminate leaks were undertaken, which also benefits the apartments below.

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to an unreliable electrical system with resulting power outages and surges was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $650.00. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the tenant interfered with the landlord’s electrician when he was sent in to make repairs; the tenant has purposely overloaded the electrical circuits with musical equipment; and the problem is caused by the tenants in the building, who use too many appliances per electrical outlet.

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was granted. An annual rent increase was deferred for 1-1/2 months and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,117.50 due to habitability problems on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenant has failed to provide notice of the defects in her unit, and has manufactured evidence that she did so; the tenant failed to provide access to her unit in order that repairs could be effectuated; the problem with the toilet was caused by a toothbrush, which could only have been placed there by the tenant; a new oven was provided within 9 days of notice to the landlord; although the tenant alleged a mildew problem at an earlier Rent Board hearing, she refused to provide the landlord with an opportunity to inspect the unit; and some of the problems are caused by the tenant’s housekeeping habits, and the fact that she has two dogs in her unit.

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted. One tenant appeals on the grounds of financial hardship, and alleges that the Minute Order requires a Technical Correction as to his move-in date.

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to a conversion from a central heating system paid by the landlord to electrical heat paid by the tenants was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $66.22 per month. On appeal, the landlord claims that the hearing officer erred in assuming that the heater must run at full wattage at all times, and ignored the landlord’s empirical data concerning actual usage.

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received a request for an Amicus Brief from tenant Robert Copeland in the eviction case that his landlord, George Hoffberg, is appealing. Mr. Hoffberg wishes to merge his and the tenant’s rental unit for purposes of owner-occupancy. The Commissioners agreed to file an Amicus only because Mr. Hoffberg currently does not have a valid permit to merge the units.

Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners that proposed amendments to the Rent Ordinance concerning the Ellis Act and the change in title of the Hearing Officers to Administrative Law Judges were heard today in Committee and passed out unanimously to the full Board of Supervisors. Additionally, separate legislation to increase amounts paid to low-income tenants displaced pursuant to an Ellis eviction was introduced at the Board of Supervisors at yesterday’s meeting. The Deputy Director received permission from the Commissioners to remind Attorney Steve Rosenthal and Skyline Realty, involved in two different cases before the Board, that violations of the Ordinance may constitute misdemeanors pursuant to Ordinance Section 37.10A. The Staff and Commission Holiday Party, which will be held at the Office of the Rent Board on Friday, December 17th, was also discussed.

The landlord involved in the steam heat conversion case at 1025 Post Street (U001-41A) and his attorney, Dennis Hyde, addressed the Board regarding the formula used by hearing officers when calculating rent reductions in such cases, which they believe results in a windfall to tenants.

December 14, 1999 - NO MEETING

December 21, 1999

6:00 Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regs.

Section 6.15 (Leno Legislation)

Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.