- 2844 Lyon St. R001-71A
(cont. from 8/5/97)
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenant in the amount of $7,745.00 due to serious habitability
defects on the premises. The landlord failed to appear at the
hearing and maintained on appeal that the Notice of Hearing was
sent to an incorrect address. Additionally, the landlord claimed
that a $100.00 per month rent reduction due to lack of heat was
excessive because the heat is defective but operative; that the
common area lighting problem was corrected immediately after notice;
that the cracked and broken windows are the fault of the tenant;
that the tenant painted the unit with the wrong paint, which created
peeling; that there is mildew in the unit due to the tenant’s
failure to ventilate; and that the tenant’s filing of the petition
was not in good faith but was in retaliation for the landlord’s
service of a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. As the landlord
had informed the Director that she would be sending the Board
a copy of her Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice, which she
believed her attorney had already mailed to the Board, the Board
continued consideration of this case from the meeting on August
5, 1997. The Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing
was subsequently received.
As there were several inconsistencies in the landlord’s communications
regarding her correct address and notations in the file that she
had been called twice regarding the hearing by staff, it was the
consensus of the Board for staff to write a letter requesting
clarification under penalty of perjury. The matter was therefore
further continued to the meeting on September 16th.
- 572 San Jose Ave. S001-02A & S001-03R
This case involves a Proposition I Affected Unit. The tenant’s
petition alleging unlawful increases in rent due to capital improvement
passthroughs not having been discontinued and having been improperly
included in base rent was denied due to the equitable defense
of laches. The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based
on comparable rents was granted, resulting in a rent increase
for the unit in the amount of $312.60 (from $339.00 to $651.60).
The tenant’s appeal was accepted and remanded only on his claim
of financial hardship. In the Decision on Remand, the hearing
officer found sufficient evidence of financial hardship to waive
the retroactive amount owed from the tenant to the landlord ($7,189.80),
but ordered that the tenant commence payment of the approved rent
increase as of July 1, 1997. Both the landlord and the tenant
appeal the remand decision. The tenant maintains that factual
and legal errors in the original Decision of Hearing Officer regarding
the comparables rent increase should be reexamined; and asserts
that the hearing officer erred in finding insufficient hardship
to disallow all or part of the noticed increase. The landlord
appeals the waiver of the retroactive amount owed in its entirety,
maintaining that the tenant has the ability to repay the sum in
installments.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this
appeal. (Marshall/Murphy: 4-0)
MSF: To deny both the landlord’s and tenant’s appeals. (Lightner/Gruber:
2-2; Marshall, Moore dissenting)
Consideration of this case was therefore continued to the September
2, 1997 Board meeting.
- 1406 Pacific Ave. #4 S001-03A
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable
rents was denied. The hearing officer found that the landlord
had established the requisite extraordinary circumstances to justify
a rent increase based on comparables, and that the rent for the
subject unit was set low and kept low due to a special relationship
and fraud. However, the landlord failed to meet his burden of
proving what a comparable rent for the unit should be, instead
providing somewhat unreliable evidence as to "market"
rent for the unit. On appeal, the landlord claims that the decision
is unsupported by the evidence.
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 2-2; Gruber, Lightner
dissenting)
This matter was therefore continued to the Board meeting on September
2, 1997.
- 235 Greenwich St. S001-05R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreased housing
services, failure to repair and an unlawful increase in rent was
dismissed due to her failure to appear at the hearing. On appeal
the tenant maintains that, when she received notice of a hearing
on her landlord’s capital improvement petition, scheduled for
a later date, she assumed that the hearing on her tenant petition
had been canceled.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing.
(Marshall/Becker: 4-0)
- 1000 Green St. #104 S001-07R
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs for 44 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision,
asserting that the base rent figure for her unit used by the hearing
officer is incorrect, in that it includes prior capital improvement
and PG&E passthroughs.
MSC: To deny the appeal with the following instructions: the
parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of the tenant’s rent
history. If this is not possible, then the tenant should file
a petition for arbitration. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)
- 1780 Filbert St. S001-05A
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was granted, and the landlords were found liable to the
tenant in the amount of $4,575.00 due to the lack of heat and
waterproofing in the unit. The portion of the tenant’s petition
alleging unlawful increases in rent was denied because the tenant
failed to provide sufficient documentation of her rent history.
On appeal, the landlords maintain that the rent reduction in
the amount of $150.00 per month due to lack of heat is excessive
considering that the rent for the unit is $567.84; and heat was
provided to the unit promptly after receipt of written notice
from the tenant. The landlords also assert that the amount of
$3,750.00 due to leaks in the unit is unfair considering that
there was a drought during much of the time period in question;
the leaks were quite small; and they did not affect the tenant’s
living quarters, but only the back porch area.
MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case on the issue
of when heat was actually restored to the unit. The parties are
encouraged to reach an agreement as to the date this was accomplished
and adjust the landlord’s liability for rent reductions accordingly.
If no such agreement is received at the Rent Board office by
September 30, 1997, then a hearing on this issue will be scheduled.
(Marshall/Becker: 4-0)
- 634 - 18th Ave. S001-04A
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was
granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the
amount of $18,311.46. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the
tenant is barred from recovery of the rent overpayments due to
the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel. She asserts,
specifically, that: there is no evidence of retaliation against
the tenant for her filing of the petition but, rather, a good
faith owner-occupancy of the subject premises pursuant to the
provisions of Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(8); the hearing officer’s
conclusion that the landlord’s deceased husband had "unclean
hands" is based upon hearsay and is unreliable; the death
of the owner who managed the property constitutes real prejudice
to the landlord; the tenant’s conduct over the years would lead
any reasonable landlord to believe that the rent charges were
proper and permissible; and fairness dictates that the amount
of overpayment be reduced by one-half, on the theory that both
parties are equally at fault, conditioned on the landlord’s prompt
payment to the tenant.
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 2-2; Gruber, Lightner
dissenting)
Consideration of this appeal was therefore continued to the September
2, 1997 Board meeting.
- 3239 - 17th St. #3 S001-07A
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the
tenants in the amount of $14,950.00 due to egregious conditions
on the premises. No appearance was made by the landlord at the
hearing. The property had been sold prior to the date of the
hearing, and Notice of Hearing was sent to the prior owner and
the mortgage company (California Mortgage and Realty Company)
that had collected rent subsequent to the sale. On appeal, California
Mortgage and Realty claims that the company is not an owner but,
rather, a second lender that does not hold title to the property.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that this
matter be continued to the next meeting in order for the Deputy
Director to investigate ownership of the property and confer with
the Senior Hearing Officer on policy in the event of an ownership
change after a hearing has been held.
- 860 Geary St. #506 S001-06A
The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreased housing
services due to noise from an upstairs neighbor was granted and
the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $700.00
($100.00 per month). The new owners of the property appeal on
the grounds that they were not given notice of the hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the same hearing
officer for a new hearing. Prior to proceeding with the substance
of the hearing, the hearing officer shall determine whether or
not actual notice was given to the new owners of the building,
even if under a different name. If actual notice was not received
by these landlords, then the hearing shall proceed. In the event
that these individuals did receive notice, the hearing shall be
discontinued and the Decision of Hearing Officer shall become
final. (Marshall/Lightner: 4-0)
- 16 Linda St. #5 S001-06R
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing
services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the hearing.
On appeal, the tenant attaches a Declaration of Non-Receipt of
Notice of Hearing, and provides evidence that his proper mailing
address is a post office box.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing.
(Becker/Marshall: 4-0)