Boiler Undergoing Repairs at Time of Inspection

LVT Number: 10318

Tenants complained that landlord didn't maintain heat and hot water. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and won. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The DRA had based its ruling on three inspections. At the first two inspections, heat and hot water were found to be adequate. But an additional inspection was ordered because not enough apartments were inspected. On the date of the third inspection, boiler repairs were being made.

Tenants complained that landlord didn't maintain heat and hot water. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and won. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The DRA had based its ruling on three inspections. At the first two inspections, heat and hot water were found to be adequate. But an additional inspection was ordered because not enough apartments were inspected. On the date of the third inspection, boiler repairs were being made. Although landlord admitted that there had been occasional disruption of heat and hot water service, the DRA should have ordered another inspection if there was still a question. The inspections held showed either that service was provided or that repairs were being made. There were no grounds for rent reductions.

Raynes Assoc. Ltd. Partnership: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. DD 430036 RO (11/15/95) [2-page document]

Downloads

DD430036RO.pdf152.03 KB