Defective Roof Installed

LVT Number: 9822

Landlord applied for MCI rent increases based on a number of improvements including a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord, approving the rent increases. Tenants appealed, claiming that the work was done to correct violations, not all the claimed work was done, and some of the work wasn't done in workmanlike manner. One tenant claimed he still had leaks in his apartment from the roof. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the rent increases. There was substantial proof that the roof was defective and that landlord hadn't fixed it.

Landlord applied for MCI rent increases based on a number of improvements including a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord, approving the rent increases. Tenants appealed, claiming that the work was done to correct violations, not all the claimed work was done, and some of the work wasn't done in workmanlike manner. One tenant claimed he still had leaks in his apartment from the roof. The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked the rent increases. There was substantial proof that the roof was defective and that landlord hadn't fixed it. Landlord had applied for the MCI rent increases in early 1985. Later that year, several rent reduction orders were issued based on roof leaks in the building. Landlord was therefore on notice of the defective roof work. By 1990, the DHCR had also penalized landlord for not responding to its order to repair the roof.

Harris: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. BL 110205 RT (1/25/95) [4-page document]

Downloads

BL110205RT.pdf253.98 KB