Increase Granted for New Roof

LVT Number: 9435

Facts:Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes, based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA granted landlord's application, and tenants appealed. They claimed that the roof hadn't been replaced completely, and that the work hadn't been done properly. Tenants also argued that landlord's application contained inconsistencies in the square-foot measurements of the roof. The DHCR sent the case back to the DRA to reconsider its ruling. A DHCR inspector found the roof had been completely replaced and was free of defects.

Facts:Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes, based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA granted landlord's application, and tenants appealed. They claimed that the roof hadn't been replaced completely, and that the work hadn't been done properly. Tenants also argued that landlord's application contained inconsistencies in the square-foot measurements of the roof. The DHCR sent the case back to the DRA to reconsider its ruling. A DHCR inspector found the roof had been completely replaced and was free of defects. The inspector also found that only two top-floor apartments showed signs of prior leaks. The DRA upheld the prior ruling granting the rent hikes, but excused the tenants in the two defective apartments from paying it. Tenants appealed again. DHCR:Landlord wins. The DRA had reasonably based its ruling on the inspector's report, because the inspection showed that the roof had been completely replaced and wasn't defective. Those tenants whose apartments needed repairs were temporarily exempted from the rent hike. And the discrepancy in the square footage of the roof didn't affect the amount of the rent hike.

Gross: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. DH 110323-RT (10/6/94) [4-page document]

Downloads

DH110323-RT.pdf240.15 KB