Installation of New Floors in Building's Public Areas Qualified as an MCI

LVT Number: #32386

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on installation of public area floors on a building-wide basis. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant argued that the installation of new tiles in the building wasn't necessary, that there were unaddressed building violations, that landlord wasn't providing heat and hot water at the building, and that landlord painted only the building hallways. Tenant also claimed that a new intercom installed by landlord wasn't functional.

Landlord applied to the DHCR for MCI rent hikes based on installation of public area floors on a building-wide basis. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant argued that the installation of new tiles in the building wasn't necessary, that there were unaddressed building violations, that landlord wasn't providing heat and hot water at the building, and that landlord painted only the building hallways. Tenant also claimed that a new intercom installed by landlord wasn't functional. The DHCR noted that it was the agency's established position that a complete, building-wide replacement of flooring in all public areas of a building, including hallway floors, lobby, and stairs, qualified as an MCI. Documents submitted with landlord's MCI application substantiated approval of the rent increase. Since tenant had raised his objections before the DRA, the DHCR couldn't consider them for the first time with tenant's PAR. Any claims concerning service reductions could be raised in a proceeding seeking a rent reduction for a failure to maintain required services.

 

Washington: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. JV410006RT (12/6/22)[2-pg. document]