Isolated Stains on Public Area Carpets

LVT Number: 12255

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. Among other things, she claimed that there were stains on the carpet in the public areas of the building. The DRA ruled against tenant and dismissed her complaint. Tenant appealed, claiming that she showed the DHCR inspector the carpet stains and he agreed that the carpet needed to be shampooed or steam-cleaned. The DHCR ruled against tenant. The inspector reported that there were no stains on the third-floor carpet, that there were black stains on the carpet at the second-floor landing, and that there was no carpet on the ground floor.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. Among other things, she claimed that there were stains on the carpet in the public areas of the building. The DRA ruled against tenant and dismissed her complaint. Tenant appealed, claiming that she showed the DHCR inspector the carpet stains and he agreed that the carpet needed to be shampooed or steam-cleaned. The DHCR ruled against tenant. The inspector reported that there were no stains on the third-floor carpet, that there were black stains on the carpet at the second-floor landing, and that there was no carpet on the ground floor. The isolated stains were a minor condition and didn't warrant a rent reduction.

Smith: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. KF430057RT (12/2/97) [2-page document]

Downloads

KF430057RT.pdf132.92 KB