Landlord Misrepresented Relationship with Contractor

LVT Number: 10624

Landlords applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new plumbing and a new boiler/burner. Landlords stated in their application that they had no relationship, financial or otherwise, with the contractor that performed the work. The DRA pointed out to landlords that on another MCI application for another building, landlords and the contractor had the same address. The DRA asked landlords for an explanation. Landlords admitted that they were the principals of the contracting company and that they operated the contracting business at the same address as their residence.

Landlords applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of new plumbing and a new boiler/burner. Landlords stated in their application that they had no relationship, financial or otherwise, with the contractor that performed the work. The DRA pointed out to landlords that on another MCI application for another building, landlords and the contractor had the same address. The DRA asked landlords for an explanation. Landlords admitted that they were the principals of the contracting company and that they operated the contracting business at the same address as their residence. The DRA ruled against landlords on the MCI application, and landlords appealed. The DHCR ruled against landlords. Landlords clearly and willfully misrepresented the nature of their relationship with the contractor. So they couldn't get an MCI rent hike.

Milevoi: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. DH130180RO (3/12/96) [2-page document]

Downloads

DH130180RO.pdf124.21 KB