Mismatched Bathroom Tiles Weren't Minor Condition

LVT Number: #20319

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on defective bathroom tiles. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord. Inspection showed that the tiles in the bathroom were mismatched. Landlord appealed, claiming that it made its best efforts to match the new tiles as closely as possible to the original color. Landlord argued that any mismatching was cosmetic and a minor condition. The DHCR again ruled against landlord.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services based on defective bathroom tiles. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration based on restoration of services. The DRA ruled against landlord. Inspection showed that the tiles in the bathroom were mismatched. Landlord appealed, claiming that it made its best efforts to match the new tiles as closely as possible to the original color. Landlord argued that any mismatching was cosmetic and a minor condition. The DHCR again ruled against landlord. DHCR Policy Statement 90-2 requires that repairs be made in a workmanlike manner before rent can be restored. Although landlord attempted to replace the missing bathroom tiles, the DHCR's inspector found that the repair was done in an unworkmanlike manner. The new tiles also didn't match the old ones in color or shape.

34th Street Penn Association: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. UK410031RO (2/1/08) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

UK410031RO.pdf269.46 KB