Mismatched Bedroom Tiles

LVT Number: 9937

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. He claimed that some bedroom floor tiles didn't match: some were 20 years old; others were installed later when repairs were done. The DRA ruled for tenant and ordered landlord to sand, scrape, and refinish the floor in a uniform color and in a workmanlike fashion. Landlord appealed. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The difference between the old and new tiles had to do with the age of the tiles. This was a cosmetic difference and didn't constitute a reduction in services.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. He claimed that some bedroom floor tiles didn't match: some were 20 years old; others were installed later when repairs were done. The DRA ruled for tenant and ordered landlord to sand, scrape, and refinish the floor in a uniform color and in a workmanlike fashion. Landlord appealed. The DHCR ruled for landlord. The difference between the old and new tiles had to do with the age of the tiles. This was a cosmetic difference and didn't constitute a reduction in services.

Monticello Leasing Co.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. HL-910045-RO (1/24/95) [4-page document]

Downloads

HL-910045-RO.pdf235.6 KB