No Proof that Inspector Checked Pilot Light

LVT Number: 17390

Tenant complained of a reduction in services because the two back burners on his stove were defective. Tenant claimed that they didn't light. The DRA ruled for tenant. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DRA's order was based on insufficient proof. The DHCR's inspector reported that the two back burners didn't light. But tenant had signed a job order before the DHCR inspection stating that the stove was fixed. On a later occasion, the stove didn't light because the pilot light had gone out, and tenant simply relit it. The DHCR ruled for landlord.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services because the two back burners on his stove were defective. Tenant claimed that they didn't light. The DRA ruled for tenant. Landlord appealed, claiming that the DRA's order was based on insufficient proof. The DHCR's inspector reported that the two back burners didn't light. But tenant had signed a job order before the DHCR inspection stating that the stove was fixed. On a later occasion, the stove didn't light because the pilot light had gone out, and tenant simply relit it. The DHCR ruled for landlord. There was no proof that the inspector checked the pilot light when he checked tenant's stove. And tenant didn't deny that she signed the job order confirming that services had been restored.

Heritage Pl., LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. RJ710064RO (2/11/04) [2-pg. doc.]

Downloads

RJ710064RO.pdf90.83 KB