Roof Installation Doesn't Qualify

LVT Number: 9054

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. Tenants claimed that the roof work was defective, and that the roof continued to leak. A DHCR inspector found evidence of leaks in several apartments. The DRA denied landlord's application because the roof hadn't been completely replaced or resurfaced. Also, one of landlord's contractors had stated in the contract that the roof work wouldn't prevent further leaks because the job was limited in scope and more work would have to be done. Landlord appealed, and the DHCR ruled for tenants.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. Tenants claimed that the roof work was defective, and that the roof continued to leak. A DHCR inspector found evidence of leaks in several apartments. The DRA denied landlord's application because the roof hadn't been completely replaced or resurfaced. Also, one of landlord's contractors had stated in the contract that the roof work wouldn't prevent further leaks because the job was limited in scope and more work would have to be done. Landlord appealed, and the DHCR ruled for tenants. The roof work consisted of repairs---not a complete replacement. Portions of the roof weren't replaced at all. And several DHCR inspections, as well as a long list of pending building violations, indicated that the roof still leaked.

Langham Mansions Co.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. HJ 430202-RO (8/29/94) [10-page document]

Downloads

HJ430202-RO.pdf672.94 KB