Tenant Claims Problems Recurred

LVT Number: 10940

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed, claiming that conditions had recurred. There was a gap between the kitchen cabinet and the wall, and there was a gap between the patio door and frame which allowed air seepage. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord and tenant had signed a DHCR agreement in 1990 stating that landlord had completed repairs.

Tenant complained of a reduction in services. The DRA ruled for tenant and reduced his rent. Landlord later applied for rent restoration. The DRA ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed, claiming that conditions had recurred. There was a gap between the kitchen cabinet and the wall, and there was a gap between the patio door and frame which allowed air seepage. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord and tenant had signed a DHCR agreement in 1990 stating that landlord had completed repairs. Although landlord didn't file the rent restoration application until 1993 and the conditions had recurred in the meantime, this didn't prevent rent restoration in relation to tenant's original complaint. Tenant should file a new service complaint for the recurring conditions if they aren't repaired by landlord.

Nanda: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. IA110099RT (8/26/96) [2-page document]

Downloads

IA110099RT.pdf99.78 KB