JUNE 5, 2002

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Booth called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 1, 2002 AND MAY 15, 2002

The following corrections were made to the minutes of May 1, 2002:

Page 1, After ABSENT: Jonathan Nathanson was not absent but arrived at 7:30 p.m. After OTHERS: Delete the name "J. Rizzi" and insert the name "Jackie Rizzi".

Page 3, HEARING CASE should be changed to "HEARING CASES". 4^th Paragraph, Last Sentence: Delete the phrase "… fort he evening" and insert the phrase "…for the evening".

Page 4, 2^nd Paragraph: 6^th Line: Change the phrase "…not be completed" to read "…not been completed".

Page 5, 1^st Paragraph, 1^st Sentence: Change the phrase "…CMA had automatically made" to read "the lease made".

Page 8, 1^st Paragraph, 6^th Line: Change the phrase "…had been Section 8 approved" to read "…had been at some time Section 8 approved". Also, after the listing of Case No. 1445-01 delete the symbol "]" after the name "Perschy".

Page 14, Item #4: Insert the phrase "…with permission of landlord" after the words "via telephone". Item #6 should read: "The landlord was not present at the hearing this evening. CMA represented that they have written authorization from the landlord to act." Item #11: Correct the words "here say" to "hearsay". Item #15, Precede the sentence with the phrase: "According to CMA…".

** MR. BERMUDEZ SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

The Commission deferred the acceptance of the minutes from May 15, 2002 until the next meeting.

HEARING CASE NO. 1482-02 AND 1483-02:

LUPE NAVARRO AND NATALIA AREVALO VS.

BRAD LAROSE

Mr. Booth called the Hearing to order at 7:35 p.m.

Mr. Booth stated the protocol of the hearing to the assembly and then asked all parties who would be giving testimony to stand and be sworn in.

Next, Ms. Devitt entered the tenants’ exhibits into the record. She then noted that the landlord had not remitted any documents. Mr. Patterson said that 2 weeks ago there had been extensive work done to the property that was not listed in his report.

Next, Mr. Booth asked the tenants if there was anything they would like to add to their report. Ms. Navarro said there was not but Ms. Arevalo said that she found the rent increase to be excessive for the timeframe in which it was done because she had maintained the apartment and fixed anything that needed to be fixed.

Chris LaRose said that the rents were raised annually and a substantial amount of work had been done to the property. He remarked that in the past these tenants had agreed to get a renter's insurance policy but as of yet they had not acquired it. Chris LaRose went on to say that in 1990 there was a signed agreement that the tenants would make the necessary repairs in the apartment and they had also signed an agreement 7-9 months ago that they would help pay for the current improvements that were being done. Mr. Bernard interjected that Ms. Navarro had moved into the apartment in 1994 and could not have signed the agreement document in 1990.

Chris LaRose said that on June 30, 1990 an addendum that was printed by hand had been added to the agreement. He explained that this addendum stated that the tenants would pay the electricity and telephone bills. He added that it also included that the tenants would make all repairs resulting from misuse or negligence at their own expense and all minor repairs costing less than $100. The addendum stated that the front door must be closed and locked at all times and that all tenants must secure a renter’s policy with $250,000 liability coverage and $15,000 personal property coverage. The addendum went on to state that the tenant should be liable for any attorney fees if the lease had to be enforced and ended by stating that Ms. Navarro had translated it to Ms. Arevalo so that she would be aware of what she was signing.

Mr. Patterson remarked that the document that the landlord was referring to was the addendum to the lease and he asked the landlord if he had brought a copy of the lease to the hearing. Chris LaRose replied that the lease had expired. Mr. Bermudez interjected that in that case the addendum had expired as well.

Mr. Booth asked if a copy of a renter’s insurance policy had been received and Chris LaRose replied that it had not for either tenant. Mr. Booth asked Chris LaRose if he had followed up on this issue with the two tenants and Chris LaRose replied that he had everyone’s except these two tenants. Chris LaRose added that he had sent a letter to all the tenants but Ms. Navarro interjected that she had never been notified. Ms. Navarro added that she did not have a problem with securing renter’s insurance. She also said that she did not have a problem with paying the rent but she did have a problem with the rent being increased so much.

An exchange of words took place between Brad LaRose and Ms. Navarro. Mr. Booth asked that they address any comments or questions they had to the Commission and not to each other.

Brad LaRose stated that the rents were raised once a year and while he agreed it went up a substantial amount there was a 10-year period of time when there had been no increases. Mr. Booth asked why the landlord had not provided the documents beforehand so the Members could have given the evidence their consideration. Chris LaRose replied that he thought he could just enter the documents into evidence when he was present at the hearing. Mr. Booth remarked that the Commission studied all documents very carefully and when documents were received prior to the hearing it gave the Commissioners more time for review.

Chris LaRose commented that the tenants had complained that the rent increases had only been 6-8 months apart but he had shown that was not the case. He added that he had also shown that the tenants had agreed to make minor repairs themselves. He noted that even though the lease had expired Mr. Patterson had instructed him to act as though the lease was still intact and that was what he was doing. Mr. Booth interjected that what the landlord might call a minor repair might in fact be the responsibility of the landlord. Brad LaRose commented that he had taken care of any major repairs and if the repair was minor it was very minor. He added that when the tenants wanted to paint he supplied the paint to them.

Mr. Booth asked Brad LaRose to describe the repairs he had made in the last year. Brad LaRose said that at the Navarro residence he put in a kitchen faucet and repaired the tank in the bathroom that was leaking. He noted that he had not been called about any other problems at that site.

Mr. Booth asked the Commissioners if they had any questions they would like to ask of the landlord or the tenants.

Mr. Bermudez asked Ms. Navarro about the increase in her rent. Ms. Navarro stated that she moved into the residence in 1994 and the rent was $975. Then, an increase of $125 was made in 2001 and another increase of $125 was made in 2002. She said that she paid all her own utility bills and a 2-car garage was included in the rent. Ms. Navarro said that there was an open area downstairs where there was no heat. Brad LaRose remarked that he had never been advised of this problem. Mr. Bermudez asked Ms. Navarro if she had a lease and Ms. Navarro replied that she never signed one and that before living at her current residence she lived in another apartment of the landlord’s. She explained that at that time she had a one-year lease and that lease was never renewed. Mr. Bermudez asked Ms. Navarro if she remembered any certified letters being delivered to her and she replied that she did receive one certified letter for a rent increase.

Mr. Stumpf remarked that Ms. Navarro paid for repairs but did not have anything to do with the affidavit that Chris LaRose had shown the Commission. Ms. Navarro interjected that the rent had always been reasonable and they made their own repairs because they were minor. However, she added that now she felt that the landlord was increasing the rent too much every year. Mr. Booth asked Ms. Navarro what some of the minor repairs she had made were and Ms. Navarro replied that she had replaced the inside of the toilet a few times and she constantly had to tape the windows because of the drafts. She added that the heating bills were high but she had never mentioned that to the landlord.

Ms. Ebron asked Chris LaRose to describe some of the repairs he had already started and Chris LaRose replied that they had finished ripping the sidewalks out and they were in the process of putting in new sidewalks and driveways. He added that they had put awnings on the buildings and had fixed the railings as instructed by Mr. Patterson. Mr. Booth asked the date of the most recent time paint was supplied to the tenants and Brad LaRose replied every other year and a half. Ms. Navarro interjected that she had only received paint once but her mother had received it more often. She added that when she had asked for the paint she received it six months later from the landlord.

Mr. Patterson distributed copies of the documents the landlord brought to the hearing to all the Commissioners for them to review.

Mr. Booth asked how many times Ms. Arevalo had received paint and Ms. Navarro replied that her mother had received paint twice and that she had also replaced the faucets in the kitchen and bathroom. She added that there was leaking in the kitchen. She noted that the landlord had been notified several times and because he did not do anything she had fixed it herself. Also, she said that the carpet was lifting up and ripping and she replaced it.

At this time Ms. Devitt entered the following landlord’s exhibits into the record:

1. Addendum dated June 30, 1990
2. Document dated May 1, 2000
3. Copy of the Certified Return Receipt card
4. Letter to Ms. Arevalo dated January 18, 2001
5. Letter to Ms. Arevalo dated January 19, 2001
6. Letter to Ms. Navarro dated January 18, 2001

Mr. Booth commented that all the documents listed above were over a year old. Mr. Bermudez asked who signed the certified receipt and Ms. Navarro replied that she did not know. Ms. Navarro added that she did not receive the notice herself. Mr. Bermudez asked who "Alberto" was and both tenants replied that they did not know. Ms. Navarro said that the letter was addressed to her brother-in-law and she did not know who had signed for it.

Chris LaRose said that there had been a problem with the tenants saying that they never received the letter. He went on to say that because of this problem he personally delivered the letter to the tenants and that was why the others had not been sent certified mail. Ms. Navarro interjected that she had paid her rent, however Chris LaRose said that as of January 19, 2001 the rent was supposed to be $1,100.00. Ms. Devitt interjected that she noticed that the landlord’s Exhibit #4 dated January 18, 2001 should have been dated January 18, 2002. Mr. Bermudez remarked that he had questioned the difference in dates of the letter and the return receipt. Mr. Patterson said that the return receipt was with the May 1, 2000 letter and signed on the 22^nd of the same month.

Ms. Devitt commented that there was a letter dated May 1, 2000 that stated effective June 1, 2000 the rent would increase by $200.00 and would now be $1,200.00. Chris LaRose said that Ms. Navarro had never paid that rent increase. He explained that the tenants had said that they never received the letter and when they spoke on the telephone they had agreed that the tenant would pay a lesser amount. Chris LaRose then said that the rent was $975.00 and was increased to $1,100.00. It was determined that in 2002 the landlord had increased this rent to $1,125.00. It was also determined that Ms. Arevalo’s rent was originally $800.00 in 1990 and it was increased to $950.00 in January 2001 and then in January 2002 it was increased to $1,050.00. It was established that the first rent increase either tenant had received was in January 2001 and then the next rent increase for both tenants was January 2002.

Ms. Navarro stated that according to her documentation she received the first letter in May 2001 and that was why she said in her complaint that she had received the last rent increase 6-8 months ago. Chris LaRose interjected that Ms. Arevalo paid her January 2002 rent increase but Ms. Navarro had not. He added that Mr. Patterson had been made aware of this fact when the tenants made their complaints. Mr. Patterson asked Chris LaRose why he had not followed up with the tenant when she did not pay her increase and Brad LaRose interjected that they were good tenants and he had no problems with them. Chris LaRose added that an effort had been made to follow up on this but it had not happened.

Mr. Stumpf asked Brad LaRose if he owned the entire block of Liberty Square. Brad LaRose asked Mr. Stumpf to explain what he meant by that question. Brad LaRose then said that he owned 195-201 and that it was the left hand side of Liberty Square.

Mr. Bermudez noted that Ms. Navarro’s complaint noted her zip code as Westport 06880, but should be for East Norwalk 06855.

Mr. Bernard reviewed the inspection report with the tenants. The following was determined in his review of Ms. Navarro’s inspection report with the assembly:

1. The dishwasher stopped working one year after the tenant moved in.
2. The landlord had not taken care of any of the repairs listed yet, as he was waiting for the hearing to take place to determine who was responsible for making these repairs.
3. The tenant supplied her own smoke detectors.
4. The water pressure in the kitchen dropped dramatically after 10 minutes of use. The landlord stated that no other tenant had this problem and the tenant stated that this problem only occurred in the kitchen.
5. Although the tenant reported that the garage was used for storage only, the landlord stated that a car was being kept in there as well.
6. The tenant had reported that the driveway area flooded easily and the landlord stated that it was in the process of being repaired.
7. The house had been built 20 years ago and none of the windows had ever been replaced.
8. The landlord stated that the entire house was painted one year ago.

The following was determined in Mr. Bernard’s review of Ms. Arevalo’s inspection report with the assembly:

1. The landlord stated that there were brand new windows installed throughout the entire apartment building.
2. The landlord felt that many of the repairs mentioned in the report were of the miscellaneous variety and stated that it had to be determined by the Commission if the tenant was responsible for miscellaneous repairs or not.

Ms. Devitt asked both Chris LaRose and Brad LaRose if they were managing the property at the time Ms. Arevalo moved in and the lease was drawn up. Both men replied that they were not. Brad LaRose stated that they assumed responsibility for the management of the property probably 1993-1994. Ms. Devitt asked if they understood there to be leases in effect or if they thought these were month-to-month tenants. Brad LaRose said that it did not make any difference to him if there was a lease or not because they were good tenants. However, he added that since there were problems now he would make certain that they had leases.

Ms. Devitt pointed out that having a lease made a difference as far as legal liability. She explained that unless a lease addendum was renewed annually or a self-renewing clause went with the lease, it would not renew itself in perpetuity. Ms. Devitt remarked that at the moment there was an oral month-to-month tenancy and the responsibilities were as stated in the statutes unless the landlord and the tenants had an oral agreement and both agreed that they agreed to that oral agreement. She added that the oral agreement could not extend beyond a year. She noted that the Commissioners needed to have an understanding of what had been agreed to by both parties. Brad LaRose said that the tenant had stated to the Commission that she had called him to fix things but she had not and if he did not know of the problems he could not take care of them. He added that he was a busy person. Ms. Devitt pointed out that both parties had a responsibility to communicate to each other.

Ms. Navarro stated that the landlord could claim whatever he wanted to and so could she and she wanted to state that she did notify him of certain things. She added that she did not have any of her requests in writing but with regard to the water problem she did speak with Brad LaRose and Chris LaRose and they always said that Brad LaRose would come over. Brad LaRose said that he spoke with Ms. Navarro and she said that the problem was only in the kitchen sink. He went on to say that he went there twice and no one answered the door. Ms. Navarro commented that she was only available at certain times. Mr. Booth interjected that was why these issues should be put in writing.

Mr. Patterson asked Ms. Arevalo if the railing that was missing at the top of the stairs had been repaired and she replied that it had. Mr. Patterson also asked her if any other work had been done in her apartment and she replied that nothing else had been done. Mr. Patterson asked if any storm drains had been installed and Brad LaRose replied no and asked why the question had been asked. Mr. Patterson said he had asked it because of the flooding to that area. Brad LaRose stated that the flooding had been relieved now from water pooling and leaks. Mr. Patterson commented that there had been quite a lot of rain this morning and he asked Ms. Navarro if there had been flooding in front of the garage. Ms. Navarro replied that there was no flooding there today. Brad LaRose said that the sidewalks were completed but they had not been blacktopped yet but the asphalt should be done in a day or so.

Mr. Booth closed the hearing at 8:50 p.m.

RECESS

The Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Booth called the meeting back to order.

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Mr. Booth stated that he had no report this evening.

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Ms. Devitt presented the written report. The Commission discussed the poor showing at the Headstart Landlord/Tenant Education meeting on May 22^nd. Mr. Booth remarked that Headstart should have made better arrangements to have a better showing. Ms. Devitt commented that she could have a conversation with Headstart informing them that her observation was that word of the meeting had not gotten out and that attendance had not confirmed. She noted that she was pleased that NEON had asked her to speak and she felt that the Fair Rent Commission should do more in the way of community outreach.

COMMISSIONERS’ POTPOURRI

There were no comments this evening.

ANY NEW BUSINESS

There was none this evening.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF EACH OPEN CASE

Motion and Vote on Open Cases, as necessary

Case No. 1454-01 – Olbrys

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1459-01 – Wright

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1460-01 – Guadian

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1464-01 – Contreras

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1465-01 – Hernandez

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1466-01 – Cruz

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1467-01 – Vega

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1469-01 – Amman

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1470-02 – Fludd

No Action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1472-02 – Contreras

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1477-02 – Rodriguez

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1478-02 – Hernandez

Ms. Devitt noted that an error had been made in the Commission’s findings. She explained that the amount of rent for this tenant was $687.50, not $675.00. She went on to explain that although the decision had stated that the rent for April and May was $675.00 it had not been the Commission’s intent to reduce the rent to $675.00.

** MR. BERMUDEZ SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1479-02 – Sabia

Ms. Devitt stated that the tenant paid the landlord the June rent. She went on to state that since the Commission had voted to escrow the rent the July rent would be escrowed.

Case No. 1480-02 – Garcia

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1482-02 – Navarro

There was a hearing on this case this evening.

Case No. 1483-02 – Arevalo

There was a hearing on this case this evening.

Case No. 1484-02 – Castro

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1485-02 – Dorn

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1486-02 – Alfano

No action was taken at this time.

PRESENTATION OF NEW CASES

Decision to Hear or Recommendations to Staff

Motion and Vote on each Case Presented

Case No. 1487-02 – Moore

Mr. Patterson stated that the tenant had moved in November 2001 and now there was a $700 rent increase.

** MS. GENUARIO SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

HEARING CASE DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION

FOR CASES NO. 1482-02 AND 1483-02:

NAVARRO AND AREVALO VS. LAROSE

Mr. Booth stated that all the standards applied.

Findings – Ms. Navarro

1. There was no written lease, which was a major source of all the problems.
2. The addendum to the lease was ludicrous.
3. There was no written document as to who was responsible for any repairs.
4. There had been a breakdown in communication between the landlord and the tenant.
5. It was important to notify the landlord in writing and any agreements between the landlord and the tenant should be in writing.
6. Communication between the tenant and landlord should be via a phone call followed up with something written.
7. The move-in date for both parties was 1990 for Ms. Arevalo and 1994 for Ms. Navarro.
8. The landlord had not increased the rents until 2001.
9. The claim of the tenant that the rent had been increased after 6-8 months was incorrect and that had been the basis for the hearing. The tenant had made that statement because she had not received the original letter of the rent increase.
10. The only rent increases were sent in January 2001 and January 2002, effective February of both years.
11. Aside from the written lease every responsibility that the landlord was to incur must be spelled out for either party.
12. Not having a written lease had caused many problems and the Commission found that there was too much of a disparity between the responsibility that should be borne by the landlord and the responsibilities that should be borne by the tenant.
13. The responsibilities of the tenant and the landlord were not clearly defined.
14. The landlord provided paint when it is requested.
15. The replacement of the cover missing from the phone jack should be the responsibility of the tenant. Everything else listed on the inspection report should be the responsibility of the landlord unless there was a written agreement to the contrary.
16. The parties could say that once the landlord had made certain that the battery operated smoke alarms were operational the batteries could be provided by the tenant.
17. The tenant had to put her own smoke detector in the house.
18. The landlord should provide and maintain a smoke detector unless it was in writing.
19. The water stopped at night in the kitchen but the landlord said that this was City water and no one else on his properties has made a similar complaint.
20. A dishwasher was provided at the time of the tenant’s residency and it stopped working a year after she moved in.
21. The landlord had requested renter’s insurance since 1990 but it was invalid at this time. There was nothing else in writing that the tenants had agreed to provide renter’s insurance.
22. The landlord has not completed any repairs in either inspection report to the interiors of the units.
23. Brad and Chris LaRose were present at the meeting this evening and took over the management of the corporation somewhere between 1993-1994.
24. All repairs in Ms. Arevalo’s inspection report were the landlord’s responsibility.
25. The landlord stated that he did not complete any of the repairs in the inspection report because he wanted to come to the hearing and have the Commission determine who was responsible.
26. The landlord had raised a question of who were viable tenants in the house.
27. Ms. Navarro testified that the rent increase was not a problem and Ms. Arevalo had been paying her rent increase all along.
28. Ms. Navarro said that her concern was the short time span between the rent increases.
29. There was a heating problem in the house.
30. The dishwasher needed to be repaired or replaced by the landlord.
31. With regard to the late charge letter it was determined that the law required nine days grace period before any late charges could be imposed.
32. $1,225 for the rental of the house and $1,050 for the rental of the apartment were not unreasonable rents for those properties in good condition and with all the basic systems working, i.e. the dishwasher, washing machine, plumbing, heating and hot water.

DECISION

1. Repairs would be done as indicated on the investigator’s report.
2. Smoke detectors that were not hard wired would be hard wired.
3. All repairs listed in both inspection reports were to be completed by the landlord with the exception of the phone jack cover in Ms. Navarro’s report.
4. Once the landlord had ascertained that all smoke alarms were in working order the landlord may require that the tenant maintain them as long as such an agreement was in writing.
5. Priority repairs were heat, water and windows for Ms. Navarro and windows for Ms. Arevalo.
6. All repairs should be made in 30 days. Interior repairs include heat and finding the source of the water problem in the kitchen and the windows. However, the landlord had 60 days to repair the windows.
7. The tenant was responsible for cleaning the walls in the children’s bedroom and the landlord was responsible for replacing the cracked window.
8. The landlord had 60 days to make the window repairs in Ms. Arevalo’s apartment and 30 days for any other repairs.
9. There should be no late charges billed to Ms. Navarro after February 2002 and up to the time that the repairs had been completed.
10. There would be no escrow of rent at this time and the Commission would review the repairs that were to be made following the allowed 30-day period.

** MR. STUMPF SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

MOTION TO ADJOURN

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Ann Marie DeLuca

Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page