Minutes from MAY 1, 2002

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Booth called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 2002

The following corrections were made to the minutes:

Page 1, Call To Order: Delete the name "Mr. Bernard" and insert the name "Mr. Booth".

Page 9, Last Line: Delete Case Number "1457-01" and insert Case Number "1459-01".

Page 15, Finding #5 should read: "The landlord did not provide paint to all the tenants on a uniform basis". Finding #9: Replace the phrase "…he did not respond" with the phrase "…the landlord did not respond".

Page 16, Finding #25: Replace the word "floor" with the word "ceiling".

** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Mr. Booth stated that sometimes when the Commission was speaking with tenants and landlords they would offer the excuse that the house in question was very old and that was the reason it was not in the appropriate condition. He went on to state that there was an article in the newspaper that mentioned there were 30 houses in Norwalk over 100 years and almost all those houses were in perfect condition. Mr. Booth felt that the Commission could reference the article to landlords and tenants when the situation warranted.

Mr. Booth said that he had been asked to participate in a panel discussion on May 17^th or 18^th regarding increased rentals in Norwalk. He noted that this discussion would be taped.

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Ms. Devitt had distributed the written report to the Commissioners. She explained that with the hearing taking place this evening the statistical report had not been completed yet. She remarked that there were 2 new complaints since April 3^rd.

Ms. Devitt informed the Commissioners that Art Scialabba’s wife was in the hospital with terminal colon cancer and she said that she would keep the Commissioners apprised of Mrs. Scialabba’s condition.

Ms. Devitt stated that on April 17^th she spoke to the Exchange Club about what the Fair Rent Commission office did. She remarked that there were a number of people who did not know of the Fair Rent Commission and many of her cards were handed out that evening.

Ms. Devitt said that on April 24^th she had shared leadership for a landlord/tenant seminar sponsored by the Fair Housing Advisory Commission for Fair Housing Month. She also mentioned that on April 29^th she participated in a Weed and Seed community meeting. She said that she would continue to be involved in this program. Ms. Devitt said that a Grant had been received and Weed and Seed selected Lexington Avenue to offer residents assistance in renovating their homes. She explained that one of the Grant requirements for receiving the funds was for the residents to participate in the landlord/tenant training. Ms. Devitt said that the sessions would be on the 11^th and 18^th of June and that one would be in English and the other in Spanish. She commented that at the request of the Police Department training would be done for officers and it would cover some of the most common issues that the police were called for landlord/tenant matters. She added that the officers would also be able to ask questions and/or relay instances that they had experienced. She said that it would be required training for the community police.

Mr. Booth called the Hearing to order at 7:40 p.m.

HEARING CASES NOS. 1478-02 AND 1480-02:

SILVIA HERNANDEZ AND DURCILIA GARCIA VS.

SARA HURTADO C/O CMA, INC.

Mr. Booth stated the protocol of the hearing to the assembly and then asked that all parties who were going to be giving testimony to stand and be sworn in. Due to the fact that both tenants only spoke Spanish, Ms. Alarcon was present as their interpreter for the evening.

Next, Ms. Devitt entered the exhibits into the record.

It was determined that CMA, Inc. was the agent on the lease and was authorized to represent the owner of the building. Mr. Booth asked if the management company’s authority extended to repairs and Mr. Fedak replied that it did up to a $500 maximum and that the contract gave CMA, Inc. the authority to act on behalf of the owner.

Mr. Booth asked Ms. Hernandez if there was anything else she wanted to verbally add to the written documents. Ms. Hernandez stated that they did not have a lawn mower to cut the grass and it would cost them $40 to hire someone to do it. She added that CMA did not mow the lawn and that there were some repairs that had not been done. Ms. Garcia interjected that the repairs had not been completed. Mr. Fedak said that he had no questions of the tenants. He explained that his company managed the property for the landlord. He stated that the landlord had taken a position in Florida and was a woman of modest means. He remarked that the premises were clean and neat and the rent had been discounted because the tenants were supposed to maintain the outside of the property.

Ms. Rizzi commented on Mr. Patterson’s written report. She noted that all of the items in question had been in good working condition when the tenants took residence in the apartments.

Mr. Simms asked the CMA agents if their fee to the landlord would be higher if they conducted monthly inspections. Mr. Fedak replied that it would be more and the landlord would have to pay them on an hourly basis. He explained that the usual fee was a percentage of the rents, which in this case equaled $116.56 a month. Mr. Simms asked if any of the CMA personnel spoke Spanish and Mr. Fedak replied that the maintenance people did but no one on the administrative staff spoke Spanish.

Mr. Bermudez asked for the history of the rent increase and Ms. Rizzi replied that after the owner was physically on the premises and inspected the site she said that the rent would be increased. Ms. Rizzi added that Ms. Garcia allegedly fell two weeks later on the steps and filed a claim to collect from the landlord. She remarked that at that time Ms. Garcia had called the Health Department. Mr. Booth asked if someone had inspected the steps and Ms. Rizzi replied that the tenant had called the landlord and the landlord called the agency. Ms. Rizzi said that her office sent someone to look at the steps and the report indicated that there was a crack on the steps and it was repaired.

Mr. Booth remarked that the lease made the plumbing repairs the responsibility of the tenant. Mr. Kinahan replied that the tenant probably flushed something down the toilet and he noted that the plumber had reported this to them. Ms. Rizzi explained the charges that were billed to the tenant and commented that Mr. Hernandez had refused to pay any of the repair bills. She noted that the landlord had instructed them to deduct the unpaid repair charges from the tenant’s security deposit. Ms. Rizzi pointed out to the Commission that she had processed a rental history on each tenant because of the discrepancies involved with the allegations of how the landlord had raised the rents.

Mr. Booth remarked that the additional $200 increase could possibly be retaliation and Mr. Murray interjected that the Commission was questioning the authenticity of one of the statements that was included in the exhibits. Mr. Roberts commented that it seemed the agent’s file supported the changes that occurred in the rent and the agent’s account of the rental history was consistent and did not reflect retaliation. Mr. Booth commented that the letter stated that the increase in rent was related to the costs incurred by the repairs that had been requested by the Health Department. He noted that this would appear to be retaliation if the Health Department requirements were based on the landlord’s responsibility to keep the homes in reasonable living condition. Mr. Kinahan interjected that these were reimbursement of expenses that should not have occurred in the first place. Mr. Booth advised that normally a landlord would not increase the rent.

Ms. Devitt stated that she had reviewed the lease and she tried to ascertain where the lease indicated that the tenant was liable for the first $100 of any given repair. Mr. Patterson commented that the clause was in the rider to the lease. Mr. Murray asked if it would be considered retaliation if the increase in rent were made prior to the filing of the complaint with the Fair Rent Commission. Mr. Patterson pointed out that it would be retaliation to the Health Department orders.

Mr. Nathanson asked the tenants if they understood the language of the leases that they signed as well as all the provisions included in it. Both of the tenants responded that they had not. Mr. Nathanson asked the tenants why they signed the leases and the tenants replied that they had been told that they had to sign them.

Mr. Murray commented that the landlord had said that the house was in good condition when she left and the agent’s inspection reflected the same opinion. He asked who signed the leases and Mr. Fedak replied that Mr. Hernandez had signed one and Ms. Garcia had signed the other. Mr. Nathanson asked how often the agents spoke to the landlord and Ms. Rizzi replied that they would speak whenever it was required. Mr. Nathanson remarked that he felt one of the problems was that the tenants were calling the landlord directly. Mr. Fedak stated that the landlord would then call their office and give them instructions. Ms. Garcia stated that the landlord had asked her if the windows had been changed and she informed the landlord that they had not. Ms. Devitt asked Ms. Garcia if the second floor unit was in good condition when she moved in and Ms. Garcia replied that it was in the same condition that it had been in when the landlord lived there. Ms. Garcia explained how she had been living in the first floor apartment and then the landlord asked her if her daughter would like to move in when she moved out. Ms. Garcia said that she had been living in the house since 1994 and the landlord had asked her this because she was a good tenant. She noted that when the landlord moved out she moved into her apartment upstairs and her daughter moved into the first floor apartment.

Mr. Bernard asked who Abram Flores was and Ms. Hernandez replied that he was her uncle and he lived with her for 2 months. She added that the landlord had allowed this.

Mr. Patterson asked if there had been any language in the lease or the lease rider that had been written in Spanish and both tenants replied that there had not. Mr. Patterson asked if pets not being allowed in the apartments had always been the policy and both tenants replied that they had not been informed of this and because the landlord had a pet they assumed it was all right.

The Commission reviewed the financial statement with the management company agents and Ms. Rizzi gave a detailed explanation of the repairs that had been made and the services that her company had rendered.

Mr. Patterson commented that the management company had stated that they could not start on the Fair Rent Commission repairs without the landlord’s approval. Mr. Fedak remarked that the landlord had intended to start the repairs within the next 2 weeks. Mr. Patterson stated that the agents had given the landlord an estimated repair cost of $10,000 and Ms. Rizzi replied that was correct and she noted that the cost also included cabinetry. Mr. Patterson remarked that the repairs he had listed were not that extensive and he noted that the management company was also billing the landlord for their labor. He added that there was no breakdown of charges for the intended repairs.

Mr. Booth asked Mr. Fedak if he had a discussion with Mr. Hernandez regarding his outside maintenance responsibilities and Mr. Fedak replied that the landlord was supposed to speak with Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Fedak noted that Mr. Hernandez had been doing maintenance to the outside since they became the managing agents but the work he had done was not to their satisfaction. He reiterated that the landlord, who speaks Spanish, had spoken to Mr. Hernandez and that she speaks to him all the time.

Mr. Nathanson asked the agents if they understood the concept of 5 years of reasonable wear and tear. He also asked about the increase in rent. Ms. Rizzi interjected that was why they provided the payment history. The Commissioners reviewed the exhibits pertaining to the rent increases and the repair charges. Mr. Nathanson stated that if the Health Department imposed the repairs on the landlord it was the landlord’s responsibility to pay for them regardless of how the problems might have been caused. Ms. Rizzi remarked if the tenants had reported problems on a routine basis the disrepair would not have escalated.

Mr. Fedak commented that Mr. Hernandez, the tenant who had signed the lease and the only tenant involved who spoke English was not present for the Hearing this evening. Ms. Hernandez stated that he was working this evening and Mr. Fedak interjected that the proceedings tonight were important enough for him to be present. Mr. Nathanson commented that the landlord did have the right to a reasonable increase in rent.

Mr. Patterson asked Ms. Rizzi if the tenants were still being charged the new rental fee plus late charges for not paying them. Ms. Rizzi replied that until the Commission made a decision the charges would remain on the tenants’ accounts and would appear on their monthly statements. She added that both tenants were current with their rental payments.

A discussion was held regarding the issue of the tenant renting out the attic. Again, a discrepancy was cited as the tenant stated that this had been all right with the landlord and the agent stated that the landlord had not allowed this. It was also determined that the tenants listed on the leases and the tenants actually living in the apartments were not all the same. Also, Ms. Rizzi pointed out that the second floor had been at some time Section 8 approved which meant that a State annual inspection would have been performed.

Ms. Devitt explained to the tenants the importance of the landlord being kept apprised of all the occupants living in the apartments.

Mr. Booth closed the Hearing at 10:20 p.m.

RECESS

The Commission recessed at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:25 p.m.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF EACH OPEN CASE

Motion and Vote on Open Cases, as necessary

Case No. 1432-01 – Jhangiani

Case No. 1433-01 – Satram

Case No. 1434-01 – Orellana

Case No. 1435-01 – Orr

Case No. 1436-01 – Quadri

Case No. 1437-01 – Garcia

Case No. 1441-01– Trama

Case No. 1443-01 – Dobbs

Case No. 1444-01 – Hajela

Case No. 1445-01 – Perschy

** MR. ROBERTSON SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1454-01 – Olbrys

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1450-01 – Ortiz

Ms. Devitt stated that although the judge had not awarded double damages to the tenant the decision of the Commission was upheld to the penny. She noted that the landlord had remitted the first $350.

** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1457-01 – Smith

Mr. Patterson stated that all the repairs had been made and the tenant had vacated the premises.

** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1459-01 – Wright

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1460-01 – Guadian

Mr. Patterson stated that except in one instance all the necessary repairs had been completed. He added that he would be making the final inspection.

** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1461-01 – Gonzalez

Mr. Patterson stated that some repairs had been done and the landlord had moved into the apartment.

** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1463-01 – Garcia

Mr. Patterson stated that the property was sold and the tenant had moved in February.

** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

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. 1475-02 – Reyes

Mr. Patterson stated that most of the repairs had been completed and the property was sold on April 17^th.

** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1476-02 – Arriaza

** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1477-02 – Rodriguez

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1478-02 – Hernandez

A Hearing was held on this case tonight.

Case No. 1479-02 – Sabia

Ms. Devitt commented that the Commission’s Decision had been sent out on the 18^th of April and it stated that the work had to be done in 30 days. She went on to state that the June rent could be escrowed if the repairs were not completed in May.

** MR. ROBERTSON SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1480-02 – Garcia

A Hearing was held on this case tonight.

Case No. 1482-02 – Navarro

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1483-02 – Arevalo

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1484-02 – Castro

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. 1485-02 – Dorn

Ms. Devitt stated that there was no rent increase involved with this case. She explained that there was water damage due to an active leak in one closet from above. She went on to explain that there was an internal plumbing problem. Ms. Devitt stated that there were other issues and the tenant had approached the landlord for repairs and nothing was done. She noted that the tenant had to discard some clothing because of the water damage.

** MR. NATHANSON SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1486-02 – Alfano

Mr. Patterson stated that there were a handful of little repairs that needed to be done. He explained that the new owner had sent notification demanding a $100 increase in rent with only one-day notice. Mr. Patterson said that he had re-inspected and small minor repairs were needed. He informed the Commissioners that the Fair Rent Commission had not contacted the new owner, as the complaint had just been filed this morning.

** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

HEARING CASE DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION

FOR CASE NO. 1478-02 AND 1480-02:

SILVIA HERNANDEZ AND DURCILIA GARCIA VS.

SARA HURTADO C/O CMA, INC.

It was determined that all the Standards applied in this case.

FINDINGS

1. There was a communication problem between the tenants and the management agent due to a language barrier.
2. The management company stated that they would only inspect the property on an emergency basis.
3. The management company stated that they had no administrative personnel who spoke Spanish but they did have maintenance people who spoke the language.
4. The tenants communicate via telephone with permission of the landlord on a regular basis with the landlord in Florida whenever a problem arises, bypassing the management company.
5. The responsibility of the management of the apartments is complicated by the fact that the landlord allows the tenants to deal directly with her.
6. The landlord was not present at the hearing this evening. CMA represented that they have written authorization from the landlord to act.
7. The signer of the lease who was also the only tenant who spoke English was not present at the hearing this evening.
8. There was a conflict between the management company’s office manager and the two tenants in terms of their inability to communicate with each other.
9. Communication by all parties is hampered by the fact that it is in a triangle and also hampered by the fact that there is no Spanish speaking person to answer the tenants’ claim that they had called the management company a number of times without receiving a response.
10. The management company stated that they had a contract with the landlord and they would send a copy to the Fair Rent Commission.
11. There is confusion in conversation and third person communication, which is hearsay.
12. The tenant signed the lease, which stated that they would be responsible for the first $100 of repairs. Three repair calls had been made but the tenant refused to pay their portion of the bills for these calls. The tenant also stopped calling the management agency to report needed repairs. The amount owed for the repairs still appears on the rent statement each month. That has attributed to many of the repair problems.
13. The management company has not charged a late fee to the tenant.
14. The lack of a more structured inspection by the management company coupled with communication problems and the repair charges would seem objective to the environment that existed.
15. According to CMA, the upstairs tenant received the apartment within one year of a Section 8 inspection.
16. The tenant of Apartment #2 signed a lease that she did not understand.
17. Upon taking on the duties of managing the apartments, the management company felt that Apartment #1 was in good working condition.
18. There are signed statements from both the management company and the tenants that the apartments were in good working order.
19. The tenant agreed in the lease to mow the lawn in exchange for the use of the garage and a lower rent. The agreement extended to maintaining the exterior property.
20. No lawn mower or snow shovel was ever provided to the tenant.
21. The tenant had been accumulating debris in the basement and yard. The management company cleaned out the basement in 1999 and the tenant cleaned it up in 2002.
22. There was a discrepancy in the testimony of the management and tenants with regard to the tenants having use of the basement and attic areas. The tenants claimed that the landlord had allowed this and that they could store their suitcases in the basement. The management company stated that the landlord expressly prohibited the use of those two areas.
23. The management company sent a letter to the tenants on December 28, 2001, regarding the condition of the units and directing the tenants to clean up the premises.
24. The tenants called the Health Department to inspect the premises.
25. Ms. Garcia went to the Police Department to make a complaint and they referred her to the Health Department.
26. The Health Department inspector issued a notice of violations on January 16, 2002 and all repairs were made to satisfaction by March 6, 2002.
27. The management company stated that they were prepared to begin work on the repairs cited by the Fair Rent Commission inspection.
28. There was no lease in force at the present time.
29. There is a letter on the management company’s stationery that after the inspection by the Health Department occurred the rent would have to be raised an additional $200.
30. There was a questionable letter submitted for exhibit by the tenant.
31. Ms. Garcia stated that she had fallen twice on the stairs and that there was a broken stair. The management agency did send someone to make the repairs.
32. The repairs done by the tenants had not been done in a professional manner and had not been overseen by the landlord.
33. Both tenants at one time or another had persons living with them that were not authorized by the lease.
34. The landlord’s out of State residence and lack of involvement in the property lends itself to mismanagement and lends to the increase cost of managing and maintaining the property.
35. The management company stated that it would cost $10,000 to make the repairs cited by the Fair Rent Commission inspection, which seemed excessive to the Commissioners.
36. There was $300 being billed to the tenant, which they never paid.

ORDERS

1. The cost for all repairs listed in the Findings should be borne by the management company and the landlord.

Mr. Simms stated that due to the lateness of the hour and his schedule he would have to excuse himself from the meeting. Mr. Booth decided that it would be prudent to adjourn the meeting at this time and reconvene next week.

MOTION TO ADJOURN

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. Ms. Devitt stated that she would forward the Findings stated this evening to the Commissioners for their review before the meeting reconvened on either May 8^th or May 15^th.

Respectfully submitted,

Ann Marie DeLuca

Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page