|
|
|
|
FAIR
RENT COMMISSION
|
Click
here for Minutes from meeting on February 7, 2002
Click
here for Minutes from meeting on April 3, 2002
Click here for Minutes from meeting on May 1, 2002
May 15, 2002
ATTENDANCE: Richard Booth, Chairman; Martin Bernard, Vice
Chairman; Michael Murphy, Jon Nathanson, Norman Roberts
STAFF: Sonja M. Devitt, Director
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:46 p.m.
HEARING CASE DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION FOR CASE NO. 1478-02 AND 1480-2: SILVIA HERNANDEZ AND DURCILIA GARCIA VS. SARA HURTADO C/O CMA, INC.
Ms. Devit reviewed the thirty-six findings from the May 1, 2002, initial meeting on the cases.
Mr. Bernard stated that Finding 8 should indicate difficult in communicating not inability. Mr. Roberts noted that there were many of the findings that indicated communication due to language barriers was a major problem. Mr. Booth suggested going in order and noted the ones that had questionable information.
Finding 1 No comment
Finding 2 It was noted that the management company would only respond to an emergency
Finding 3 No comment
Finding 4 It would be more correct to say that the tenants communicated with the landlord in Florida when a problem arose
Finding 5 The direct communication of the tenant with the landlord directly complicates the job of the management company
Finding 6 No comment
Finding 7 This should note tenant Hernandez as sole signer of the lease
Finding 8
and 9 These two will be combined with other communication findings
Finding 10 The management company did send a copy of their contract to Ms. Devitt.
Finding 11 The communications involved third parties and this item will be combined with the other communication notations.
Finding 12 Mr. Bernard suggested combining #12 and #36 regarding repair costs of $300 due from tenant Hernandez for repairs.
Finding 13 Management has not collected late fees.
Finding 14 No comment. Combine with #2.
Ms. Devitt will develop a finding regarding the dog feces in the apartment and the basement and the torn carpet that the tenant claimed was destroyed by the owner’s dog. The stories are conflicting about the condition within apartments when the tenants moved in. However, there are signed statements from the tenant and management company, CMA, that the apartments were in good working order in March of 1996
Finding 15 Ms. Devitt will clarify the inspection of the unit by Section 8 according to CMA’s comments.
Finding 16 A notation that the tenant claimed she did not understand will be made.
Finding 17&
Finding 18 The two will be combined.
Finding 19 This applied to Hernandez only but there was no written indication
of a lower rent.
Finding 20 Ms. Devitt will rewrite this finding to express the lack of shoveling
and mowing of the lawn
Finding 21& The two will be reversed.
Finding 22& Ms. Devitt will delete portions of #22 and reword the finding.
Finding 23
A separate finding will be developed regarding the debris in the yard. It will be noted that the landlord came from Florida to the property.
Finding 24, Will all be reworked to flow in the time sequence of events
25, 26, 27, 31.
Finding 29 No comment.
Finding 30 Discrepancy among the letters exchanged needs to be explained. The letters do not seem to be authentic.
Finding 31 Detailed discussion ensued about the two falls because of the stairs. The first fall was in November. The second fall was some eight weeks later. Both stairs were repaired.
Finding 32 Mr. Booth requested an explanation of the repairs. This item will be coupled with #12. The term satisfactory will replace not professional.
Finding 33 No comment.
Finding 34 This will be coupled with #4.
Finding 35 No comment regarding cost except cost estimate by CMA. Ms. Devitt will reword the finding to will indicate that CMA gave no details of what was involved in the cost estimate.
Finding 36 To be coupled with #12.
Mr. Booth commented that he worked with one of the management employees and had he known earlier he would have excused himself from this case entirely.
DECISIONS
Mr. Roberts commented that there seems to be no retaliation after reviewing all the information.
The repairs sited in the Fair Rent Inspection Report or in Findings should be made within sixty days and borne by the landlord.
Mr. Roberts said that the amount of rent, repairs and who bears the cost of those repairs are at issue. It appears that the landlord will be putting out a large amount of money in repairs for her property.
Mr. Booth felt the first increase should be held until the repairs are made if not the full six months. Mr. Nathanson commented that the tenants received a low rent and since the landlord has to pay for the repairs that they may have caused, they should pay the higher rent.
It was debated that the landlord should not be held responsible for all the repairs. The tenants should pay fair market value once it is completed. Paying $800 now and then step up to $1,000 when it is at satisfactory condition. The findings by the Health Department and the Fair Rent Commission have and will cost the landlord and the rent increase is sensible.
Ms. Devitt read portions of the lease agreement that could not necessarily be the fault of the tenant for the condition they have been found to be in this case. She ask whether the tenants should pay the first $100 of repairs required by the Fair Rent Commission. Mr. Murray stated that the idea is to get the property back on track.
Ms. Devitt suggested that both the landlord and tenant agree to the maintenance of the property upon completion. Mr. Roberts noted that a finding stating that an the addendum to lease as written contains many items favorable to the landlord that have questionable enforceability. Then the Commission could recommend that any new lease with these parties carry only the standard agreement language.
Ms. Devitt pointed out that neither the landlord or CMA is doing what they should. It was repeated that CMA is not the landlord and, therefore, they are not at fault. Currently they pay $625. The additional increase on June 1st to $800 is not unfair if the increase of $125 only is escrowed while the repairs are put into place. Then 60 days after completion of the repairs and inspection by the Fair Rent Commission increase the rent to $850. If the repairs are not completed by August 1st, then the increase will be escrowed as well.
The April and May increase to $1,000 is unacceptable.
** MR. BERNARD MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
FAIR RENT COMMISSION TO SIGN THE FINDINGS AND DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION IF IT HIS OPINION THAT IT IS THE GENERAL WILL OF THIS COMMISSION.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alvina L. Richardson Decker
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |