Monthly Index | Met Council Index | TenantNet Home
Proposed Changes by DHCR to Rent Stabilization Code
Overcharges and Extra Charges
DHCR will not only force through the “four-year statute of limitations” on overcharge cases (which is the subject of pending court decisions), it is further proposing that new tenants in recently deregulated units be given only 90 days in which to file an overcharge complaint. The DHCR knows very well that it often takes years for tenants to discover such overcharges. Landlords will be able to make “surcharges” on virtually anything they want, (gas, electricity, cable and Internet installation, washing machines, etc.) without any regulation.
In overcharge cases, the legal rent will no longer be determined by the rent registered with the DHCR, but by the “record” given by the landlord at the proceeding. That means whatever number the landlord can get away with lying about at the time.
Landlords will be allowed to charge as many 20% vacancy increases in a year as they can get away with. Rent Stabilization Code currently forbids landlords from charging more than one vacancy increase within a given Rent Guidelines Board annual cycle. This means that in cases where a tenant is evicted or leaves “mid-lease,” the landlord can only charge the incoming tenant a vacancy increase, and not subsequent tenants within the same year). DHCR is proposing that there be no limit on the number of vacancy increases a landlord can collect in a one-year period. This is an open invitation for landlords to commit fraud, rent-gouge and evict tenants. Eviction
DHCR will make it easier for tenants to be evicted for the landlord’s “personal use,” extending this to include the in-laws of landlords. “Personal use” cases (under the current definition, which includes all of a landlord’s extended “blood” relations) are already being used fraudulently, resulting in landlords not only evicting individual tenants but whole buildings.
Eviction based on “non-primary residence” will be made easier. The proposed changes suggest that a driver’s license and registration be the main indicator of a person’s primary residence (over the current larger body of evidence used, such as voting records, tax records, insurance policies, time spent in the apartment, etc.). Additionally, it is proposed that legal subleases be used to indicate “non-primary residence.” Non-primary residency cases are already used as a tool of harassment by landlords looking to displace long-term tenants.
MCIs
DHCR will now require tenants to hire engineers or architects to refute a landlord’s fraudulent Major Capital Improvement charges. DHCR will require the same for tenants who try to file for decreases in rent due to violations in the apartment or building. Both of these are areas for which DHCR is responsible. DHCR is trying to wiggle out of its mission, while simultaneously giving a fair shake to only those tenants who can afford it.
Landlords will be allowed to file MCI applications without providing full proof and records relating to the MCI. DHCR will no longer be required to send the full copy of the landlord’s application to affected tenants. In reality they have been neglectful on this for a long time (in violation of their own regulations).
Services/Repairs
Landlords will be able to collect rent increases even when they do not provide basic services to tenants.
Landlords will be given more leeway in fraudulently accusing tenants of non-access to apartments in repair proceedings. This means they will further avoid rent reductions when they violate the law. In instances where tenants do actually succeed in getting a rent reduction in these proceedings, the landlord will no longer be required to certify maintenance of these conditions, once the rent has been “restored.”