Hi, I just found the rental history on my apt from DHCR. The landlord more than doubled the rent on this 1BR from about 400 to 950 around 1995. Rent is now 1600 and i believe above market rate.
Does anyone know the procedure for investigating and going about getting a rent decrease from DHCR??
How difficult it is, what you have to prove, length of time it takes etC?
___how do you get a rent decrease?
Moderator: TenantNet
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
___how do you get a rent decrease?
by brooklyngal » Mon Jan 13, 2003 1:28 am
- brooklyngal
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:01 am
Re: ___how do you get a rent decrease?
by MikeW » Mon Jan 13, 2003 1:10 pm
The biggest issue I think you'll have to deal with, and in this case may preclude you from getting the reduction, is that the alledged overcharge went into place eight years ago. I believe, in the recent DHRC code changes, they put into place a rule that overcharge complaints have to be made within four years of the overcharge occurring.
The other issue is that the increase may be legitimate (the result of a renovation).
The rent's relation to market rate is irrelevent to the regulatory issues. However, if you can convince the LL of that fact, you MIGHT be able to use it as leverage in your next lease renewal. Then again, if you don't want to pay the regulated rent he claims (and don't prevail in your prospective overcharge complaint), the LL may be more than happy to take the apt back, renovate it (again, maybe) and get if off regulation.
The other issue is that the increase may be legitimate (the result of a renovation).
The rent's relation to market rate is irrelevent to the regulatory issues. However, if you can convince the LL of that fact, you MIGHT be able to use it as leverage in your next lease renewal. Then again, if you don't want to pay the regulated rent he claims (and don't prevail in your prospective overcharge complaint), the LL may be more than happy to take the apt back, renovate it (again, maybe) and get if off regulation.
- MikeW
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: New York, NY
Re: ___how do you get a rent decrease?
by brooklyngal » Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:14 am
"....overcharge complaints have to be made within four years of the overcharge occurring."
i too, read that sunday nytimes article and don't understand that overcharge rule. if the rent was raised illegally, the overcharge is still occuring according. Right?
i too, read that sunday nytimes article and don't understand that overcharge rule. if the rent was raised illegally, the overcharge is still occuring according. Right?
- brooklyngal
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:01 am
Re: ___how do you get a rent decrease?
by brooklyngal » Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:29 am
RENT-STABILIZED LANDLORDS CAN CHARGE AS MUCH AS THEY WANT.
Found out today by doing a search on tenant.net my LL was convicted of overcharging the tenant in apt B1 in my building. I live in A1.
From reading the docket, I've determined that landlords can raise the rents on rent-stabilized apartments ***AS MUCH AS THEY WANT*** as long as the tenant doesn't investigate and complain.
The burden of proof is on YOU, the tenant. DHCR IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING **ANY** SORT OF INVESTIGATION as to why the rent may go up 100% vs 2 or 20% in a year. They just record the numbers, the landlord gives them.
--------
EL XXXXXX-RO STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION GERTZ PLAZA 92-31 UNION HALL STREET JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433 ----------------------------------X IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SJR XXXXX (DEEMED DENIAL) APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX AND COMPANY, DRO DOCKET NO.: CB 210031-R TENANT: XXXXXX PETITIONER ----------------------------------X ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART On December 10, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on November 5, 1990 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment B1 at XXXX XXXX Avenue, Brooklyn, New York wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a Petition in the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules requesting that the "deemed denial" of its Petition for Administrative Review be annulled. The proceeding was remitted to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), and the owner's petition is herein decided on the merits. The issue in this appeal is whether the District Rent Administrator's order was warranted. The applicable sections of the Law are Section 26-516 of the Rent Stabilization Law and Sections 2522.4(a) and 2526.1(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code. The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal. This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing in February, 1988 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant, in which he stated that he had commenced occupancy on May 15, 1987 at a rent of $750.00 per month. The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and was requested to submit rent records to prove the lawfulness of the rent being charged. In answer to the complaint, the owner submitted an initial apartment registration prepared December 5, EL XXXXXX 1986, which stated that the April 1, 1984 rent had been $332.17 but that the lawful rent was $850.00 effective December 19, 1986 because of "totally renovated apartment"; and a lease commencing December 19, 1986 at a rent of $850.00. On August 8, 1990 and September 6, 1990 the owner was requested to submit the initial registration, proof of service of that registration, leases from April 1, 1984, a docket number or copy of the claimed Major Capital Improvement order, and copies of cancelled checks and bills for improvements for which a rent increase of 1/40th of the cost was claimed. In reply the owner maintained that the registration prepared December 5, 1986, was the initial registration, and submitted proof of service of that registration on December 27, 1986, a rental history only from December 19, 1986, and a copy of an M.C.I. order granting an increase of $1.69 per month per room, effective September 1, 1986. Upon being sent a second Final Notice proposing the imposition of treble damages because of a failure to submit leases from April 1, 1984 along with an RR-1 form and proof of service, the owner by letter of November 16, 1990 submitted the same materials as before; claimed that it had to submit a rental history only from 1986 and that treble damages would not be warranted where the DHCR denied an increase charged in good faith by an owner based upon improvements; and stated that "[a]lthough not requested in the two Final Notices, the owner has, upon information and belief, submitted documentation to prove that the apartment was totally renovated." The file of the proceeding before the Administrator does not contain any such documentation. In an order issued on November 5, 1990 the Administrator, applying only Guidelines increases beginning December 19, 1986 to the registered April 1, 1984 rent of $294.25, determined an overcharge of $11,228.84 from May 15, 1987 to February 14, 1988, including treble damages. In this petition the owner contends in substance that it expended enough on renovations ($19,500.00) and new appliances ($1,690.20) during a vacancy to warrant the rent charged; that the DHCR has allowed a 1/40th increase for nearly identical improvements in another case; that a rent increase of $6.76 should be allowed because of a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) order; that treble damages should not be imposed if the owner was mistaken about its entitlement to a 1/40th increase; that the Administrator's order does not indicate that the evidence was considered; that the legal regulated rent for the purpose of calculating overcharges is the rent in the initial registration filed in December, 1986; and that the tenant did not challenge either the 1984 or 1986 initial registrations within 90 days. With its petition the owner has enclosed a proposal and cancelled checks for $19,500.00 in renovation work, and paid invoices for $1,690.20 for new equipment and new kitchen cabinets. The tenant did not submit an answer to the owner's petition, although given an opportunity to do so. The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be granted in part. It is well-settled that, absent good cause being shown, an Administrative Review is not a de novo proceeding but is limited EL 210405-RO to the issues and evidence which were before the Administrator. On August 8 and September 6, 1990 the owner was asked to submit evidence regarding improvements and new equipment, but rather than comply with the request by submitting the proposal, invoices and cancelled checks the owner just stated (equivocally) that it had "upon information and belief" previously submitted them. Upon appeal the owner has not provided any evidence that the documents were previously submitted and has in fact not even contended that they were. It has simply submitted them. Because the owner has not offered any justification for the late submission of the documents, they are not accepted for the first time on appeal. The owner did give the Administrator a copy of an M.C.I. order. The effect of that order is reflected in the amended rent calculation chart attached hereto and made a part hereof. That increase is the only lawful increase above the April 1, 1984 rent until December 19, 1986 as the owner did not, in the proceeding before the Administrator, submit any evidence of a right to charge any other increases prior to the December, 1986 vacancy lease. Regarding the owner's contention that treble damages should not be imposed, the Commissioner finds the Administrator to have been warranted in deciding that the owner had not shown that the overcharges were not willful. Regarding the owner's contention that the December 19, 1986 rent of $850.00 is the initial legal regulated rent, the Commissioner does not consider the 1986 registration to be the initial registration since the renovations did not create a new apartment that did not previously exist (such as, for example, by changing its exterior dimensions). The owner is cautioned to adjust the rent, in leases after those considered herein, to amounts no greater than that determined by this order plus any lawful increases, and to register any adjusted rents with this order being given as the reason for the adjustment. Because of the possibility that the tenant herein may have vacated by the time that this determination is issued, a copy of this determination s being mailed to the tenant-in- occupancy. This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the owner may institute a proceedi g pursuant to Article seventy- eight of the civil practice law and rules, be filed and enforced by the tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty percent thereof per month may be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner. THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in part and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion. The lawful stabilization rents and the amount of overcharge are established on the attached chart, which is fully made a part of this order. The total overcharge, including excess security of EL 210405-RO $393.35, is $11,013.80 as of February 14, 1988. ISSUED: ------------------------ ELLIOT SANDER Deputy Commissioner
Found out today by doing a search on tenant.net my LL was convicted of overcharging the tenant in apt B1 in my building. I live in A1.
From reading the docket, I've determined that landlords can raise the rents on rent-stabilized apartments ***AS MUCH AS THEY WANT*** as long as the tenant doesn't investigate and complain.
The burden of proof is on YOU, the tenant. DHCR IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING **ANY** SORT OF INVESTIGATION as to why the rent may go up 100% vs 2 or 20% in a year. They just record the numbers, the landlord gives them.
--------
EL XXXXXX-RO STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION GERTZ PLAZA 92-31 UNION HALL STREET JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433 ----------------------------------X IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SJR XXXXX (DEEMED DENIAL) APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX AND COMPANY, DRO DOCKET NO.: CB 210031-R TENANT: XXXXXX PETITIONER ----------------------------------X ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART On December 10, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on November 5, 1990 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment B1 at XXXX XXXX Avenue, Brooklyn, New York wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner had overcharged the tenant. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a Petition in the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules requesting that the "deemed denial" of its Petition for Administrative Review be annulled. The proceeding was remitted to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), and the owner's petition is herein decided on the merits. The issue in this appeal is whether the District Rent Administrator's order was warranted. The applicable sections of the Law are Section 26-516 of the Rent Stabilization Law and Sections 2522.4(a) and 2526.1(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code. The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal. This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing in February, 1988 of a rent overcharge complaint by the tenant, in which he stated that he had commenced occupancy on May 15, 1987 at a rent of $750.00 per month. The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and was requested to submit rent records to prove the lawfulness of the rent being charged. In answer to the complaint, the owner submitted an initial apartment registration prepared December 5, EL XXXXXX 1986, which stated that the April 1, 1984 rent had been $332.17 but that the lawful rent was $850.00 effective December 19, 1986 because of "totally renovated apartment"; and a lease commencing December 19, 1986 at a rent of $850.00. On August 8, 1990 and September 6, 1990 the owner was requested to submit the initial registration, proof of service of that registration, leases from April 1, 1984, a docket number or copy of the claimed Major Capital Improvement order, and copies of cancelled checks and bills for improvements for which a rent increase of 1/40th of the cost was claimed. In reply the owner maintained that the registration prepared December 5, 1986, was the initial registration, and submitted proof of service of that registration on December 27, 1986, a rental history only from December 19, 1986, and a copy of an M.C.I. order granting an increase of $1.69 per month per room, effective September 1, 1986. Upon being sent a second Final Notice proposing the imposition of treble damages because of a failure to submit leases from April 1, 1984 along with an RR-1 form and proof of service, the owner by letter of November 16, 1990 submitted the same materials as before; claimed that it had to submit a rental history only from 1986 and that treble damages would not be warranted where the DHCR denied an increase charged in good faith by an owner based upon improvements; and stated that "[a]lthough not requested in the two Final Notices, the owner has, upon information and belief, submitted documentation to prove that the apartment was totally renovated." The file of the proceeding before the Administrator does not contain any such documentation. In an order issued on November 5, 1990 the Administrator, applying only Guidelines increases beginning December 19, 1986 to the registered April 1, 1984 rent of $294.25, determined an overcharge of $11,228.84 from May 15, 1987 to February 14, 1988, including treble damages. In this petition the owner contends in substance that it expended enough on renovations ($19,500.00) and new appliances ($1,690.20) during a vacancy to warrant the rent charged; that the DHCR has allowed a 1/40th increase for nearly identical improvements in another case; that a rent increase of $6.76 should be allowed because of a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) order; that treble damages should not be imposed if the owner was mistaken about its entitlement to a 1/40th increase; that the Administrator's order does not indicate that the evidence was considered; that the legal regulated rent for the purpose of calculating overcharges is the rent in the initial registration filed in December, 1986; and that the tenant did not challenge either the 1984 or 1986 initial registrations within 90 days. With its petition the owner has enclosed a proposal and cancelled checks for $19,500.00 in renovation work, and paid invoices for $1,690.20 for new equipment and new kitchen cabinets. The tenant did not submit an answer to the owner's petition, although given an opportunity to do so. The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be granted in part. It is well-settled that, absent good cause being shown, an Administrative Review is not a de novo proceeding but is limited EL 210405-RO to the issues and evidence which were before the Administrator. On August 8 and September 6, 1990 the owner was asked to submit evidence regarding improvements and new equipment, but rather than comply with the request by submitting the proposal, invoices and cancelled checks the owner just stated (equivocally) that it had "upon information and belief" previously submitted them. Upon appeal the owner has not provided any evidence that the documents were previously submitted and has in fact not even contended that they were. It has simply submitted them. Because the owner has not offered any justification for the late submission of the documents, they are not accepted for the first time on appeal. The owner did give the Administrator a copy of an M.C.I. order. The effect of that order is reflected in the amended rent calculation chart attached hereto and made a part hereof. That increase is the only lawful increase above the April 1, 1984 rent until December 19, 1986 as the owner did not, in the proceeding before the Administrator, submit any evidence of a right to charge any other increases prior to the December, 1986 vacancy lease. Regarding the owner's contention that treble damages should not be imposed, the Commissioner finds the Administrator to have been warranted in deciding that the owner had not shown that the overcharges were not willful. Regarding the owner's contention that the December 19, 1986 rent of $850.00 is the initial legal regulated rent, the Commissioner does not consider the 1986 registration to be the initial registration since the renovations did not create a new apartment that did not previously exist (such as, for example, by changing its exterior dimensions). The owner is cautioned to adjust the rent, in leases after those considered herein, to amounts no greater than that determined by this order plus any lawful increases, and to register any adjusted rents with this order being given as the reason for the adjustment. Because of the possibility that the tenant herein may have vacated by the time that this determination is issued, a copy of this determination s being mailed to the tenant-in- occupancy. This order may, upon the expiration of the period in which the owner may institute a proceedi g pursuant to Article seventy- eight of the civil practice law and rules, be filed and enforced by the tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not in excess of twenty percent thereof per month may be offset against any rent thereafter due the owner. THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in part and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion. The lawful stabilization rents and the amount of overcharge are established on the attached chart, which is fully made a part of this order. The total overcharge, including excess security of EL 210405-RO $393.35, is $11,013.80 as of February 14, 1988. ISSUED: ------------------------ ELLIOT SANDER Deputy Commissioner
- brooklyngal
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:01 am
Re: ___how do you get a rent decrease?
by HAJ77 » Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:30 am
You got it right. That's why anyone in a regulated apartment should do a little research to find out what the legal rent is and if it's wrong file a complaint with DHCR or hire an attorney. I'd suggest hiring an attorney, if this is a pattern of behavior the court will be more inclined to believe you and punish the LL.
- HAJ77
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: NYC
Re: ___how do you get a rent decrease?
by jot0n0 » Wed Jan 15, 2003 11:31 am
Two reasons come to mind for the large jump in rent, (1)-Renovation or improvements to the apt, (2) apt re-classification from rent control to rent stabilzied. More research is required before confronting the LL and in all likelyhood you would be labeled as an "undersirable" tenant and LL may be less responsive to furture problems. It's not like the LL changed the rent after you signed the lease, you knew going in what the rent will be and accepted it.
- jot0n0
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: NYC
Re: ___how do you get a rent decrease?
by MikeW » Wed Jan 15, 2003 4:01 pm
Meredith,
Reread the NYT article. The statute of limitiations is from when the overcharge first occurred.
NYT Article on DHRC issues
And I'll even quote the relevent section:
<small>[ January 15, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: MikeW ]</small>
Reread the NYT article. The statute of limitiations is from when the overcharge first occurred.
NYT Article on DHRC issues
And I'll even quote the relevent section:
Under the 1997 change in the law, Mr. Ng said, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal will go back only four years to establish a starting point for determining the current allowable rent for a rent-stabilized apartment. So, for example, if a tenant rented an apartment on Feb. 1, 2000, and then filed an overcharge complaint on Jan. 31, 2003, the division will go back to the beginning of the tenancy to calculate the overcharge up to the present time. On the other hand, if a tenant rented an apartment for more than the legal rent on Feb. 1, 1999, but the tenant did not discover the overcharge or file a complaint until Feb. 2, 2003, and all increases since then have been legal, the tenant probably will not be able to recover anything.
<small>[ January 15, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: MikeW ]</small>
- MikeW
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: New York, NY
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to NYC Rent Regulated Apartments
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 240 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group