DHCR/Air Conditioning Response

[ELLENC123]

Thank you for your response regarding double billing of air conditioning. Please note that when under Mitchell Lama we received separate leases for our a/c charges. Now, the LL is not including the a/c charges in our base rent, but shown as a separate montly charge per a/c on our new lease.

However, please note below the response I received from DHCR. In particular, note the paragraph which states, as I read it, that our legal regulated rent will be raised if we challenge the double billing, and that is:

"For air conditioners installed before the base date, the charge under Mitchell-Lama, in your case, 1/12 of $220 (not exactly $20, the amount you cited) is added to the legal regulated rent (LRR), effective at the buyout, and the whole LRR increases with guidelines and other lawful increases."

This is DHCR's response in its entirety:

"As stated previously, the mechanism depends on whether the a/c was installed before or after the base date (the day before the buyout became effective). The way this should be handled does not involve any options for the owner or tenant (although, obviously, a tenant who is not, in the end, paying an overcharge, even if the owner is using an incorrect methodology, certainly does not have to file a complaint). It is to be handled according to the clear wording of Adv. Op. 91-2.

We leave calculation of any credits or debits to be worked out between owner and tenants. In this E-mail process, it is appropriate to state only general principles.

At the buyout, the system of annual a/c agreements, and thus the large payments around May each year, ends. No such large payments should be due in May, 2003.

For air conditioners installed before the base date, the charge under Mitchell-Lama, in your case, 1/12 of $220 (not exactly $20, the amount you cited) is added to the legal regulated rent (LRR), effective at the buyout, and the whole LRR increases with guidelines and other lawful increases.

For a/c's installed after the base date, no adjustment to the LRR is made, and the a/c Op. Bull. charge applies.

No one pays for the same a/c "double" - that is, under both mechanisms.

Thank you for visiting our website.
Rentinfo@dhcr.state.ny.us"

So, after all this, it looks to me like I am looking at an immediate $20 raise in my monthly base rent if I challenge the eight months of double billing and then end up paying the Rent Stabilization a/c charges in May of 2003.

So, if I am being wrongly pessimistic, please let me know.

[Cranky Tenant]

Originally posted by Woody:


At the buyout, the system of annual a/c agreements, and thus the large payments around May each year, ends. No such large payments should be due in May, 2003.

.

I

Your post really isn't too clear but, t seems DHCR's message says air conditioners are currently billed as a surcharge and the (former) air conditioner lease is no longer in effect.

<small>[ April 15, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Cranky Tenant ]</small>

[consigliere]

Woody, I wish you wouldn't keep starting new threads about the same topic. As it stands, only you and I understand the issue.
 
Does the $220 annual charge that DHCR mentions represent two air conditioners at $110 each?
 
If so, your legal regulated rent would increase by $18.33 per month ($220/12) for the two air conditioners. The landlord would not be allowed to bill an air conditioner electricity surcharge at the current DHCR rate for those same air conditioners on top of the $18.33 a month. Is this the double billing you're talking about?
 
If the landlord refuses to raise your rent for the air conditioner electricity charges at the Mitchell-Lama rate and bills you at the DHCR surcharge rate, you should still be able to file an overcharge complaint with DHCR, or sue in small claims court, or counterclaim in housing court.
 
The overcharge would be even more blatant if the landlord raised your rent by $18.33 per month and also billed you for an air conditioner electricity surcharge at the current DHCR rate.