Landlord Closed Off Compactor Chute

LVT Number: #23734

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services, claiming that the compactor chute was inoperative. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the compactor chute and machine were in working order. But landlord had removed the chute door knobs, and the chute was no longer in use. Landlord claimed that he did this to comply with Housing Maintenance Code (HMC) requirements for storage and removal of waste and to control vermin.

Tenants complained of a reduction in building-wide services, claiming that the compactor chute was inoperative. The DRA ruled for tenants and reduced their rents. Landlord appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the compactor chute and machine were in working order. But landlord had removed the chute door knobs, and the chute was no longer in use. Landlord claimed that he did this to comply with Housing Maintenance Code (HMC) requirements for storage and removal of waste and to control vermin. Tenants disposed of their household trash by placing the trash in four garbage cans located in a small room on the first floor. But even if the HMC didn't require the use of a compactor in a multiple dwelling, the chute system was a required building-wide service under rent stabilization.

Thompson: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZA210031RO (9/16/11) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ZA210031RO.pdf91.33 KB