MCI Rent Hikes Granted for Paving Parking Lot

September 30, 2006

LVT Number: 19177

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on paving a driveway and parking lot. Tenants objected, claiming that landlord could have done repairs instead of major capital improvement work. They also questioned whether the useful life of the old pavement had expired. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. Landlord was entitled to MCI rent hikes for the complete resurfacing of the driveway and parking lot. Landlord submitted sufficient proof of the cost of the work. Landlord claimed that prior repaving took place 43 years ago. Tenants claimed it was only 12 years earlier.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on paving a driveway and parking lot. Tenants objected, claiming that landlord could have done repairs instead of major capital improvement work. They also questioned whether the useful life of the old pavement had expired. The DRA ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed and lost. Landlord was entitled to MCI rent hikes for the complete resurfacing of the driveway and parking lot. Landlord submitted sufficient proof of the cost of the work. Landlord claimed that prior repaving took place 43 years ago. Tenants claimed it was only 12 years earlier. Even if tenants were correct, landlord was entitled to the MCI rent hike. The useful live of resurfacing was 10 years.

Garrett: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. UC910037RT 8/10/06 [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

UC910037RT.pdf227.84 KB

Topics

More like this