No 1/40th Increase for Sanding/Polishing Floors

Tenant complained of a rent overcharge. Landlord claimed that there was no overcharge and submitted proof of individual apartment improvements. Tenant also paid a preferential rent instead of the higher legal regulated rent. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding no overcharge. Tenant appealed, claiming that the 1/40th rent increase granted by the DRA was improperly based on repair items. Tenant also challenged costs claimed by landlord.
The DHCR ruled for tenant and sent the case back to the DRA for further investigation. Tenant claimed that landlord's invoice for bathroom floor tiles was excessive given the size of her bathroom. Landlord also spent $30 on caulk and $55 for joint compound. There were also discrepancies in connection with money paid to landlord's employee to do the work. These costs should be investigated. Although the DRA disallowed the cost of sanding and polishing the apartment floor and for replacing window glass, the DRA also should have disallowed any increase for self-stick tiles, light bulbs, painting, and plastering.

Hawkins: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. WC210051RT (7/30/08) [3-pg. doc.]