Partial Lintel Replacement Doesn't Qualify

July 31, 2004

LVT Number: 17483

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing, waterproofing, and lintel replacement. The DRA ruled against landlord because of a pending rent reduction order. Landlord appealed, showing that it had applied for rent restoration before the DRA issued its order on the MCI rent hike. So landlord was entitled to the MCI rent hike once the rents were restored. However, landlord was entitled to rent hikes for only part of the MCI cost. Landlord paid $23,000 for pointing and waterproofing, which qualified. But landlord paid $24,000 for the replacement of 177 lintels.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on pointing, waterproofing, and lintel replacement. The DRA ruled against landlord because of a pending rent reduction order. Landlord appealed, showing that it had applied for rent restoration before the DRA issued its order on the MCI rent hike. So landlord was entitled to the MCI rent hike once the rents were restored. However, landlord was entitled to rent hikes for only part of the MCI cost. Landlord paid $23,000 for pointing and waterproofing, which qualified. But landlord paid $24,000 for the replacement of 177 lintels. This was a partial replacement and didn't qualify for an MCI rent hike.

BMW Parkview Corp.: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. PC430004RO (6/15/04) [4-pg. doc.]

Topics

More like this