1
RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
2
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
3
4
Christine M. Luna,
5
Petitioner,
Case No. 2012-26
6
vs.
DECISION
7
8
EQR at Woodland Park,
Respondent.
9
_____________________________!
10
11
I. HEARING
The above entitled tenant petitions dated December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2012
12
13
14
regarding the premises at 5 Newell Court, Unit 5310, East Palo Pdto (herein "premises'') came on
for hearing on May 2, 2012. Present at the hearing were petitioner tenant Christine M. Luna (herein
15
16
"Tenant") and respondent landlord EQR at Woodland Park, through Cynthia Cowart (herein
17
"Landlord"). Also present were Carol Lamont and Stephen Ford of the Rent Stabilization Program.
18
The parties were sworn and testimony was taken and documentmy evidence was submitted.
19
II. ISSUES PRESENTED
20
The petition seeks a rebate for rent overpayments from August 2010 to February 2012 and a
21
22
23
rent reduction and reimbursement for reduction of services and habitability.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
24
Petitioner tenant seeks a rebate of $987.30 for rent paid in excess of the maximum
25
allowable rent for the period from August 2010 to February 2012. She also seeks a reimbursement
26
of $5,491.26 for a decrease in services and habitability due to a chipped and peeling bath and a
27
28
DECISION
1
missing bedroom window screen.
2
Landlord respondent asserts that after deducting sums due to landlord it had paid the proper
3
rebate to tenant. The rebate was paid for the period from August 12, 2011 to February 22, 2012. It
4
5
also is of the position that it repaired the bathtub and replaced the window screen a little over three
6
weeks after it first received notice of these conditions.
7
IV. EVIDENCE
8
Rent Overpayments
9
Tenant initially moved into the premises pursuant to a lease executed on August 13, 2010.
10
11
12
13
14
The lease is for a term of 3 months and 19 days from August 13, 2010 through November 30, 2010.
The rent in the lease is $955.00 per month to which is added $25 . 00 for utilities.
The Initial Certificate of Maximum Allowable Rent (herein "ICMAR") was issued on
November 22, 2011. Pursuant to the ICMAR the maximum allowable rent (herein "MAR'') for the
15
period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 is $912.60 per month. No timely objection has been
16
17
made to the ICMAR by the either the landlord or tenant. As a result, the MAR contained in the
18
ICMAR is final and conclusive. Regulation 101 O(E) of Rules and Regulations for Residential
19
Tenancies pursuant to the 2010 Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance of the City
20
of East Palo Alto. The MAR for the premises for the period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 is
21
22
23
therefore $912.60 per month.
Both landlord and tenant presented ledgers regarding charges and payments made since
24
petitioner's tenancy began. Tenant's ledger is current through 2/20 12. Landlord's ledger is current
25
through 511/2012. Rent is $980.00 per month ($955.00 + $25.00 utilities). The monthly registration
26
pass through fee of $9.75 is also charged. Both ledgers are in agreement with respect to payments
27
28
DECISION
2
1
2
made by tenant through 2/2012. They differ in the amount oflate/NSF fees charged through 2/2012.
Tenant's ledger states a total oflate/NSF fees of$275.00 through 2/2012. Landlord's total of
3
4
5
6
7
8
late/NSF fees through 2/2012 is $325.00. Landlord's ledger has a further "Auto Late Fee" of
$50.00 charged on 3/7/2012.
The landlord's ledger also contains the following credits: a refund/concession of $438.10 on
3/22/2012, a refund check for $3.35 on 3/22/2012 and a credit for $100.00 for "Late Fee" described
as "VP Approved-Customer Service." There are further credits for $67.40 posted on 3/27/2012 and
9
4/26/2012. The latter credit of$67.40 is a bookkeeping adjustment to take into account the
10
11
difference between the MAR of$912.60 and the rent of$980.00 charged on the ledger. Landlord's
12
ledger shows tenant payments of$922.35 on 3/3/2012 and $921.75 on 4/5/2012.
13
14
There is a letter from the landlord to the tenant dated February 22, 2012 submitted by both
the landlord and the tenant which states that effective March 1, 2012 tenant's new rent on her home
15
16
will be $912.60 and that the amount of rent tenant paid between i'\ugust 1, 2010 and February 29,
17
2012 that exceeded the MAR contained in the ICMAR will be refunded. Adding the monthly
18
registration pass through fee of$9.75 to the new rent, the total due is $922.35.
19
20
Prior to the rent being charged for 5/1/2012, the landlord's ledger shows tenant with a credit
balance of$166.80. Landlord stated that tenant received a rebate for the period from 8/12/2011 to
21
22
2/22/2012.
23
Decrease in services and habitability
24
Tenant presented evidence that the surface of the bathtub was chipped and peeling off. She
25
26
presented two photographs taken approximately one year and 3 rnonths apart (11 /20/2010 and
2/28/2012) which showed that the chipped surface area had gotten larger during this period. Tenant
27
28
DECISION
3
1 also presented a photograph of the wall tiles of the bath taken 2/28/2012 showing missing grout
2
between two tiles. Tenant said that the bathtub began to chip after she signed the lease on 8/13/2010
3
and was cleaning the bathtub during her move-in. She notified the management office by phone on
4
5
8/16/2010 to report and request repairs. She was told by a woman at the management office that
6
someone would get back to her. The bathtub surface continued chipping each time she took a
7
shower and cleaned the tub. She reported this to the landlord again. In March 2011 a maintenance
8
worker, Alberto Mendoza, came to the premises and inspected the tub stating that repairs would be
9
done. The repairs were not made. Tenant says that although she can take a shower she cannot use
10
11
the tub to take a bath. She stated that one of the reasons she rented the premises was that it had a
12
bathtub in which she could take a bath. Being able to take a bath was an important factor for tenant
13
in renting the premises as her neck and back get stiff and taking a bath helps. The petition filed by
14
tenant on 12/14/2011 seeks relief for this problem. The bathtub vvas fixed by Commercial Bath and
15
Finishing on 3116/2012. Tenant stated that the bathtub is functioning.
16
17
Tenant also presented evidence that her bedroom window screen was blown away in a storm
18
in April2011. Tenant notified the landlord in June 2011. The screen was replaced on 3/16/2012.
19
Tenant stated that insects, dust and debris got into her bedroom when the window was open.
20
Landlord presented evidence that the bathtub was refinished and window screen was
21
22
replaced on 3/16/2012. Landlord presented photographs that show that the tub and shower tiles had
23
been refinished. Landlord also presented a letter to it from the t'::nant dated February 27, 2012
24
which requests repairs to the bathtub and replacement of the window screen. Landlord stated that
25
this is the first time got of notice of and a request to repair these conditions. Landlord also received
26
a notice of inspection from the San Mateo County Health System dated February 22, 2012
27
28
DECISION
4
1 concerning the conditions about which tenant is complaining in her petition. Landlord
2
acknowledged that Albert Mendoza is employed by landlord.
3
V. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RENT
4
As stated above the MAR of $912.60 per month for the period from July 1, 2011 to June 30,
5
6
20 I2 is final and conclusive.
7
8
The MAR for the period from August I3, 2010 through June 30, 20II is $980.00 per month.
Tenant began her tenancy with landlord on August 13,2010. In pertinent part Section I4.04.040 of
9
the Ordinance states:
10
Maximum allowable rent
II
2.
12
13
14
Tenancies commencing on or after July 15, 2009. The maximum allowable rent for
tenancies commencing on or after July I5,2009 shall be the initial rent for the new
tenancy adjusted by rent increases implemented pursuant to this chapter.
Pursuant to her lease tenant's initial rent was $980.00 per month. Under Section 14.04.040
15
of the Ordinance tenant's MAR for the period from August 13, 2010 through June 30, 2011 is
16
17
$980.00 per month.
I8
VI.
19
20
REBATE FOR RENT OVERCHARGES
Both landlord's and tenant's ledgers have been reviewed. Landlord's rent of$980.00 per
month for the period from August 13,2010 through June 30, 2011 is appropriate as initial rent under
21
22
Section 14.04.040 of the Ordinance. The MAR for the period from July 1, 201I to June 30, 20I2 is
23
$912.60 pursuant to the ICMAR. Payments in both parties' ledgers are in agreement through
24
2/2012. The entries on landlord's ledger through 4/26/2012 are accepted as accurate. No evidence
25
was presented regarding the accuracy of payments made by tenant subsequent to February 2012. If,
26
subsequent to February 2012, tenant had paid rent in excess of the MAR then tenant is entitled to a
27
28
DECISION
5
rebate for any payments made in excess ofthe MAR.
2
The amount that tenant paid in excess of the MAR for the period from July 1, 2011 through
3
4
5
February 2012 is $67.40 per month ($980.00- $912.60 = $67.40 [$2,22 per day]). Landlord stated
that the rebate it provided tenant was for the period from August 12, 2011 to February 22, 2012.
6
Landlord should have rebated tenant for the period from July 1, 2011 through February 2012.
7
Tenant is therefore entitled to a rebate for the period from July 1, 2011 to August 11,2011, an
8
additional one month and 11 days, or $91.82.
9
10
11
IV. REBATE FOR DECREASE IN SERVICES AND HABIT ABILITY
There is no question that the conditions complained of by the tenant existed and that she
12
suffered a decrease in housing services. Housing services include bath facilities and window
13
screens. Ordinance § 14.04.040. Photographs were presented of the bath. The bath was refinished
14
and window screen was replaced by the landlord.
15
16
17
18
A rent reduction pursuant to a tenant petition is based on the loss in rental value attributable
to the reduction maintenance and services. Ordinance § 14.04.130. That section states:
20
Decrease in housing services. A decrease in housing services or maintenance without a
corresponding reduction in rent is considered an increase in rent. The board may order a rent
reduction pursuant to a tenant petition based on loss in rental value attributable to a
reduction in maintenance or services.
21
Pursuant to this section of the Ordinance the inability of tenant to use the bathtub to take a
22
bath is determined to be a 7.5% loss in rental value. Tenant testified that use of the bathtub was a
19
23
factor in renting the premises as her neck and back get stiff and taking a bath helps.
24
25
Pursuant to Section 14.04. 040 of the Ordinance the lack of a bedroom window screen is
26
determined to be a 2% loss in rental value. The lack of a windmv screen allowed insects, dust and
27
debris to get into the premises.
28
DECISION
6
Tenant states that she gave landlord notice of the chipped and peeling bath on 8/16/2010.
2
She further states that she gave landlord notice of the missing window screen in June 2011. The
3
landlord did not present any contradictory evidence. Landlord did not present any evidence that
4
5
tenant did not talk to either the woman in the management office or to Alberto Mendoza.
6
Landlord's counter is that it first got notice ofthe conditions by tenant's letter dated February 27,
7
2012. Tenant did file a petition on 12/14/2011 which notified the landlord of these conditions.
8
After weighing the evidence presented the hearing examiner finds the tenant to be credible
9
and that tenant gave landlord notice of the chipped and peeling bath on 8116/2010 and notice of the
10
11
12
13
missing window screen in June 2011.
The period to which the loss in rental value for the inability to use the bathtub to take a bath
is 911/2010 to 3116/2012. The period to which the loss in rental value for the missing window
14
screens 6/15/2011 to 3/16/2012. Each period is shortened by 2 weeks so as to give landlord time to
15
16
17
correct the conditions. It took landlord 2 weeks from the date it said it first got notice of the
conditions through tenant's letter of 2/27/2012 to 3116/2012, the date the conditions were corrected.
18
For the period from 911/2010 to 6/30/2011 the 7.5% Joss m rental value due to tenant's
19
inability to use the bathtub to take a bath is $73.50 per month. The 7.5% loss in rental value is
20
applied to the rent for that period which was $980.00 per month. The reduction in rent and rebate
21
22
for that period is $735.00 ($73.50 x 10 months). For the period from 711/2011 to 3/16/2012 the loss
23
in rental value is $68.45 per month. The 7.5% loss in rental value is applied to the rent for that
24
period which was $912.60 per month. The reduction in rent and rebate for that period is $581.83
25
($68.45 x 8.5 months). The total amount of the reduction in rem and rebate due to tenant for to
26
tenant's inability to use the bathtub to take a bath is $1,316.83.
27
28
DECISION
7
1
2
For the period from 6/15/2011 to 6/30/2011 the 2% loss in rental value due to the missing
window screen is $19.60 per month. The 2% loss in rental value is applied to the rent for that
3
period which was $980.00 per month. The reduction in rent and rebate for that period is $9.80
4
5
($19.60 x 0.5 months). For the period from 7/1/2011 to 3/16/2012 the loss in rental value is $18.25
6
per month. The 2% loss in rental value is applied to the rent for that period which was $912.60 per
7
month. The reduction in rent and rebate for that period is $155.13 ($18.25 x 8.5 months). The total
8
amount of the reduction in rent and rebate due to tenant due to th.~ missing window screen is
9
$164.93.
10
11
V. FINDINGS OF FACT
12
1.
Petitioner tenant began her tenancy at the premises on August 13, 201 0.
13
2.
The maximum allowable rent for the period for August 13, 2010 to June 30, 2011 is
14
the initial rent of $980.00 per month.
15
16
3.
The Initial Certificate of Maximum Allowable Rent issued on November 22, 2011
17
for the period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 certified the maximum allowable rent for that
18
period to be $912.60 per month.
19
20
4.
The Initial Certificate of Maximum Allowable Rent issued on November 22, 2011 is
final and conclusive as neither landlord nor tenant made any timely objection thereto.
21
22
23
24
25
5.
Petitioner tenant is entitled to a rebate for rent paid in excess of maximum allowable
rent in the amount of$91.82.
6.
Petitioner tenant is entitled to a rent rebate in the amount of $1,316.83 due to her
inability to use the bathtub to take a bath.
26
7.
Petitioner tenant is entitled to a rent rebate in the amount of$164.93 due to the
27
28
DECISION
8
missing bedroom window screen.
2
VI. DECISION
3
1.
Petitioner tenant is entitled to a rebate for rent paid in excess of maximum allowable
4
5
6
7
8
rent in the amount of $91.82.
2.
Petitioner tenant is entitled to a rent rebate in the amount of $1 J 16.83 due to her
inability to use the bathtub to take a bath.
3.
Petitioner tenant is entitled to a rent rebate in the amount of $164.93 due to the
9
10
11
12
13
missing bedroom window screen.
DATED: June 25,2012
PE\rER C. LABRADOR
Hearing Examiner
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECISION
9