Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs

The above-captioned cases having come before the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs for Montgomery County, Maryland, pursuant to Sections 29-14A, 29-38, and 29-40 of the Montgomery County Code 1994, as amended, and the Commission having considered the testimony and evidence of record, it is, therefore, this 17th day of June, 1996, found, determined and ordered, as follows:

On January 3, 1996, Olivia Elizabeth Brooks, occupant of 7721 Eastern Avenue, #32 and #31, Silver Spring, Maryland, filed a formal complaint with the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs, in which she alleged that Blair Park Partnership, owners of Blair Park Apartments: (1) failed to offer her a lease agreement that was readable and in compliance with State and County laws; (2) failed to offer her the option of a two year lease at the commencement of her tenancy; (3) failed to make repairs in her apartment in a timely and workmanlike manner which forced her to be relocated from unit #32 to unit #31; and, (4) engaged in retaliatory practices against her and other members of the tenants association, including threat of eviction, violation of privacy, harassment, and the reduction in quality or quantity of services.

On December 4, 1995, Marva Oxley, occupant of 7719 Eastern Avenue, #5, Silver Spring, Maryland, Blair Park Apartments, filed a formal complaint with the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs, in which she alleged that Blair Park Partnership, owners of Blair Park Apartments: (1) failed to offer her a lease agreement that was readable and in compliance with State and County laws; (2) failed to offer her the option of a two year lease at the commencement of her tenancy; (3) failed to make repairs in her apartment in a timely and workmanlike manner; (4) issued her an improper notice of a rent increase; (5) issued her an improper notice to quit and vacate the apartment; and (6) engaged in retaliatory practices against her and other tenants in the building, including eviction, threat of eviction, violation of privacy, harassment, and the reduction in quality or quantity of services.

III. Case No. T-12639 - Mabel Biney v. Blair Park Partnership

On February 12, 1996, Mabel Biney, occupant of 7721 Eastern Avenue, #22, Silver Spring, Maryland, Blair Park Apartments, filed a formal complaint with the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs, in which she alleged that Blair Park Partnership, owners of Blair Park Apartments: (1) failed to offer her a lease agreement that was in compliance with State and County laws; (2) failed to offer her the option of a two year lease at the commencement of her tenancy; (3) failed to make repairs in her apartment in a timely and workmanlike manner; and, (4) engaged in retaliatory practices against her and other tenants in the building, including eviction, threat of eviction, violation of privacy, harassment, and the reduction in quality or quantity of services.

On February 14, 1996, Rehema P. Mangaza, occupant of 7721 Eastern Avenue, Penthouse, Silver Spring, Maryland, Blair Park Apartments, filed a formal complaint with the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs, in which she alleged that Blair Park Partnership, owners of Blair Park Apartments: (1) failed to offer her a lease agreement that was readable and in compliance with State and County laws; (2) failed to offer her the option of a two year lease at the commencement of her tenancy; (3) failed to make repairs in her apartment in a timely and workmanlike manner; and (4) engaged in retaliatory practices against her and other tenants in the building, including eviction, threat of eviction, violation of privacy, harassment, and a reduction in quality or quantity of services.

On March 6, 1996, Phoebe Robinson, occupant of 7721 Eastern Avenue, #23, Silver Spring, Maryland, Blair Park Apartments, filed a formal complaint with the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs, in which she alleged that Blair Park Partnership, owners of Blair Park Apartments: (1) failed to offer her a lease agreement that was in compliance with State and County laws; (2) failed to offer her the option of a two year lease at the commencement of her tenancy; (3) failed to make needed repairs in her apartment in a timely and workmanlike manner since September 9, 1995, including no heat and rodent infestation; and (4) engaged in retaliatory practices against her and other tenants in the building, including threat of eviction, violation of privacy, harassment, and the reduction in quality or quantity of services, in violation of Section 29-30B(b) of the Montgomery County Code, 1994, as amended.

After determining that these matters were not susceptible to conciliation, the Director duly referred the above-named cases to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs for its review. On April 2, 1996, the Commission voted to consolidate the cases and hold a public hearing which commenced on April 24, 1996, and concluded on April 25, 1996.

Based on the testimony and evidence of record, the Commission makes the following findings:

1. Regarding Complainants' allegation that Respondent failed to offer them a lease agreement that was readable and in compliance with State and County laws and/or failed to offer them the option of a two-year lease term at the commencement of their tenancies, in violation of Section 29-26(a) and 29-27(b) of the Montgomery County Code, 1994, as amended, the Commission finds that the March 22, 1996 Consent Order between Respondent and Montgomery County, Maryland, fully resolves those allegations and therefore, will not be considered as part of this Order. (Ref. Commission's Exhibit No. 1 at F-23).

2. All of the Complainants are tenants at Blair Park Apartments ("Property"), a licensed rental facility in Montgomery County, Maryland, owned and operated by Respondent, and all Complainants have been tenants at the Property since at least September 1, 1995.

3. All of the Complainants are members of CM-MAD, "Citizens Mad - And Making a Difference," a bona fide tenants association at the Property.

4. During the normal course of business, Inspector Cecilia Kinna, Department of Housing and Community Development, Code Enforcement Division, conducted a triennial inspection of the Property on November 6, 1995, during which she observed 132 housing code violations, including 83 violations on the interior and exterior common areas. On December 6, 1995, Inspector Kinna issued a notice of violation to Respondent, and ordered Respondent to correct the 132 housing code violations by January 10, 1996.

5. On January 2 and 3, 1996, Housing Code Enforcement Inspectors Kinna and Steven Borkoski conducted follow-up inspections at the Property during which they observed an additional 525 housing code violations. A second notice of violation was issued to Respondent on January 26, 1996, with an order to complete all repairs by February 29, 1996.

6. On January 2, 1996, Sgt. Michael Grierson, Department of Fire and Rescue Services, Division of Fire Code Enforcement, conducted an inspection of the Property during which he observed 17 general violations of the Montgomery County Fire Code. A Notice of Violation was issued to Respondent by Lt. Jamie Barton, Department of Fire and Rescue Services, Division of Fire Code Enforcement, on January 26, 1996.

7. On January 30, 1996 and February 14, 1996, Inspector Kinna conducted reinspections of the Property during which she observed that 109 of the original 132 violations observed on November 6, 1995, had not been corrected, and few of the 525 violations observed on January 2 and 3, 1996 had been corrected. Ms. Kinna also observed 32 additional housing code violations.

8. On March 1, 1996, the Respondent entered into a Management Agreement with Monocle Management, Ltd. a property management company located in Montgomery County, Maryland. (Ref. Commission's Exhibit No. 1 at B-8).

9. By correspondence dated March 6, 1996, the Office of Consumer Affairs, informed Andrew Silverberg, Property Manager, Monocle Management, Ltd., that pursuant to Section 29-26(q) of the Montgomery County Code, 1994, as amended, due notice of at least (24) hours was required to be given to tenants prior to entering their apartments. (Ref. Commission's Exhibit No. 1 at F-22).

10. On March 7, 1996, Inspector Borkoski issued twenty-eight (28) civil citations to T. Daniel Nainan, Partner, Blair Park Partnership, for failing to correct housing code violations at the Property first observed on November 6, 1995, and cited on December 6, 1995.

11. On March 22, 1996, Respondent entered into a Consent Order with Montgomery County, Maryland that suspended the enforcement of the referenced civil citations, and which provided a schedule for the repair of all housing code violations at the Property at the rate of at least twenty-five (25) violations per week. The Notice of Violation issued by the Montgomery County Fire Department to the Respondent was not a part of the Consent Order.

12. Monique Koch, employee of Monocle Management, Ltd., testified that she is in charge of supervising all of the repairs at the Property, and that although she had not been given a specific budget for accomplishing the repairs, the code violations were being repaired, pursuant to the March 22nd Consent Order, on a schedule of at least twenty-five (25) violations per week in occupied units. Ms. Koch further testified that there was no specific deadline for the abatement of all 689 housing code violations and the 17 fire code violations.

14. Maintenance Engineer for the Property, Alex Richardson, employee of Monocle Management Ltd., testified that he did not give notice of any kind to tenants prior to entering their apartments to make repairs. He testified that he does not have any training regarding Montgomery County Housing Code or Landlord-Tenant laws.

15. Housing Code Inspectors Kinna and Borkoski testified that as of April 24, 1996, the date of the public hearing, the majority of the housing code violations cited at the Property between November 1995 to February 1996, had not been corrected.

16. Sgt. Grierson, Division of Fire Code Enforcement, testified that reinspections of the Property subsequent to January 26, 1996, revealed that violations had not been abated, and that he had issued a civil citation to managing partner T. Daniel Nainan on February 28, 1996, for non-compliance. He further testified that he last inspected the Property on April 18, 1996, and as of that date, the majority of the fire code violations cited at the Property in the January 26, 1996 Notice of Violation, had not been corrected. He also testified that the outstanding fire code violations at the Property appeared to have been present for several years.

18. Complainants testified that Respondent and Respondent's agents and employees have engaged in retaliatory practices against them including threat of eviction, invasion of privacy, reduction in services and failure to make necessary repairs, based on complaints they made to the Code Enforcement Division, Office of Consumer Affairs and for their efforts to organize a tenants association at the Property.

19. Although Respondent currently employs the services of a management company, Respondent provided no evidence that sufficient funds or a credible work plan have been provided to the management company to ensure that needed repairs will be made in a timely manner.

Accordingly, based upon a fair consideration of the testimony and evidence contained in the record, the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs concludes:

1. Complainants were all tenants at Blair Park Apartments at the time Housing Code Enforcement Inspector Cecilia Kinna conducted the first of several triennial inspections of Blair Park Apartments in November 1995.

3. After having been put on proper written notice by inspectors from the Montgomery County Code Enforcement Division on December 6, 1995, that 132 housing code violations, most in common areas, existed at the Property as of the date of the public hearing, Respondent had failed to correct or repair the majority of those violations.

5. After having been put on proper written notice by the Division of Code Enforcement on January 26, 1996, that an additional 525 housing code violations existed at the Property, as of the date of the public hearing, Respondent had failed to correct or repair the majority of those violations.

6. After having been put on proper written notice by the Division of Fire Code Enforcement, that 17 violations of the Montgomery County Fire and Safety Code existed at the Property, as of April 18, 1996, Respondent had failed to correct or repair the majority of those violations. Furthermore, as of the date of the public hearing, the Commission concludes that numerous serious fire and safety violations, including the lack of emergency hallway lighting, lack of self-closing, smoke resistant apartment entrance doors, and lack of rated fire doors in hallways and stairwells, have not been corrected at the Property.

8. The Commission finds credible the testimony and photographic evidence of the Complainants that serious housing and fire safety code violations exist at the Property, that those violations have existed for some time, and that Respondent was aware of the violations.

10. Respondent's failure to make necessary and needed repairs to the Property and to the Complainants' apartments from December 6, 1995, the date of the violation notice from Inspector Kinna, through April 25. 1996, the date of the public hearing (141 days), constitutes a violation of Chapter 26 of the Montgomery County Code, "Housing and Building Standards," and Section 29-30 of the Landlord-Tenant Relations Act of Montgomery County. Such violations constitute a defective tenancy.

11. The outstanding and uncorrected fire and safety code violations at the Property constitute a continuing serious threat to the health, safety and well being of the occupants of the Property.

13. Respondent caused defective tenancies by failing to make required and necessary repairs to the Property and to Complainants' apartments, in violation of applicable Montgomery County housing and fire codes.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs hereby orders the Respondent to:

1. Refund to each Complainant all rent money paid to Respondent for the period of December 6, 1995 through April 25, 1996. The Commission bases this award on the date Respondent was first put on written notice by the Division of Code Enforcement (December 6, 1995) until the date of the public hearing (April 24-25, 1996), which is a total of 141 days. The award is calculated as follows:

2. Offer each Complainant until July 31, 1996, the option to terminate their lease and vacate the Property and if so, return their security deposit plus accrued interest at the time they vacate.

3. Immediately cease and desist entering tenants' apartments at the Property without at least twenty-four (24) hours prior notice to, and without objection from, the tenants.

4. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order complete in a satisfactory and workmanlike manner all repairs cited by the Housing Code Enforcement Division and the Division of Fire Code Enforcement between December 1995 and the date of the hearing.

The foregoing was concurred in unanimously by Commissioners Rex Smith, Carol Papalazarus and Greg Smith.

Should the Commission determine that the Respondent has not, within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of this Decision, made a bona fide effort to comply with the terms of this Decision and Order, it may refer the matter to the County Attorney for enforcement.

The parties are hereby notified that Section 29-44 of the Montgomery County Code 1994, as amended, declares that failure to comply with this Order shall be punishable by a civil fine Class A violation as set forth in Section 1-19 of the Montgomery County Code 1994, as amended. Each day that a party fails to comply with an Order of the Commission shall constitute a separate offense. In addition to any criminal or other penalty provided, compliance with an Order of the Commission may be effectuated by injunctive or other appropriate action or proceeding to correct any violation, and any court of competent jurisdiction may issue restraining orders, temporary or permanent injunctions or other appropriate forms of relief.

Any party aggrieved by the action of the Commission may file an administrative appeal to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, pursuant to the Maryland Rules governing administrative appeals.

Rex C. Smith, Panel Chairperson

Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs