Opinion ID: 1966812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Existence of Substantial Evidence for the Rent Administrator's Findings

Text: The Commission held that it was improper for the hearing examiner to take official notice of the rent history for Daisy Marshall's apartment upon the conclusion of the hearing, because the landlord did not have notice that the rent history was in issue, and therefore had no opportunity to contest its contents. We disagree. The landlord had notice of the fact that the rent history would be at issue by virtue of the tenant's petition. Daisy Marshall clearly alleged the following (1) [t]he ceiling filed with the Rental Accommodations Office for my/our unit(s) is improper, (2) [t]he rent increase was higher than the amount of increase which was allowed by any applicable provision of the Rental Housing Act, and (3) [t]he rent being charged exceeds the legally calculated rent ceiling for my/our unit(s). [4] In addition, Ms. Marshall wrote in longhand that [t]he rent also exceed[ed] applicable [increases] calculated since 1973. As of 1977 we are paying more than the legal amount. Further, Daisy Marshall's daughter-in-law also testified at the hearing that she had been told by RAO employees that the monthly rent should have been $267 rather than $294. Thus the landlord was sufficiently apprised of the nature of the claims brought against him, and knew that the rent history would be at issue. Moreover, the landlord did not contest the facts of which the hearing examiner took official notice when it appealed to the Commission. In fact, the landlord has never at any time provided any rebuttal to the hearing examiner's conclusions that an invalid five percent rent increase was implemented in 1976 under subsection 204(a) of the 1975 Act, and that the vacancy rent increase implemented under subsection 208(a) of that Act involved units within different buildings or structures. On appeal to the Commission, the landlord merely objected to the hearing examiner's interpretation of the term housing accommodation. [5] We remand only on the issue of whether the rent history records of which the hearing examiner took notice were materially inaccurate or incomplete.