Opinion ID: 2111782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The registration statement.

Text: D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 45-1644(e), provides that the rent ... shall not be increased above the base rent unless .. the housing accommodation is registered in accordance with section 45-1642.... Nor may the rent be increased unless the tenant concerned has been given written notice.... D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 45-1652(h). A registration statement form was filed on March 29, 1976. The tenants, however, contended at the hearing that the form was grossly inaccurate and incomplete, and therefore was not adequate to register the accommodation. Hence, the tenants reasoned, no rent may lawfully be charged above the base rent. The base rent is $125, and the tenants have paid $150 per month. The Administrator, in both the evaluation of the evidence and in the findings, stated that it [was] apparent that the landlord gave false, misleading, and incomplete information on the registration statement. In his conclusions, the Administrator referred to the registration statement as inaccurate and incomplete. Both the Administrator and the Commission ordered the landlord to file an amended statement. The Commission commendably expressed its fear that to invalidate this registration statement would give every tenant a hunting license to comb through the registration files in hope of discovering some minor omission or technical defect.... However, in this case the Administrator's findings hardly reflected a minor omission or technical defect. In the Commission's decision, it concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the law and that the registration forms filed were valid [because nothing indicated that the mistakes were] willful [or] that the landlord should be penalized for violating the law's registration requirement. However, under Meier v. District of Columbia Rental Accommodations Commission, D.C.App., 372 A.2d 566, 568 (1977), the Commission's function does not extend to making findings, whether they regard substantial compliance or any other subject. [8] Furthermore, the standard employed by the Commission, willful violation meriting a penalty, was erroneous. Willfulness is a prerequisite to a fine under D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 45-1655(b), but is irrelevant to the issue of substantial compliance with D.C.Code 1978 Supp., §§ 45-1642 and -1644(e). On remand, therefore, the Administrator should decide whether the landlord substantially complied with the registration requirement based on evidence in the record. [9] His decision would then be subject to review by the Commission under the review standard discussed in Meier v. D.C. Rental Accommodations Commission, supra.