Posted by satori on March 08, 1999 at 19:27:53:
In Reply to: Definitely not "failure to register"/ more like fraud posted by Beyond 60 days on March 08, 1999 at 09:46:27:
I don"t understand all the pro-landlord clauses that are in my opinion
clearly unconstitutional under a number of grounds like due process of law
ectera. Where were all the tenant lawyers when they had these
clauses put in the rule of law? Its not the 1920's anymore when rent was $50 a
month. I read a recent court decision
here on tenant. net and a tenant was awarded one hunderd thousand
dollars ($100.000.00) in back rent for being overcharged.
I think the whole rule of laws should be rewritten to be pro-tenant, in
light of the fact that legal aid does not handle most of these
sort of cases anymore, and most tenants can't afford to hire
a lawyer so they can get a fair trial in the courts that are
designed for lawyers . Lawyers spend eight years going to college
to learn "legal writing" and a tenant is expected to learn that
and more in less then three days. its just not fair.And our laws, should
have written within it a balance for this clear injustice in the process.
: Are you telling me there is no recourse now?
: There is a clause in the PAR, "If the owner has already complied with the Rent Administrator's order and there are arrears due to the owner as a result of the instant determination . . ."
: Q: How is LL required to prove that he has complied?
: He tried to force agreement from tenant in a series of letters running off total overcharges as a rent credit with tenant disputing some counterclaims and amounts thereof/3-day notice to tenant threatening non-payment/eviction . . . tenant paid under protest.
: Isn't LL required to have satisfied validity of his counterclaims to a court of competent jursdiction?
: Q: After the PAR in October 1998, LL's attorney had sent a letter, again with a 3-day demand under threat of eviction for a rent figure that he calculated from DHCR's revoking rent overcharge that rolled back the rent to the amount consistent with the previous rent histories, their decision being based on the purported "amended registrations" for the previous two years TOTALLY IGNORING THAT FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT FAILUREs TO REGISTER, indeed, the rents were registered [not however the actual and excessive amounts I was paying], nor was I listed as the current tenant as required - isn't this clearly FRAUD AND EVASION OF THE LAW? - reasons to challenge a PAR that are not limited by that 60-day limitation for appeal?
: Q: How is the LL required to prove he is entitled to collect the higher rent figure he calculated? And to justify that he is entitled to collect the arrears as a result of the instant determination in the PAR?
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup