Tenants Sue After Landlord Charges Bogus Fines Reaching $8,000
440 residents of an East Harlem apartment have sued international real estate conglomerate Dawnay Day for neglecting building repairs, charging for appliances that were never purchased, and issuing fines reaching $8,000 for improperly using those imaginary appliances. New York's State's housing laws apparently don't protect tenants from bogus fines, so the group instead relied on consumer laws to file their suit.
The Movement for Justice decided to incorporate consumer laws to the fight over housing displacement. A first step was to notify its tenant members of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which guarantees a consumer's right to challenge or receive written verification of debt. Members who had received false charges then wrote to Dawnay Day, notifying it of the law and demanding verification of their charges.
This strategy worked, but only temporarily.
For several months, the tenants' debts decreased or, in some cases, disappeared. But then false charges appeared again. Calentre, for instance, had fines — for repairs that were never done, a refrigerator that he hadn't bought, interest and late fees — in excess of $8,000 when he protested to Dawnay Day. He then watched the charges fall to the low hundreds, but a few months later, they climbed back up to nearly $4,000, where they hover currently and without explanation.
"Now, the bills don't even say what the charges are for," Calentre said. "They just show the amount that is owed in addition to the rent."
[...]
Sifting through New York State consumer law, the group's lawyers found a statute in the New York General Business Law forbidding false and deceptive business practices. Because issuing false charges to customers falls under this law's provision, the Movement for Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of 22 tenants, like Calentre, who had received allegedly false charges from Dawnay Day. The suit demanded that the charges be eliminated and that Dawnay Day refrain from such activity in the future.
The suit remains pending, but thanks to the subprime meltdown, Dawnay Day may be forced to sell the neglected property to a new slumlord. Dawnay Day had previously offered to settle the case, but their proposal "did not include an all-encompassing commitment to stop issuing the false charges."
How to Fight an International Landlord [Gotham Gazette]
Post a comment
Comments:
@wickedpixel: I fail to see why that matters. One would expect decent living conditions and fair treatment regardless of how much or how little the person pays in rent.
I fail to see why that matters. One would expect decent living conditions and fair treatment regardless of how much or how little the person pays in rent.
It matters because otherwise the landlord would just raise the rent and use that to get them out. In a rent-stabilized apartment, the landlord is by law only allowed to raise the rent by a certain percentage (and note that this differs from a rent-controlled apartment, where there's a Maximum Base Rent determined for each unit by the city). But, the landlord is allowed to make improvements to the apartment and pass those charges along. So the landlord can't raise the rent, but he could, for example, install a new refrigerator and charge the tenant for that. Except here, the landlord didn't actually install the new refrigerator.
@44 in a Row: Then perhaps the landlord ought to know the law with respect to the area or that particular building. If the landlord purchased the building, they should have known it was rent controlled.
Posters can be quick to blame the victim for not exercising due diligence. Here, I am blaming the landlord for the same behavior. Unless this is less a case of, "Whoops, we didn't know what we got ourselves into!" and more a case of, "Eh, who cares, let's see how much we can squeeze those tenants before they leave."
How does the subsidization of the apartments outweigh that the tenants were essentially billed for new appliances that were never received and then further penalized.
I really don't think the fact the apartment is rent stabilized should factor at all... A complete non-issue.
Rent-stabilization hardly appears to be a non-issue in the actual article. In fact, it seems to be the central theme around which all else swirls.
Isn't this now mail fraud, IMHO a federal offense?
I don't know the area and things like "rent stabilized" confuse me. Is this area a slum? If so, is the owner really a slumlord? Serious question, by the way.
@flamincheney: You're right, but knowing that the apartments are rent stabilized gives insight to us, the readers, as to why Dawnay Day would resort to fraud instead of just raising the tenants rates.
@Keavy_Rain: It doesn't mitigate the landlord's behavior, but journalistically speaking the fact the apts were rent stabilized does add to the story as far as motive goes.
@Keavy_Rain: With a NYC rent-stabilized apartment, each time the tenancy turns over, the landlord is allowed to raise the rent much more than he would have if the existing tenant had renewed his lease. After the monthly rent reaches a certain threshold through turnover, the apartment is no longer governed by rent-stabilization. The landlord can start renting it for whatever price he wishes, which is a very attractive proposition in an expensive housing market like NYC.
It's all too common in NYC that a landlord will treat his rent-stabilized tenants shabbily to effect turnover. If this article's author had mentioned that the tenants are under rent stabilization, it would have given us a better idea of the landlord's motives and thus given the story extra credibility. I think that's what wickedpixel was talking about.
@JollyJumjuck: I think the landlords knew what they were getting into and had no intention of ever behaving legally. They were depending on the ignorance or sheepishness of their tenants. It's a common story in NYC with landlords of rent-stabilized buildings.
@balthisar: East Harlem is on the fringe of other gentrified areas of Manhattan. It's not a slum; but a slumlord is any landlord, through his greedy neglect, who allows shabby conditions to prevail in his properties.
Almost any apartment building constructed before 1969ish in NYC comprises 100% rent-stabilized units until enough tenant turnover happens over the years. Read the replies above to see why that matters to landlords who want to maximize profit.
I just read an update on the case. The court sentenced the landlord to live in one of the units until he completes all the repairs he billed the tenants for.
@Aladdyn: You are thinking of a different story. This is a civil case, not a criminal case. The judge doesn't "sentence" anyone to do anything.
@Amelie: You don't have to be an asshole. I wasn't asking about "rent-stabilized." I was questioning "slumlord" which to me is something in the slums. So I was asking if this area was properly a slum, or if the word "slumlord" was being bandied about improperly.
I guess I should ask you if reading English always confuses you, you putz.
@ajlei: There has actually been one case where a landlord was sentenced to live in his slum units. (I think there may have been more but I am only aware of one that really happened for sure.)
"Sifting through New York State consumer law."
Please, suing for deceptive business practices is done as a matter of course and the cause of action is as well known among lawyers as breach of contract or negligence.
I'm not sure which part of let's charge a guy for a fridge we never installed is the accidental part...
This story, on top of my own landlord/tenant experiences really makes me wonder why there aren't more laws in place, state by state, to protect tenants. It seems like there are a lot of laws to protect landlords, though.
this article makes more sense when you add in the fact that these are rent stabilized apartments. should maybe include that fact in the post.