hazard to the property, or your health, or safety.’ The
defendant not only signed the lease containing this pro-
vision but actually used the procedure to resolve his
mailbox key issue. The defendant told Young that he
did not pay February rent and should not have a late
fee because he had not yet received a mailbox key. She
informed him that he needed to use the online portal
to make a request and removed the late fee. Once the
defendant did, the plaintiff resolved the mailbox key
issue in twenty-four to forty-eight hours. But, even after
the reason for the withholding, his lack of a mailbox
key, was fully resolved, the defendant still did not pay
his February rent. In fact, he did not pay February rent
until after the notice to quit was issued. The defendant’s
actions do not demonstrate a good faith intent to com-
ply with the lease. The defendant was well aware of
the process for prompt remediation of any housing con-
ditions, but he presented no evidence that he ever
sought to engage in that process again. Instead, he
waited another nearly [two and one-half] months, not
to request redress of his housing problems through the
online portal, but to file a complaint with the Hamden
Housing Authority. . . .
‘‘The defendant does not claim that he is not required
to pay his portion of the rent, nor could he claim, or
prove, that the plaintiff breached the lease agreement.
The defendant chose not to use the plaintiff’s official
reporting system after the mailbox key issue was
resolved, which would have triggered the plaintiff’s obli-
gations to fix any issues. He was so aggressive toward
Young that she refused to interact with him directly.
Even if the defendant and Young could not communi-
cate with each other, due to the defendant’s own
actions, nothing prevented him from continuing to use
the online portal to seek resolution of his housing condi-
tion issues. Such actions demonstrate that the defen-
dant’s nonpayment was wilful, and he was not acting
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13