that these conditions existed in the Subject Premises since 2010, and that an abatement
was sought from January 2010 forward.
Petitioner offered no evidence or testimony about any attempts to make the repairs or
[*5]
correct the violations. Respondent
testified some minor repairs were made in either 2010 or
2011. Petitioner did not present evidence or testimony to admit or deny this
allegation. At the time the DHPD inspection report was printed, March 11, 2014, none of
the violations were certified as corrected, but Respondent acknowledged at trial three
violations had been corrected.
The Court finds the following conditions warranting an abatement existed at least
from January 2010 until April 2014: mold in the second room, defective
entrance door lock,
broken plaster walls and ceiling throughout the apartment, defective wood
floors through out the premises, defective outlets, and defective bathroom door.
The Court finds the following additional conditions warranting an abatement existed
at least from February 2010 until April 2014: missing carbon monoxide and smoke
detectors, mice, broken bathroom tiles, and a broken bathroom cabinet.
The Court finds the following conditions warranting an abatement and existed at
least
from August 2010 until April 2014: defective kitchen counter top, defective
kitchen cabinet, defective window in first room, broken or defective peep hole in
entrance door, and mold in the bathroom.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Respondent is entitled to a 20%
abatement
for the period of January 2010 through August 2010, and 25% abatement for
the period of September 2010 through May 2013.
The DHPD violations that were placed on the Subject Premises since January 2010