Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005)

Citation
Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005)
Parent Document
Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 885 A.2d 327 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-12-06

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text

900 chars
In sum, the substance of the tenant’s stated reasons for objecting to the rent increase were that it was (1) in retaliation for complaining about the poor condition of the apartment; (2) motivated by racial and ethnic discrimination; and (3) unjustifiable, given the poor condition of the apartment. Important for this appeal, the tenant did not check the box provided on the form for claiming that “[t]he rent increase was larger than the amount of increase which was allowed by any applicable provision of the Rental Housing Emergency Act of 1985,” ie., higher than the rent ceiling, nor did he check the box claiming that “[a] proper .... notice of rent increase was not provided” to him by the landlord. Nowhere in the petition did the tenant specifically claim that the rent increase violated the rent control law or that he did not have adequate notice of the increase and the reasons for it. 4