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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1479405/parreco-v-district-of-columbia-... ↗

Full Text

999 chars

and the landlord appeared with counsel. Consistent with the RACD form petition filed by the tenant, the examiner stated that the issues raised by the tenant’s petition were whether the rent ceiling was too high given the poor quality of the facilities, and whether the rent increase was imper-missibly retaliatory. In his opening statement, the tenant reiterated his retaliation and discrimination claims, stating that the landlord increased his rent every six months, while he increased the rent for other tenants only annually. He did not claim that his notice of rent increase was deficient, or that the increase was in excess of that authorized by statute. In his case-in-chief, the tenant reiterated the majority of his opening statement and petition. He did not call any witnesses or introduce any documents into evidence. On cross-examination by landlord’s counsel, the tenant admitted that many of the problems of which he complained had long since been remedied, prior to the filing of *331

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text