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

865 chars

Petitioner claims that the RHC abused its discretion by basing its decision that the rent increase was unlawful on a cause for complaint that the tenant never raised, after dismissing the claims that the tenant had made. In support of its decision affirming the examiner, the RHC argues that the tenant generally raised the issue of the adequacy of the notice when he claimed that his rent was “too high.” RHC further argues that, in the context of the tenant’s objection to the rent increase, by answering the examiner’s questions during the hearing about the reason for the rent increase, the landlord acquiesced to inclusion of the adequacy of the notice as an issue, and that it is undisputed that the notice of rent increase failed to state the date and authorization, or reason, for the rent ceiling under which the rent had *334 been raised. 9 See supra note

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text