How should I handle this rent increase?
January 20, 2012 8:09 PM Subscribe
My NYC landlord offered a lease renewal on my rent-stabilized apartment, but with a rent adjustment that appears to be too high. It's a bit more complicated than that, though.
My initial lease for the apartment ran from 08/15/2009 to 08/14/2011 at a rate of $1000. At the end of that term, I was never offered a lease renewal, and the bill that my landlord submitted for my rent in August, September, October, and November of 2011 was still $1000.
At the end of November, I received a bill for December rent in the amount of $1090 (rent of $1045 and an additional security deposit of $45). I was initially really surprised by this, but I would later figure out that this new rent figure had a 4.5% rent increase which, according to 2010 Apartment & Loft Order #42, would have actually been my rent had I been offered and signed a 2-year lease renewal that commenced on August 15, 2011.
Since my rent payments are sent automatically by my bank (and before the bill is supplied by my landlord, in order to ensure that they make it the landlord's office before the 1st of the next month), I called my landlord on November 28, 2011 to a) try to figure out my my lease situation actually was and b) tell them I would need to send an additional check if my rent had been raised intentionally. The lady who answered my phone call initially told me, in rather harsh terms, that I needed to pay the money immediately or they would take me to court (telling me, with palpable derision, "we'll see how much fun that will be for you"); after telling her that I wasn't looking to fight, but that I was just really confused because I had never received any notice that my rent was increasing, she told me that she'd consult her boss and call me back later.
After a few days of not hearing from anyone from my landlord's office, I had my bank send out an additional check for $90 and I hoped that this meant that I had a new, valid two-year lease.
I wasn't certain what my next rent bill would be, though, so I stopped my bank's automatic payments and waited to confirm that the next rent bill I'd received at the end of December would be for the expected new rate of $1045. The bill I actually received was for $910 (my normal rent minus the $90 additional payment I had made). I paid it and believed that -- since my base rent had been adjusted back to $1000 -- my landlord must have decided to follow the New York City Rent Stabilization Code and present me with a lease renewal offer after all (rather than just raise my rent without warning).
Well today (January 20th, 2012), I got my lease renewal offer. It's backdated to December 1, 2011 (although the envelope it was mailed in is postmarked January 19th, 2012). It states that my lease will expire on 2/29/2012 (although it actually expired on 8/14/2011) and that my new rent will be either $1037.50 for a one-year lease or $1072.50 for a two-year lease (which is based on the current guidelines in 2011 Apartment & Loft Order #43).
This didn't seem right to me, though, and upon looking through the DHCR website, I found reference to the New York City Rent Stabilization Code § 2523.5, which states: "(1) Where the owner fails to timely offer a renewal lease or rental agreement in accordance with subdivision (a) of this section, the one- or two-year lease term selected by the tenant shall commence at the tenant's option, either (i) on the date a renewal lease would have commenced had a timely offer been made, or (ii) on the first rent payment date occurring no less than 90 days after the date that the owner does offer the lease to the tenant. In either event, the effective date of the increased rent under the renewal lease shall commence on the first rent payment date occurring no less than 90 days after such offer is made by the owner, and the guidelines rate applicable shall be no greater than the rate in effect on the commencement date of the lease for which a timely offer should have been made."
Based on that (and the clarifying explanation DHCR provides in their Fact Sheet #4 - Lease Renewal in Rent Stabilized Apartments, it appears that there are three issues with the lease renewal offer I've received:
1. It was not provided at least 90 days prior to the first adjusted rent payment date.
2. Since my last lease expired in August 2011, the rent increase should have been based off the 2011 Apartment & Loft Order #42 (not #43), making the appropriate rents $1022.50 for a one-year lease or $1045.00 for a two-year lease.
3. I should have been offered the option to have my new lease backdated to August 15, 2011 rather than have to have a lease starting March 1, 2012 (this part might actually bother me the most, since I'd rather not sign a new lease that will expire in the middle of winter).
On the other hand:
1. Over the course of the lease, this higher adjusted rent rate (for a two-year lease) will cost me an additional $687.50.
2. Since my initial lease renewal wasn't ever offered, I'll actually have saved $337.50 between August 15, 2011 and February 28, 2012 that I would have otherwise spent on additional rent and security (which, while it's my landlord's fault for not giving me a renewal offer in the first place, I still consider as money that I've saved based on one error that can be viewed as at least partially offsetting what is now a second error).
3. My rent from August 15, 2013 to February 28, 2014 will actually now be lower than it would have been under the original circumstances (where my rent would be adjusted for that period based on what I assume would be the 2013 Apartment & Loft Order #44 (which will also further offset the additional cost I'll be initially paying from the wrongly adjusted rate on the current lease renewal offer).
4. Since I moved into my apartment during a time when the apartment market in Manhattan was down (or, at least, a bit down from usual), my apartment (while kind of... unpleasant) is still more desirable than what I would be able to find if I was forced to move.
5. I am, by nature, an anxious person who is easily intimidated. Even the thought of calling my landlord to inquire about this is nerve-wracking for me (especially considering how hostile they were in the prior phone call back in November 2011).
Should I pursue this or let it go? If I should pursue this, then how do you think that I should proceed (considering that the potential savings here don't seem high enough to even pay for a landlord-tenant lawyer)?
Also, if you've had similar problems and pursued them, how did it end?
My initial thought is to send back the lease renewal offer (by certified mail), accepting the terms that it states. Along with the signed lease renewal offer, I envision including a letter asking if the adjusted rent as detailed in the renewal offer is possibly incorrect based on an oversight as to when my lease actually expired (8/14/2011 rather than 2/29/2012). I don't imagine this would really work, but it does seem like an option that is unlikely to bite me in the ass.
Thank you for reading this. I really appreciate your time and am grateful for any thoughts you may be able to share.
My initial lease for the apartment ran from 08/15/2009 to 08/14/2011 at a rate of $1000. At the end of that term, I was never offered a lease renewal, and the bill that my landlord submitted for my rent in August, September, October, and November of 2011 was still $1000.
At the end of November, I received a bill for December rent in the amount of $1090 (rent of $1045 and an additional security deposit of $45). I was initially really surprised by this, but I would later figure out that this new rent figure had a 4.5% rent increase which, according to 2010 Apartment & Loft Order #42, would have actually been my rent had I been offered and signed a 2-year lease renewal that commenced on August 15, 2011.
Since my rent payments are sent automatically by my bank (and before the bill is supplied by my landlord, in order to ensure that they make it the landlord's office before the 1st of the next month), I called my landlord on November 28, 2011 to a) try to figure out my my lease situation actually was and b) tell them I would need to send an additional check if my rent had been raised intentionally. The lady who answered my phone call initially told me, in rather harsh terms, that I needed to pay the money immediately or they would take me to court (telling me, with palpable derision, "we'll see how much fun that will be for you"); after telling her that I wasn't looking to fight, but that I was just really confused because I had never received any notice that my rent was increasing, she told me that she'd consult her boss and call me back later.
After a few days of not hearing from anyone from my landlord's office, I had my bank send out an additional check for $90 and I hoped that this meant that I had a new, valid two-year lease.
I wasn't certain what my next rent bill would be, though, so I stopped my bank's automatic payments and waited to confirm that the next rent bill I'd received at the end of December would be for the expected new rate of $1045. The bill I actually received was for $910 (my normal rent minus the $90 additional payment I had made). I paid it and believed that -- since my base rent had been adjusted back to $1000 -- my landlord must have decided to follow the New York City Rent Stabilization Code and present me with a lease renewal offer after all (rather than just raise my rent without warning).
Well today (January 20th, 2012), I got my lease renewal offer. It's backdated to December 1, 2011 (although the envelope it was mailed in is postmarked January 19th, 2012). It states that my lease will expire on 2/29/2012 (although it actually expired on 8/14/2011) and that my new rent will be either $1037.50 for a one-year lease or $1072.50 for a two-year lease (which is based on the current guidelines in 2011 Apartment & Loft Order #43).
This didn't seem right to me, though, and upon looking through the DHCR website, I found reference to the New York City Rent Stabilization Code § 2523.5, which states: "(1) Where the owner fails to timely offer a renewal lease or rental agreement in accordance with subdivision (a) of this section, the one- or two-year lease term selected by the tenant shall commence at the tenant's option, either (i) on the date a renewal lease would have commenced had a timely offer been made, or (ii) on the first rent payment date occurring no less than 90 days after the date that the owner does offer the lease to the tenant. In either event, the effective date of the increased rent under the renewal lease shall commence on the first rent payment date occurring no less than 90 days after such offer is made by the owner, and the guidelines rate applicable shall be no greater than the rate in effect on the commencement date of the lease for which a timely offer should have been made."
Based on that (and the clarifying explanation DHCR provides in their Fact Sheet #4 - Lease Renewal in Rent Stabilized Apartments, it appears that there are three issues with the lease renewal offer I've received:
1. It was not provided at least 90 days prior to the first adjusted rent payment date.
2. Since my last lease expired in August 2011, the rent increase should have been based off the 2011 Apartment & Loft Order #42 (not #43), making the appropriate rents $1022.50 for a one-year lease or $1045.00 for a two-year lease.
3. I should have been offered the option to have my new lease backdated to August 15, 2011 rather than have to have a lease starting March 1, 2012 (this part might actually bother me the most, since I'd rather not sign a new lease that will expire in the middle of winter).
On the other hand:
1. Over the course of the lease, this higher adjusted rent rate (for a two-year lease) will cost me an additional $687.50.
2. Since my initial lease renewal wasn't ever offered, I'll actually have saved $337.50 between August 15, 2011 and February 28, 2012 that I would have otherwise spent on additional rent and security (which, while it's my landlord's fault for not giving me a renewal offer in the first place, I still consider as money that I've saved based on one error that can be viewed as at least partially offsetting what is now a second error).
3. My rent from August 15, 2013 to February 28, 2014 will actually now be lower than it would have been under the original circumstances (where my rent would be adjusted for that period based on what I assume would be the 2013 Apartment & Loft Order #44 (which will also further offset the additional cost I'll be initially paying from the wrongly adjusted rate on the current lease renewal offer).
4. Since I moved into my apartment during a time when the apartment market in Manhattan was down (or, at least, a bit down from usual), my apartment (while kind of... unpleasant) is still more desirable than what I would be able to find if I was forced to move.
5. I am, by nature, an anxious person who is easily intimidated. Even the thought of calling my landlord to inquire about this is nerve-wracking for me (especially considering how hostile they were in the prior phone call back in November 2011).
Should I pursue this or let it go? If I should pursue this, then how do you think that I should proceed (considering that the potential savings here don't seem high enough to even pay for a landlord-tenant lawyer)?
Also, if you've had similar problems and pursued them, how did it end?
My initial thought is to send back the lease renewal offer (by certified mail), accepting the terms that it states. Along with the signed lease renewal offer, I envision including a letter asking if the adjusted rent as detailed in the renewal offer is possibly incorrect based on an oversight as to when my lease actually expired (8/14/2011 rather than 2/29/2012). I don't imagine this would really work, but it does seem like an option that is unlikely to bite me in the ass.
Thank you for reading this. I really appreciate your time and am grateful for any thoughts you may be able to share.
(I am not a lawyer, just another rent-stabilized tenant – but in a similar situation, this is what my lawyer advised.)
posted by nicwolff at 9:45 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by nicwolff at 9:45 PM on January 20, 2012
Best answer: I'm not sure where you are in NYC but it seems you still have a very good deal. Is it really worth the time and stress to fight it?
posted by bquarters at 2:30 AM on January 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by bquarters at 2:30 AM on January 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Best answer: So, you are, I think, correct on all counts here. It's worth a bit of simple back and forth to try to get it right. A polite and friendly letter explaining what you think is right seems in order. Do not let this mean woman in the office intimidate you (oh God, I have met her, I swear).
That being said? You should do basically ONE round of back and forth with them. If they refuse your explanation of the situation, you can deal with this through the system, and you'll be refunded, eventually (unless you are incorrect!).
There is too a good point about the value of your time versus the amount of money in play here. You have to decide how far you want to go with this. But the housing court in New York is fairly easy to navigate, it has advocates for tenants, and people will help you; this kind of thing showing up there is extremely common and retroactive reductions happen regularly. You have surely visited this site before.
(I AM DEFINITELY NOT A LAWYER.)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:00 AM on January 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
That being said? You should do basically ONE round of back and forth with them. If they refuse your explanation of the situation, you can deal with this through the system, and you'll be refunded, eventually (unless you are incorrect!).
There is too a good point about the value of your time versus the amount of money in play here. You have to decide how far you want to go with this. But the housing court in New York is fairly easy to navigate, it has advocates for tenants, and people will help you; this kind of thing showing up there is extremely common and retroactive reductions happen regularly. You have surely visited this site before.
(I AM DEFINITELY NOT A LAWYER.)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:00 AM on January 21, 2012 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Example #1 on this page seems to describe your situation almost exactly, and it's better than you think.
It explicitly says that
a) You get to choose if you'd like the new lease to go into effect 90 days from when it was offered to you (May 1st, presumably) or retroactively to the day after your previous lease expired.
b) The rate-increase should be the lesser of the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 guideline increases.
c) Even if you go with the retroactive dating, you cannot be charged retroactively, and -- on top of that -- should continue to pay the old amount until May.
For reference:
It explicitly says that
a) You get to choose if you'd like the new lease to go into effect 90 days from when it was offered to you (May 1st, presumably) or retroactively to the day after your previous lease expired.
b) The rate-increase should be the lesser of the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 guideline increases.
c) Even if you go with the retroactive dating, you cannot be charged retroactively, and -- on top of that -- should continue to pay the old amount until May.
For reference:
Example #1posted by nobody at 9:41 AM on January 21, 2012
Mr. Rivera's lease expired on July 31, 2007. He did not receive a timely renewal lease offer and has continued to pay his rent of $800.
On May 15, 2008, the landlord makes him an offer of a renewal lease to commence retroactively on August 1, 2007 at a rent of $834 for 1 year or $858 for 2 years. The additional $34 represents a 4.25% increase for 1 year, and the additional $58 represents a 7.25% increase for 2 years.
In this situation, the option for the commencement date of the lease is Mr. Rivera's. He can request that the lease be dated to start on:
a) August 1, 2007, the date it would have begun had a timely offer had been made or
b) September 1, 2008, the first rent payment date occurring no less than 90 days after the offer is made.
Whether Mr. Rivera chooses option (a) or (b), the applicable guideline increase will be the lower of the two possible rates. In this case, he will be liable for the lower rates in effect on September 1, 2008; 3% for 1 year or 5.75% for two years. Moreover, the increase in rent to either $824 for 1 year, or $846 for 2 years, will not go into effect until September 1, 2008.
but since you were only sent the new lease on Jan 19, 2012 the new rent will not take effect until June 1
YIKES!!! I mean May 1 – sorry, I added the 90 days wrong!
posted by nicwolff at 10:54 AM on January 21, 2012
YIKES!!! I mean May 1 – sorry, I added the 90 days wrong!
posted by nicwolff at 10:54 AM on January 21, 2012
Best answer: You may actually want to have a lease that expires in the middle of the winter. Since many, many more people move in August than in March, apartment prices are typically higher in August than they would be in March. So you'll probably get a much better deal on a new place when you move in March than you would moving in August. And you'll definitely be moving at the end of your lease, since this landlord does not sound like someone who's going to be reasonable about getting out of the lease early.
posted by Ragged Richard at 12:34 PM on January 21, 2012
posted by Ragged Richard at 12:34 PM on January 21, 2012
Response by poster: Thank you for all of your responses. I'm currently drafting a letter disputing the adjustment guideline that my landlord used in the lease renewal offer, but I think that I will wait to send that letter to my landlord until after I've called the DHCR number nicwolff provided. If DHCR can further confirm that my understanding of this entire situation is correct, I will muster my courage and send the letter to my landlord by certified mail.
posted by aiko at 8:55 PM on January 21, 2012
posted by aiko at 8:55 PM on January 21, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nicwolff at 9:43 PM on January 20, 2012 [6 favorites]