Decisions and Orders for All License Revocation Cases

 

This page contains summaries of Decisions and Orders for license revocation cases made by the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affiars (COLTA).  To view the summary, click on the License/Case Number.  To view the complete Decision and Order, click on the license/case number contained within the summary.

License # Owner Date Order Issued Prevailing Party/Award
34366, 34380, 37373 Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo Dec. 5, 2002 Appeal denied
Case # 13288 Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo Oct. 11, 2002 Tenant $2,570.00
018616, 018617, 018618, 018619 Baljit Kochhar May 17, 2002 License reinstated with conditions
34366, 34380, 37373 Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo May 8, 2002 Revocation upheld
34366, 34380, 37373 Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo Feb. 25, 2002 Licenses revoked
017961 Ulysses S. Glee Nov. 5, 1998 License reinstated with conditions
017335 Kwong and Mee Fong Sept. 18, 1998 License reinstated with conditions
017790 David and Ching-Mei Tsai Sept. 18, 1998 License reinstated with conditions
017823 David and Ching-Mei Tsai Sept. 17, 1998 License reinstated with conditions
017329 G. Gregory Russell Sept. 14, 1998 License reinstated with conditions
017610 Russell and Ellen Carter Aug. 28, 1998 License revoked

Case Summaries

Arrow, up icon Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo

License #s  34366, 34380, 37373
Date Order Issued  December 5, 2002
Subject  Denial of Rental Facility License Application

On July 1, 2002, Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo (the “Appellant”) filed with the Department three (3) new Rental Facility License applications, one for each of the three rental condominium units he owns in Montgomery County, Maryland (the “Properties”).

On July 18, 2002, the Department notified the Appellant that his rental license applications had been denied for the following reasons:

  1. After the previous revocation of his rental licenses for the Properties had been affirmed by the Commission February 25, 2002 (See License Nos. 34366, 34380, 37373), he failed to issue the tenants in the Properties the required 60-day notice to quit and vacate;
  2. In violation of the Commission’s February 25, 2002 Order, he attempted to re-rent one of the Properties to new tenants after the rental license for that unit had been revoked;
  3. Based on the improper re-rental of one of the Properties, the Department issued the Appellant two (2) Class A civil citations – one for renting the unit without a Rental Facility License, and the second for failing to comply with the Commission’s February 25, 2002 Decision and Order;
  4. On July 9, 2002, the Appellant was found guilty in the District Court of Maryland of operating a rental facility without a proper rental license and guilty of failing to comply with the Commission’s February 25, 2002 Order, which resulted in fines and the issuance of an Order of Abatement which ordered the Appellant to:  (a) immediately, and at all times hereafter, refrain from operating 575 Thayer Avenue without first obtaining the proper rental license, and (b) immediately, and at all times hereafter, comply with all valid orders from the Landlord-Tenant Commission, including the Commission’s February 25, 2002 Decision and Order;
  5. On July 9, 2002, the Department issued the Appellant five (5) additional civil citations for operating the other two Properties without proper rental licenses and for failing to comply with the Commission’s February 25, 2002 Decision and Order by continuing to rent those units; and,
  6. For failing to comply with an Order of Abatement issued by the District Court on April 2, 2002, which ordered the Appellant to correct Housing Code violations at one of the Properties first cited by the Department on September 20, 2001.

On July 22, 2002, the Appellant filed a formal appeal to the Commission of the Department’s July 18, 2002 denial of Rental Facility License applications, and the Commission scheduled a public hearing which commenced on September 12, 2002, and was continued for a second night on September 17, 2002.  The hearings lasted for a total of nine and one-half hours.

On December 5, 2002, the Commission issued its Decision and Order affirming the Department’s denial of the Appellant’s applications for Rental Facility Licenses for his Properties, and further ordered as follows:

  1. Any lease agreement entered into by the Appellant with a tenant or tenants at the Properties at any time after February 25, 2002, was terminated and declared to be NULL and VOID;
  2. The Appellant must (a) issue proper written notice to any and all tenants currently occupying the Properties that they must vacate the subject property within sixty calendar (60) days and by no later than February 28, 2003, (b) provide copies of all such notices to the Commission no later than Monday, December 23, 2002, and (c) if any of the Properties are vacant, provide written notice to the Department that that is the reason no notice to vacate has been issued;
  3. The Appellant must refund to the Department, within thirty (30) calendar days all rent paid by any and all tenants who currently occupy or have occupied the Properties at any time after April 30, 2002, and the Department must then disburse the returned rent to the appropriate tenants; 
  4. The Appellant must refund to the Department, within thirty (30) calendar days all security deposits plus accrued interest paid by any and all tenants who have occupied or currently occupy the Properties, and the Department must then disburse the returned security deposits to the appropriate tenants;
  5. The Appellant is prohibited from re-renting the Properties without first obtaining a valid Rental Facility License from the Department;
  6. The Department is hereby directed not to accept or consider any Rental Facility License applications from the Appellant for the Properties until, and not before, July 1, 2003; and,
  7. The Commission hearing panel in this matter hereby retains jurisdiction of this case for purposes of ensuring compliance with this Order including referral to the Office of the County Attorney for additional enforcement, including, but not limited to, civil and/or criminal prosecution.

Arrow, up icon Patricia John, et al. vs. Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo

Case #  13288
Date Order Issued  October 11, 2002
Subject  Revoked License/Condemned Unit

On March 27, 2002, Patricia John and her daughter, Tricia John (“the Johns”), filed a formal complaint with the Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs within the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Department”) seeking the return of $2,570.00 they paid to Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo (“Mbakpuo”) for the rental of 575 Thayer Avenue, #606, Silver Spring, Maryland (the “Condominium”), after the rental license for that unit had been revoked and the unit  had been condemned by the Department as unfit for human habitation.

After holding a public hearing on September 3, 2002, which Mbakpuo failed to attend, the Commission found that: (1) the Johns responded to an ad Mbakpuo placed in the Washington Post newspaper offering the Condominium for rent, and subsequently paid Mbakpuo a total of $2,570.00 for rent, a condominium fee, application fees and a security deposit for the proposed rental of the Condominium; (2) at the time Mbakpuo attempted to rent the Condominium to the Johns and accepted their $2,570.00, the Rental Facility License for the Condominium had been revoked by the Department, the revocation had been affirmed by the Commission, and the Condominium had been condemned by the Department as unfit for human habitation; (3) once they learned the above facts, the Johns were within their rights when they decided not to take possession of the Condominium; (4) although the Johns made numerous requests to Mbakpuo for the return of all monies paid, Mbakpuo failed to respond or issue them a refund of any portion of the $2,570.00 paid, and (5) Mbakpuo’s actions constituted a violation of Chapter 29, “Landlord-Tenant Relations,” of the Montgomery County Code, and caused a defective tenancy.

As a result, the Commission ordered Mbakpuo to pay the Johns $2,570.00, which sum represented all monies they paid to Mbakpuo regarding the attempted illegal rental of the Condominium.

Arrow, up icon Baljit Kochhar

PLACE HOLDER FOR BALJIT KOCHHAR SUMMARY

Arrow, up icon Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo

License #s  34366, 34380, 37373
Date Order Issued  May 8, 2002
Subject  Denial of Rental Facility License Application

On or about March 11, 2002, Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo (Appellant) filed with the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, three Rental Facility License applications for three condominium units he owns in Silver Spring, Maryland (Properties).  On March 26, 2002 Joe Giloley, Chief, Division of Housing and Code Enforcement, notified the Appellant that his license applications for the Properties had been denied because the Commission had upheld the revocation of the Rental Facility Licenses of the Properties.  In response to the notice of denial, the Appellant filed a formal appeal to the Commission on April 18, 2002.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that: (1) the Department revoked the Appellant’s licenses for the Properties on January 3, 2002 and advised him of his right to file an appeal to the Commission; (2) on January 8, 2002, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Commission regarding the revocation of his licenses for the Properties; (3) on February 25, 2002, the Commission issued a Decision and Order denying the Appellant’s appeal and upholding the Department’s revocation of the Rental Facility Licenses for the Properties.  The Commission’s Order advised the Appellant of his right to appeal this decision to the Circuit Court; (4) on or about March 11, 2002, the Appellant filed three Rental Facility License applications for the Properties; (5) on March 26, 2002, the Department notified the Appellant that based on the Commission’s February 25, 2002 Order, his applications had been denied; and (6) according to the Appellant’s testimony at the hearing, he never filed an appeal with the Circuit Court regarding the Commission’s Order.

The Commission denied the Appellant’s appeal of the denial of his Rental Facility License applications.

Arrow, up icon Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo

License #s  34366, 34380, 37373
Date Order Issued  February 25, 2002
Subject  License Revocation

On January 2, 2003, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Department”) issued notice to Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo (the “Appellant”), owner of three (3) licensed rental condominium units in Silver Spring, Maryland:  575 Thayer Avenue, #606, 3301 Hewitt Avenue, #407, and 8830 Piney Branch Road, #204, Silver Spring, (the Properties”), that the Rental Facility Licenses for the Properties had been revoked based on his failure to correct numerous violations of Chapter 26, Housing and Building Maintenance Standards, of the Montgomery County Code, 1997, as amended (“Housing Code”).

In response to the License Revocation notice, on January 8, 2002, the Appellant filed a formal appeal to the Montgomery County Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs (the “Commission”), which convened a public hearing on January 17, 2002, to determine if the Appellant’s Rental Licenses should be reinstated.

Based on the testimony and evidence of record, the Commission made the following findings of fact:

  1. Based on complaints filed by the tenants in the Properties in June and July 2001, the Department conducted inspections and determined that there were serious violations of Housing Code present at each location.  Based on the inspections, the Appellant was issued a series of Notices of Violation and ordered to make immediate repairs of serious violations and given sufficient time to make other needed and necessary repairs to bring the Properties into compliance with the Housing Code;
  2. Over a period of six months, the Department conducted a series of re-inspections of the Properties to determine if the Appellant had made the necessary repairs to correct the outstanding Housing Code violations and abate the Notices of Violation.
  3. Based on those re-inspections, the Department determined that few of the Housing Code violations had been corrected by the Appellant, and as a result, the Appellant was issued 67 Class A civil citations and fines, and 3301 Hewitt Avenue, #407, Silver Spring, Maryland, was condemned as “unfit for human habitation.”
  4. Based on the condition of, and lack of repairs in, the Appellant’s three Properties, by a letter dated December 21, 2001, the Department informed the Appellant that he had “ten (10) calendar days from the date of [the] letter, by close-of-business December 31, 2001, to correct and eliminate any and all outstanding violations of the Housing Code at the above-referenced rental properties [the Properties]”, and, “Failure to do so will result in the immediate revocation of your Rental Facility Licenses for those properties.”
  5. Based on inspections of the Properties conducted by the Department between December 31, 2001 and January 2, 2002, it was determined that only 6 of the 66 outstanding Housing Code violations in the Properties, originally cited in June and July 2001, had been corrected.
  6. By a letter dated January 3, 2002, Elizabeth B. Davison, Director, Department of Housing and Community Affairs, notified the Appellant, in pertinent part, that:

    “… as a result of your failure to correct all of the previously cited Housing Code violations by December 31, 2001, this letter serves as written notice that effective immediately, Rental Facility License No. 034366, and your authorization to operate 575 Thayer Avenue, #606, Silver Spring, MD 20910, as a Rental Facility is REVOKED; Rental Facility License No. 34380, and your authorization to operate 3301 Hewitt Avenue, #407, Silver Spring, MD 20906, as a Rental Facility is REVOKED; and Rental Facility License No. 37373, and your authorization to operate 8830 Piney Branch Road, #204, Silver Spring, Maryland 20903, as a Rental Facility is REVOKED.  Be advised that the revocation of your Rental Facility Licenses is in addition to, and not a substitute for, any other penalties provided for the Housing Code violations.”
     
  7. On January 8, 2002, the Appellant appealed the Department’s Revocation of his three Rental Facility Licenses, and pursuant to Section 29-25, Landlord-Tenant Relations, of the County Code, 2001, as amended (“County Code’), on January 17, 2002, the Commission conducted a public hearing to determine if the Appellant’s Rental Licenses should be reinstated.
  8. On February 25, 2002, the Commission issued its Decision and Order denying the Appellant’s appeal and affirming the Department’s revocation of the Appellant’s Rental Facility licenses.  Specifically, the Commission found that:
    • The overwhelming majority of the Housing Code violations first cited by the Department at the three Properties in June and July 2001 in the various Notices of Violation sent to, and received by, the Appellant, were not corrected by the Appellant within the timeframes set forth by the Department.
    • The timeframes provided to the Appellant to correct Housing Code violations at the Properties were reasonable.
    • The three Properties are in violation of the Housing Code and Chapter 29, “Landlord-Tenant Relations,” of the County Code, due to the outstanding and uncorrected violations of the Housing Code.
    • Despite County directives and numerous citations, the Appellant failed to maintain his Properties for a period of six (6) months in a manner which conforms to the Housing Code of Montgomery County, Maryland.
    • After the Appellant received the letter from the Department dated December 21, 2001 which gave him ten (10) days to eliminate any and all outstanding violations of the Housing Code at his three Properties, the Appellant failed to eliminate those violations, and the Appellant failed to initiate any bona fide efforts to eliminate those violations.
    • The Appellant failed to provide the Commission, or present testimony at the hearing, or submit into evidence at the hearing, any documentation or information to demonstrate that he has a work plan, competent and professional trades-people or the financial resources to correct the outstanding Housing Code violations at the Properties to bring them into compliance with the Housing Code.
    • The Appellant walked out of the hearing at approximately 10:30 p.m. in the middle of the public hearing, without providing any direct testimony or evidence in support of his appeal.
    • The Appellant has engaged in a pattern of repeated disregard of County laws and County notices, and due to the fact that over a period of over six (6) months the Appellant did not correct the majority of the outstanding Housing Code violations in his Properties, despite the fact that he received Notices of Violations, Emergency Field Notices and Civil Citations due to the violations.
  9. Based on the above, the Commission ordered the following;
    • The appeal of the Rental Facility License revocations filed by the Appellant is hereby DENIED;
    • The Revocation of Rental Facility License No. 34366, for 575 Thayer Avenue, #606 Silver Spring, Maryland; Rental Facility License No. 34380, for 3301 Hewitt Avenue, #407, Silver Spring, Maryland; and Rental Facility License No. 37373, for 8830 Piney Branch Road, #204, Silver Spring, Maryland, are hereby AFFIRMED; and,
    • The revocation of Rental Facility License Nos. 34366, 34380 and 37373 is in addition to, and not in substitution for, such other penalties which may be provided for by Chapters 26 and 29 of the County Code.

Based on the Commission’s Order denying Mr. Mbakpuo’s appeal and affirming the Department’s revocation of his Rental Facility Licenses, by correspondence dated February 25, 2002, the Department advised the Appellant that he must provide the Department with copies of the 60-day notice to vacate issued to each and every tenant at 575 Thayer Avenue, #606, Silver Spring, Maryland, 3301 Hewitt Avenue, #407, Silver Spring, Maryland, and 8830 Piney Branch Road, #204, Silver Spring, Maryland, with an expiration date of April 30, 2002.

The Appellant was further advised that failure to issue notices to vacate to the tenants, and continuing to operate 575 Thayer Avenue, #606, Silver Spring, Maryland, 3301 Hewitt Avenue, #407, Silver Spring, Maryland, and 8830 Piney Branch Road, #204, Silver Spring, Maryland, as Rental Facilities without a Rental Facility License constituted a violation of the County Code punishable by issuance of a Class A civil citation in the amount of $500.00, and each day he operated without a license would be considered a separate offense.

Arrow, up icon Ulysses S. Glee

License #  017961
Date Order Issued  November 5, 1998
Subject  License Revocation

On September 28, 1998, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Department"), revoked the Rental Facility License for the Property, 8716 Bradford Road, Silver Spring, Maryland, owned by Ulysses Glee ("Owner"). This notice was issued as a result of the Owner’s failure to correct 28 of 75 housing code violations in compliance with notices given by the Department. The Owner exercised his right to appeal the Department’s license revocation to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. as a result of an inspection of the Property on June 23, 1998, the Department issued the Owners a notice of 75 violations of Chapter 26, "Housing and Building Maintenance Standards," of the County Code (the "Housing Code");
  2. the Owner was given 30-45 days to complete these repairs per the June 23, 1998, notice of violation;
  3. the Department sent the Owner a notice, dated August 28, 1998, in which they informed him that the first reinspection of the Property showed no substantial progress had been made;
  4. the letter dated August 28, 1998, informed the Owner of his right to appeal these findings to the Montgomery County Board of Appeals, an option he failed to exercise;
  5. the Department inspected the Property on September 15, 1998, at which time 28 of the 75 violations were still outstanding;
  6. on September 28, 1998, the Department sent the Owner a letter informing him that an inspection of the Property on September 15, 1998, revealed 28 of the 75 violations listed on June 23, 1998 were still outstanding. The letter also informed him of the Department’s decision to revoke his rental facility license; and,
  7. the Owner was informed of his right to appeal this decision to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs and, as a result of his appeal a hearing was held.

The Commission further found that:

  1. the violations cited by the Department were credible and valid;
  2. through photographic and oral testimony presented by the Code Inspectors, the depiction of the Property on September 15, 1998, was both factual and valid;
  3. none of the outstanding violations constituted a threat to the health and safety of the tenants;
  4. the Owner had done substantial repairs to the Property at the time of the hearing and was scheduled to finish all of these repairs by December 1, 1998;
  5. the Owner was given proper notice of the repairs and ample opportunity to correct them, which he failed to do; and the Property is in violation of Chapters 26 and 29 of the County Code.

On November 5, 1998, the Commission modified the revocation order by the Department. The rental facility license No. 017961 was temporarily reinstated with the following conditions:

  1. all remaining housing code violations cited by the Department in the notice of violation dated June 28, 1998, must be corrected by December 1, 1998; and,
  2. pending reinspection of the Property by the Department, if all violations have been corrected by December 1, 1998, the rental facility license No. 017961 will be fully reinstated.

Arrow, up icon Kwong and Mee Fong

License #  017335
Date Order Issued  September 18, 1998
Subject  License Revocation

On August 5, 1998, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Department"), revoked the Rental Facility License for the Property, 8811 Glenville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland, owned by Kwong and Mee Fong ("Owners"). This notice was issued as a result of the Owners’ failure to correct 32 of 54 housing code violations in compliance with notices given by the Department. The Owners exercised their right to appeal the Department’s license revocation to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. as a result of an inspection of the Property on May 13, 1998, the Department issued the Owners a notice of 54 violations of Chapter 26, "Housing and Building Maintenance Standards," of the County Code (the "Housing Code");
  2. the Owners were given 30-45 days to complete these repairs per the June 3, 1998, notice of violation and requested an extension of time on July 6, 1998;
  3. the Department sent the Owners a notice, dated July 17, 1998, noting a lack of substantial progress in making the required repairs;
  4. the letter dated July 17, 1998, informed the Owners of their right to appeal these findings to the Montgomery County Board of Appeals, an option they failed to exercise;
  5. as a result of an inspection of the Property on July 15, 1998, the Department sent the Owners a letter dated July 22, 1998, noting that 32 of the 54 violations cited on June 3, 1998, had not been corrected;
  6. on August 5, 1998, the Department sent the Owners a letter informing them that an inspection of the Property on July 31, 1998, revealed 25 of the 54 violations listed on June 3, 1998, were still outstanding. The letter also informed them of the Department’s decision to revoke their rental facility license effective August 15, 1998; and,
  7. the Owners were informed of their right to appeal this decision to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs and as a result of their appeal a hearing was held.

The Commission further found that:

  1. the violations cited by the Department were credible and valid;
  2. through photographic and oral testimony presented by the Code Inspectors, the depiction of the Property on July 31, 1998, was both factual and valid;
  3. the Owners had attempted to make several repairs themselves and the work was not done in a professional. workmanlike manner;
  4. the Owners demonstrated their efforts to have the repairs completed professionally as soon as possible;
  5. the Owners were given proper notice of the repairs and ample opportunity to correct them, which they failed to do; and,
  6. the Property is in violation of Chapters 26 and 29 of the County Code.

On September 18, 1998, the Commission modified the revocation order by the Department. The rental facility license No. 017335 was temporarily reinstated with the following conditions:

  1. all remaining housing code violations cited by the Department in the notice of violation dated June 3, 1998, must be corrected by September 30, 1998;
  2. beginning October 1998 and continuing for 12 calendar months thereafter, the Property, including all common areas, are subject to bi-monthly inspections;
  3. if any housing code violations are discovered as the result of these inspections, they must be corrected within the time-frames and instructions set forth by the Department. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the immediate revocation of the license by the Commission; and,
  4. if the Owners remain in compliance with this Order up to and including the final bi-monthly inspection of the Property, their rental facility license will be reinstated.

Arrow, up icon David and Ching-Mei Tsai

License #  017790
Date Order Issued  September 18, 1998
Subject  License Revocation

On August 5, 1998, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Department"), revoked the Rental Facility License for the Property, 8809 Glenville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland, owned by David and Ching-Mei Tsai ("Owners"). This notice was issued as a result of the Owners’ failure to correct 41 of 67 housing code violations in compliance with notices given by the Department. The Owners exercised their right to appeal the Department’s license revocation to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. as a result of an inspection of the Property on May 28, 1998, the Department issued the Owners a notice of 67 violations of Chapter 26, "Housing and Building Maintenance Standards," of the County Code (the "Housing Code");
  2. the Owners were given 30-45 days to complete these repairs per the May 28, 1998, notice of violation and requested an extension of time on July 6, 1998;
  3. the Department sent the Owners a notice, dated July 17, 1998, in which they informed them that an extension of time to repair the violations would not be granted until the first reinspection of the Property was conducted to determine what progress had been made;
  4. the letter dated July 17, 1998, informed the Owners of their right to appeal these findings to the Montgomery County Board of Appeals, an option they failed to exercise;
  5. the Department inspected the Property on July 31, 1998, and found 41 of the 67 violations had not been corrected;
  6. on August 5, 1998, the Department sent the Owners a letter informing them that an inspection of the Property on July 31, 1998, revealed 41 of the 67 violations listed on May 28, 1998, were still outstanding. The letter also informed them of the Department’s decision to revoke their rental facility license effective August 15, 1998; and,
  7. the Owners were informed of their right to appeal this decision to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs and as a result of their appeal a hearing was held.

The Commission further found that:

  1. the violations cited by the Department were credible and valid;
  2. through photographic and oral testimony presented by the Code Inspectors, the depiction of the Property on July 31, 1998, was both factual and valid;
  3. an inspection of the Property on August 24, 1998, revealed most of the major violations had been corrected and none of the remaining violations constituted a threat to health and safety;
  4. the Owners hired a professional maintenance person for the Property and two contractors to make all the required repairs to the Property in a timely manner;
  5. the Owners were given proper notice of the repairs and ample opportunity to correct them, which they failed to do; and,
  6. the Property is in violation of Chapters 26 and 29 of the County Code.

On September 18, 1998, the Commission modified the revocation order by the Department. The rental facility license No. 017823 was temporarily reinstated with the following conditions:

  1. all remaining housing code violations cited by the Department in the notice of violation dated June 10, 1998, must be corrected by September 30, 1998;
  2. beginning October 1998 and continuing for 12 calendar months thereafter, the Property, including all common areas, are subject to bi-monthly inspections;
  3. if any housing code violations are discovered as the result of these inspections, they must be corrected within the time-frames and instructions set forth by the Department. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the immediate revocation of the license by the Commission; and,
  4. if the Owners remain in compliance with this Order up to and including the final bi-monthly inspection of the Property, their rental facility license will be reinstated.

Arrow, up icon David and Ching-Mei Tsai

License #  017823
Date order Issued  September 17, 1998
Subject  License Revocation

On August 5, 1998, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Department"), revoked the Rental Facility License for the Property, 8806 Glenville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland, owned by David and Ching-Mei Tsai ("Owners"). This notice was issued as a result of the Owners’ failure to correct 156 housing code violations in compliance with notices given by the Department. The Owners exercised their right to appeal the Department’s license revocation to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. as a result of an inspection of the Property on June 10, 1998, the Department issued the Owners a notice of 156 violations of Chapter 26, "Housing and Building Maintenance Standards," of the County Code (the "Housing Code");
  2. the Owners were given 30-45 days to complete these repairs per the June 10, 1998, notice of violation and requested an extension of time on July 6, 1998;
  3. the Department sent the Owners a notice, dated July 17, 1998, in which they informed them that an extension of time to repair the violations would not be granted until the first reinspection of the Property was conducted, to determine what progress had been made;
  4. the letter dated July 17, 1998, informed the Owners of their right to appeal these findings to the Montgomery County Board of Appeals, an option they failed to exercise;
  5. the Department inspected the Property on July 17, 1998, at which time only 5 of the 156 violations had been corrected. The Department inspected the Property again on July 31, 1998, and found only 25 more of the violations had been corrected;
  6. on August 5, 1998, the Department sent the Owners a letter informing them that an inspection of the Property on July 31, 1998, revealed 126 of the 156 violations listed on June 10, 1998, were still outstanding. The letter also informed them of the Department’s decision to revoke their rental facility license effective August 15, 1998; and,
  7. the Owners were informed of their right to appeal this decision to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs and as a result of their appeal a hearing was held.

The Commission further found that:

  1. the violations cited by the Department were credible and valid
  2. through photographic and oral testimony presented by the Code Inspectors, the depiction of the Property on July 31, 1998 was both factual and valid;
  3. certain of the code violations constituted a threat to the health and safety of the tenants, specifically, deteriorated concrete walkway leading to the lower level, loose wrought iron hand rail, rusted/deteriorated perimeter fence with unattached meshing, missing electric fuse box cover in the furnace room, improperly wired electrical outlet in the furnace room, unsecured roof access ladder, and double cylinder dead-bolt lock on entrance door to Unit #3;
  4. the Owners had hired a professional maintenance person for the Property and two contractors to make all the required repairs to the Property in a timely manner;
  5. the Owners were given proper notice of the repairs and ample opportunity to correct them, which they failed to do; and,
  6. the Property is in violation of Chapters 26 and 29 of the County Code.

On September 18, 1998, the Commission modified the revocation order by the Department. The rental facility license No. 017823 was temporarily reinstated with the following conditions:

  1. all remaining housing code violations cited by the Department in the notice of violation dated June 10, 1998, must be corrected by October 23, 1998;
  2. beginning November 1998 and continuing for 12 calendar months thereafter, the Property, including all common areas, are subject to bi-monthly inspections;
  3. if any housing code violations are discovered as the result of these inspections, they must be corrected within the time-frames and instructions set forth by the Department. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the immediate revocation of the license by the Commission; and,
  4. if the Owners remain in compliance with this Order up to and including the final bi-monthly inspection of the Property, their rental facility license will be reinstated.

Arrow, up icon G. Gregory Russell

License #  017329
Date Order Issued  September 14, 1998
Subject  License Revocation

On August 4, 1998, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Department"), revoked the Rental Facility License for the Property, 8813 Glenville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland, owned by G. Gregory Russell ("Owner"). This notice was issued as a result of the Owner’s failure to correct 31 housing code violations in compliance with notices given by the Department. The Owners exercised their right to appeal the Department’s license revocation to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. as a result of an inspection of the Property on May 18, 1998, the Department issued the Owner a notice of 31 violations of Chapter 26, "Housing and Building Maintenance Standards," of the County Code (the "Housing Code");
  2. the Owner was given 30-45 days to complete these repairs per the May 28, 1998, notice of violation;
  3. the Owner canceled the inspection of the Property scheduled for July 8, 1998, and requested an extension of time on July 7, 1998;
  4. the Department sent the Owner a notice, dated July 17, 1998, in which they informed him that an extension of time to repair the violations would not be granted until the first reinspection of the Property was conducted, to determine what progress had been made;
  5. the letter dated July 17, 1998, informed the Owners of their right to appeal these findings to the Montgomery County Board of Appeals, an option they failed to exercise;
  6. the Department inspected the Property on July 31, 1998, at which time none of the 31 violations had been corrected;
  7. on August 4, 1998, the Department sent the Owner a letter informing him that an inspection of the Property on July 31, 1998, revealed that none of the 31 violations listed on May 28, 1998, had been corrected;
  8. the letter dated August 4, 1998, also informed him of the Department’s decision to revoke his rental facility license effective August 15, 1998; and,
  9. the Owner was informed of his right to appeal this decision to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs and as a result of his appeal a hearing was held.

The Commission further found that:

  1. the violations cited by the Department were credible and valid;
  2. through photographic and oral testimony presented by the Code Inspectors, the depiction of the Property on July 31, 1998 was both factual and valid;
  3. certain of the code violations constituted a threat to the health and safety of the tenants, specifically the overcrowding in Unit #6;
  4. the Owner had done substantial repairs to the Property at the time of the hearing and was scheduled to finish the majority of these repairs by August 31, 1998;
  5. the Owners were given proper notice of the repairs and ample opportunity to correct them, which they failed to do; and,
  6. the Property is in violation of Chapters 26 and 29 of the County Code.

On September 14, 1998, the Commission modified the revocation order by the Department. The rental facility license No. 017329 was temporarily reinstated with the following conditions:

  1. all remaining housing code violations cited by the Department in the notice of violation dated May 28, 1998, must be corrected by September 30, 1998, with the exception of the 8 violations in Unit #6 which must be completed within 30 days after the Tenants vacate the Property;
  2. within 10 days of the date of the Order, a copy of the quit and vacate notice for the Tenants in Unit #6, be provided to the Department;
  3. Unit #6 not be re-occupied until all code violations have been corrected and the unit has been re-inspected and approved by the Department;
  4. beginning October 1998 and continuing for 12 calendar months thereafter, the Property, including all common areas, are subject to bi-monthly inspections;
  5. if any housing code violations are discovered as the result of these inspections, they must be corrected within the time-frames and instructions set forth by the Department. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the immediate revocation of the license by the Commission; and,
  6. if the Owners remain in compliance with this Order up to and including the final bi-monthly inspection of the Property, their rental facility license will be reinstated.

​Arrow, up icon Russell and Ellen Carter

License #  017610
Date Order Issued  August 28, 1998
Subject  License Revocation

On August 4, 1998, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Department"), revoked the Rental Facility License for the Property, 8802 Glenville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland, owned by Russell and Ellen Carter ("Owners"). This notice was issued as a result of the Owners’ failure to correct 143 housing code violations in compliance with notices given by the Department. The Owners exercised their right to appeal the Department’s license revocation to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs.

After holding a public hearing, the Commission found that:

  1. as a result of an inspection of the Property on May 18, 1998, the Department issued the Owners a notice, dated May 27, 1998, of 143 violations of Chapter 26, "Housing and Building Maintenance Standards," of the County Code (the "Housing Code");
  2. the Owners were given 45 days to complete these repairs per the May 27, 1998, notice of violation;
  3. the Department sent the Owners a notice, dated July 17, 1998, in which they informed them that an inspection of the Property on July 2, 1998, revealed a "..lack of substantial progress..";
  4. the letter dated July 17, 1998, informed the Owners of their right to appeal these findings to the Montgomery County Board of Appeals, an option they failed to exercise;
  5. on August 4, 1998, the Department sent the Owners a letter informing them that an inspection of the Property on July 31, 1998 revealed none of the 143 violations listed on May 27, 1998, had been corrected. The letter also informed them of the Department’s decision to revoke their rental facility license effective August 15, 1998;
  6. the Owners were informed of their right to appeal this decision to the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs and as a result of their appeal a hearing was held on August 20, 1998.

The Commission further found that:

  1. the violations cited by the Department were credible and valid;
  2. through photographic and oral testimony presented by the Code Inspectors, the depiction of the Property on July 31, 1998 was both factual and valid;
  3. certain of the code violations constituted a threat to the health and safety of the tenants, specifically roach and rodent infestation, plumbing leaks, and defective sub-flooring;
  4. the Owners offered no evidence to show that any of the repairs had been made or that the Owners had the financial ability to make the required repairs;
  5. the Owners were given proper notice of the repairs and ample opportunity to correct them, which they failed to do; and the Property is in violation of Chapters 26 and 29 of the County Code.

On August 28, 1998, the Commission affirmed the revocation order by the Department.