Opinion
No. CV04 4000292-S
November 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This matter is before the court for a housing code enforcement hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-14h which provides a method by which a tenant may compel his landlord to perform his legal duties under General Statutes § 47a-7. Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn.App. 444, 449, 547 A.2d 935 (1988). Known as the "payment of rent into court" statute, Section 47a-14h requires a tenant to deposit with the clerk of the Superior Court an amount equal to the agreed-upon rent after the date a complaint under that section is filed. General Statutes § 47a-14.
The defendants are the owners of the premises located at 123 Church Street, Wallingford, Connecticut. The plaintiff has leased the premises since July 1998 at a monthly rental rate of $700. On June 30, 2004, the Town of Wallingford Housing Code Enforcement Office responded to the plaintiff's complaint about code violations at the premises. By letter dated July 16, 2004, the defendants were informed that "[p]rimarily, you do not have a Certificate of Compliance on file." The violations which the defendants were ordered to abate within 30 days of receipt of the enforcement letter are as follows.
1. All damaged ceilings caused from previous water leaks from above apartment.
2. Electrical outlet that provides power for refrigerator does not work.
3. Common area lighting circuitry is not on separate house meter.
4. Fence in backyard is in serious disrepair.
5. Stonewall in rear yard adjacent to side road is in disrepair, causing a possible hazard for pedestrians. CT Page 16696
6. No garbage facilities provided.
On July 26, 2004, the plaintiff filed this action seeking an order requiring the landlords to make repairs and an award of money damages, including payment for repairs which the tenant claims to have made, as well as a retroactive abatement of rent. The relief of rent abatement is triggered where there is evidence of a substantial violation or series of violations. of housing and health codes creating a material risk or hazard to the occupant. See Visco v. Cody, supra 449-51.
In this case, there is evidence of code violations. There is no evidence, however, that the plaintiff complained to the Town of Wallingford at any time before the complaint that precipitated the inspection on June 30, 2004, nearly six years after he had moved into the premises and around the time that he was concerned that the defendants would be requiring him to leave the premises. The inspector did not order that the violations found be corrected immediately or that the tenant be relocated, which would have been required in the face of serious or life-threatening violations. The violations did not create a material risk or hazard to the tenant which rendered the premises uninhabitable. Also, although the defendants did not have a certificate of compliance on file with the town, that would not entitle the plaintiff to rent abatement. Smith v. Dreamy Hollow Apartments Corp., 150 Conn. 702, 191 A.2d 648 (1963).
There was, however, a code violation arising from the damaged ceiling that, based on the photographs, exposed the plaintiff to an unsafe condition. The tenant, on equitable grounds, is entitled to some rent abatement for hazard to which he has been exposed.
By the time of the hearing, all repairs had been made. By the time of the hearing, the plaintiff had paid $2,100 into court. The court, after considering the claims of the plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the parties and the credibility of the witnesses, enters the following orders: the $2,100 paid into court is to be distributed by paying the sum of $1,800 to the defendants, and the sum of $300 to the plaintiff, Karl Zahradka.
All repairs having been made and all sums paid into court having been ordered distributed, this matter is dismissed.
BY THE COURT
Tanzer, Judge