REPAIR REQUESTS, COMPLAINTS, EXTRA CHARGES, FINES, HAKC RESPONSES AND DEFENDANTS CONFESSION Plaintiff had previously sent a list of complaints and repair requests; Defendant’s letter dated December 20, 2012 contains both the Plaintiffs issues and the Defendants responses. Complaints/Issues most notable and applicable to this claim are as follows: D. Plaintiffs issue number 1: Decades old carpeting in apartment units throughout Trinal Manor which have never been replaced. Defendants response to this issue reads as follows: “The carpeting was replaced during 2002-2003 once (a consensus was reached by ALL of the tenants of Trinal Manor) The carpeting in your apartment (apartment 201) has not received proper cleaning and maintenance since it has been installed.” Plaintiff would like to state that no records exist which would indicate that new carpeting was ever installed within the context of Defendants records as indicated by the Housing Authority of Kittitas County (HAKC), nor is there any indication of carpet replacement within the context of the Plaintiffs records as received under the Freedom of Information act (as tenant of unit 201). In fact there are no records showing any carpet replacements at Trinal Manor apartments since 1971. Further more, photographs show the original 1970s carpeting in two rooms at apartment 201 and carpeting from the 1980s in the living room and hallway of unit 201 (this carpeting which was installed in the 1970s is also the same carpeting as seen in photographs (see exhibits number ___ through ___) throughout the main complex halls, stairwells and offices. The same carpeting scheme described in unit 201 is the same in every unit except two (units 207 and 209) in all of Trinal Manor – Carpeting was replaced in unit 207 due to tenant pet damages and carpeting was also replaced in unit 209 due to meth manufacturing/use residue. Plaintiff used a “Rug Doctor” quarterly regularly until it was in such decrepit condition from age the cleaning actually did more damage to the carpet. E. Plaintiffs issue number 2: Black mold in apartment. Defendants response: “please contact me to make arrangements to address this issue.” Plaintiff would like to state this was the third time Plaintiff had notified defendant of the toxic black mold problems in unit 201, it wasnt until the summer of 2013 that Fulcrum Environmental was contacted by Defendant. F. Plaintiffs issue number 3: Cracks in main support beam. Defendants response: “cracking in support beams is a natural occurrence. Please contact me concerning having a staff member examine the beam. If necessary a structural engineer will examine the beam for structural integrity and worthiness of the beam.” Plaintiff would like to state Plaintiff did make contact, defendant sent no staff member or engineer. Furthermore, the problem was not the integrity of the beam but the crack was the beam separating from the ceiling allowing draft, water leakage and insects to enter unit 201. G Plaintiffs issue number 5: Old flooring “paved over” (old flooring not replace but new flooring lain on top of old deteriorating flooring) with new flooring. Defendant states: “It is standard industry practice to place new flooring over existing old flooring.” Plaintiff would like to state that is not standard industry practice nor is it practical as the adhesive will not take and further repairs will have to be made in the future, also the old flooring was so deteriorated adhesive couldnt possibly stick to it. This was part of the cause for the directly downstairs unit 101 bathroom ceiling having toxic black mold from the directly upstairs unit 201 flooring. M. Plaintiffs issue number 6: Painting of the apartment. Defendant states: “At your request you were allowed to paint your apartment. I have noticed paint damage to the carpeting as a result of your efforts or lack of efforts thereof...” Plaintiff would like to state it is against the lease for any tenant to paint or make repairs to units, also Plaintiff had asked for Defendant to paint unit 201 multiple times over a 5 year period. Plaintiff states if Defendant had followed the lease agreement and HUD?RCW codes this would not be an issue. Those are the more entries of issues/complaints in the letter of December 20, 2012 – HOWEVER; MORE IMPORTANTLY DEFEDANT CONCLUDES THE LETTER with an apologetic CONFESSION: DEFENDANTS RETALIATORY COMPLAINTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF Defendants letter April 12th, 2013 (There is also a SECOND letter for April 12 2013. It is a copy of the entire 1st page although it has portions removed and other things added to the second page) reads: “I am writing to you for the following two reasons – (1) Document containing complaints relative to the loud/disturbing noises that are generated from your apartment unit especially during the hours of 2am-6am (2) Acknowledge receipt of a request from HUDs Seattle Field Office to respond to your email dated Saturday, March 23rd, 2013. This email contained allegations concerning events/issues that went back to your original move in date of September 26th, 2001. As soon as I have reasonably exhausted all potentially available resources I will respond under separate cover.” Concerning complaints received they specifically mention: “April 4, 2:30am loud noise in area of bathroom/bedroom. April 6, 2am thru 6am walking heavy in apartment and other noise. April 7, no specific time noise spaced out throughout the night after 4 or 5 hours of noise all was quite until 2:30pm (later the same day) when something heavy was either dropped or knocked over it is reported that heavy things are being dropped/knocked over at night and during the day.” Plaintiff would like to state: This would make a total of 11 hours, 1hr on the 4th and 10hrs for the 24hr period of the 6th - 7th (but nothing on the 5th?). These are non specific noises so Plaintiff explained at a meeting with June McElfresh in unit 101 who was formerly a tenant of the upstairs unit 203 which was also a middle section unit away from the road was not exposed to the noises from an upstairs floor being her downstairs ceiling in an old building that creaked and popped at every step and in changes in the weather, Plaintiff also explained that noises from traffic and pedestrians not audible in unit 203 due to its location in the building, are however clearly audible in the lower end unit 101 from the nearby road and sidewalk. Plaintiff also explained that noise made by units 202 – 206 tenants/visitors and general public using the outside stairwell can be heard in unit 101 as well because the stairwell in directly connected to the outside wall of unit 101 and 201. Plaintiff explained he has nothing “heavy” to drop or knock over in his unit (201) and Plaintiff is asleep (due to his environmental cyclothymia condition) at the hours of 2:30am – 8am; if Plaintiff goes without sleep for 10 hours of a 24 hour period his health would be greatly affected. Plaintiff also explained at certain times/days Plaintiff was not at home. The defendants letter also claims “you have indicated to me and other housing authority staff (this is not intended to be a exact quote) that when someone wrongs you, you will respond in a manner that gets their attention, even if your actions result in having an adverse impact on others even to the point of taking out innocent people” Plaintiff would like to state: if this was in fact said by plaintiff, where is the police report, protection order, why was plaintiff NOT restricted or restrained from use of the HAKC (Defendants) office or contact with personnel, why was plaintiff NOT trespassed? Furthermore, why was the phrase “(this is not intended to be an exact quote)” used when an exact quote would be needed? The Defendants letter continues : “You claimed that a neighboring tenants vehicle has spilled/is spilling a harmful fluid (oil or similar) on the ground that is running into the storm drains. My (Defendants) question to you is: are you adding a harmful fluid to the ground around the vehicle? You did provide a picture of the vehicle with markings on the ground that clearly identify the fluid as oil and I assume that you made the markings. You threatened to have the vehicle towed if you were able to do so and that you would notify authorities again.” Plaintiff would like to state: Tenants in unit 202 had a car leaking oil in the front parking area of the complex, defendant told them not to park their due to the oil leak and unit 202 then parked on the W 11th ave road where it leaked oil (a 9 long x3 wide slick) into the nearby storm drain. Plaintiff called Code Enforcement who told tenants in 202 “if the car was found parked on any public roads with the leak they would fine them and tow the car”, unit 202 then moved the car to the back parking area where it leaked into the storm drain there and plaintiff made another complaint to HAKC (defendant) and Code Enforcement again. The letter concludes with defendant saying “This is to issue you a strong warning that if the events dont cease I will be left with no choice but to terminate your dwelling lease agreement via the provision of the lease agreement. Your activities of responding with retaliation to every event that you perceive as being aimed at you will no longer be tolerated.” Plaintiff would like to state: Plaintiff at no time perceived every event to be aimed at Plaintiff and that it is an assumption of the Defendants part and not factual. Defendant sends another letter June 26th 2013 responding to Plaintiffs complaints made May 13, 25, and June 19 all of 2013. This included 21 total violations by defendant and defendants letter begins with: “Please be advised that to the extent any alleged violations are merely conclusory (not an actual word) statements without basis alleged in fact or law, the response is made of a general nature as it is impossible to respond to alleged violations where there are no specific instances where violation were alleged to have occurred...” “Issue 1 involves another residents vehicle and has been addressed and resolved with that resident and appropriate authorities. NO HUD policy has been violated” Plaintiff would like to state: this incident involved Mike Carbone tenant of Trinal Manor, Defendant was contacted by a privately owned car finance company , the company contacted Perry Rowe (defendant) and asked if Carbone still lived there, is he there right now and when is he usually at home. Minutes later Carbones car was repossessed. Carbone thought the car was stolen and called police who in turn called Defendant who confessed to the officer exactly what has been describe previously and Defendant told the officer he answered the questions asked. The HUD violations are: To promote and maintain individuals, trust in privacy, confidentiality and security protections provided by HUD, the Department will be guided by the following privacy principles: Protecting individual privacy and safeguarding confidential information are a public trust. No information will be collected or used that is not necessary and relevant for the administration of HUDs programs, and other legally mandated or authorized purposes. Information will be collected, to the greatest extent practicable, directly from the individual to whom it relates. Information about individuals collected from third parties will be verified to the greatest extent practicable with the individuals themselves before any adverse action is taken against them. Personally identifiable information will be used only for the purpose for which it was collected, unless other uses are specifically authorized or mandated by law. Personally identifiable information will be disposed of at the end of the retention period required by law or regulation. Individual information will be kept confidential and will not be discussed with, nor disclosed to, any person within or outside of HUD other than as authorized by law and in the performance of official duties. Unauthorized access to individual information by any HUD employee constitutes a serious breach of the confidentiality of that information and will not be tolerated. Requirements governing the accuracy, reliability, completeness, and timeliness of individual information will ensure fair treatment of all individuals. The privacy rights of individuals will be respected at all times and every individual will be treated honestly, fairly, and respectfully. The 2nd issue of the Defendants letter April 12th, 2013 is: “I was approach by a Central Washington University group of students concerning a class project that would provide a community service to the general population of Trinal Manor residents. I did authorize them to plan the event to be held in the community room of Trinal Manor and to distribute fliers that were prepared by the group in consultation with housing authority staff. No one was sent specifically to your apartment you were not singled out in anyway. NO HUD policy was violated. Plaintiff would like to state: The CWU group of students were from a CATHOLIC chapter of students who live on campus (HUD violation). Defendant HAKC sent them to each apartment soliciting participation in the room reserved for tenant use and official HAKC office/staff use only. If a TENANT holds a faith based organization event on PHA property that is legal and allowable; HOWEVER, An Executive Director or any other employee cannot contract that to happen on their on volition (HUD violation) and cannot allow or direct any solicitations or proselytizing (HUD violation). HUD policy reads: § 5.109 Equal Participation of Religious Organizations in HUD Programs and Activities. (a) Purpose. Consistent with Executive Order 13279 (issued on December 12, 2002, 67 FR 77141, 3 CFR, 2002 Comp., p. 258), entitled “Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations,” this section describes HUDs policy for the equal participation of religious organizations in HUDs programs and activities. The equal participation policies and requirements contained in this section are generally applicable to religious organizations in all HUD programs and activities. More specific policies and requirements regarding the participation of religious organizations in individual HUD programs may be provided in the regulations for those programs. (c) Inherently religious activities. Organizations that receive direct HUD funds under a HUD program or activity may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services funded under a HUD program or activity. If an organization conducts such inherently religious activities, the inherently religious activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs, activities, or services supported by direct HUD funds and participation must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the programs, activities or services provided under the HUD program. Another issue of the Plaintiff was: Defendant states – “a person can be evicted or have their lease terminated but that action does not necessarily prevent them from being a bona fide guest of a resident of the building”. No HUD policy or regulation was violated.” Plaintiff would like to state: the person referenced was the a tenant who was evicted for meth use/residue, theft and vandalism. However Defendant allowed him to be a guest of his parents whom also were tenants at Trinal Manor. Another issue of the Plaintiff was: The Grievance Hearing. Plaintiff would like to state: Defendant makes note of the Defendants idea of what the hearing consists of and did NOT follow the appropriate terms of an actual Grievance Hearing. There were no impartial officers, no secretary and no recording of the hearing, and defendant selected the members to be the “impartial” dispute resolvers with no selection approved by the plaintiff. The official guidelines for a proper Grievance Hearing are in this notebook. NOISE/ASSORTED COMPLAINTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF COMPLY OR VACATES The majority of these were mentioned in detail in the “retaliatory” section previously, the following are a summation with specifics pointed out. June 5 2013 Defendants letter reads: “Tenant in unit 101 beneath you in unit 201 reported you made noise every 3-4 seconds for 20 minutes” “8am-2:55pm making noise dropping heavy objects and anything you can do to make noise.” “If tenant has family over it stops when they arrive and begins again after they leave” “3:15pm noise started went on through the night every 20 minutes” “You follow her around into every room tenant goes to and make noise just to let her know you are still here.” Plaintiff would like to state: there are many comply or vacate notices all having to do with noises that either came from other sources or claims of plaintiff making noise at times and impossible intervals (“every 3-4 second for 20 minutes and continued for 8 more hours, following tenant in 101 from room to room just to let her know plaintiff was still there”) Plaintiff contacted the VASH program for the Veterans Administration (Tim Read), Read met with Defendant HAKC Director Perry Rowe and after meeting with him - when he was supposed to meet with Plaintiff but never met with Plaintiff - left after meeting with Defendant. Read (VASH) was supposed to have found Plaintiff temporary housing in Ellensburg and assist Plaintiff in avoiding eviction, but Defendant took measures that stopped that. GRIEVANCE HEARING, B.O.D. AGENDA Plaintiff at this point had reported the toxic black mold (and other repairs), Defendant (HAKC Perry Rowe) has sent plaintiff “reasonable accommodation” offers – offer 1 of temporary housing in another HAKC facility was not acceptable as all other units had either meth residue problems or toxic black mold problems as well as repairs never made from 1970s to present, offer 2 was temporary housing in a local motel in Ellensburg but all motels were booked full due to “Jazz in the Valley” festival, offer 3 was temporary housing in Yakima or Cle Elum with only 3 paid for commuter bus trips to Ellensburg which was not a reasonable offer. - In each case the “temporary” part was in fact not temporary because HAKC wanted Plaintiff to change the utilities into HAKCs “name” and out of Plaintiffs name while away from unit 201 and HAKC would not guarantee Plaintiff could return to unit 201. So according to the HAKC lease the next option was the “rent abatement” clause H (included in this folder) which states (paraphrased) “...in the case of no available reasonable accommodation rent abatement shall be accessed according to the severity of the work/repairs/remedies to be done...” Plaintiff then requested the rent abatement amount to be paid from HAKC three or more times, each time plaintiff received no response. Plaintiff did pay in good faith the minimum amount acceptable for any HUD unit of $50.00 for the month of August 2013 still awaiting an abatement amount response. The response Plaintiff did finally get was a LATE CHARGE NOTICE. Plaintiff requested Grievance Hearings but they were not honored and the “hearings” that did take place were not actual hearings according to HUD or HAKC regulations. The AGENDA FOR B.O.D. MEETING shows no Grievance Hearing was listed nor discussed and is included in this folder. PAY OR VACATE EVICTION COURT/EVICTION MOVE OUT CHARGES/PLAINTIFF RESPONSE EVERGREEN COLLECTIONS Denied opportunity for DUE PROCESS when requests for Grievance Hearings were not honored (no records exist for them or were not received via the information/records request according to the Freedom of Information Act) plaintiff then began to receive PAY OR VACATE notices rather than rent abatement amount to pay. Following those notices and further requests for abatement plaintiffs received NOTICES TO APPEAR IN COURT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER. Disabled and impaired from long term toxic black mold exposure, unable to attain advocacy or representation plaintiff had no other option but to appear in court. Plaintiff did agree to PAY rather than VACATE and went to the HAKC office to make payment the plaintiff understood he had 3 days to make the payment or be forcibly evicted/removed from unit 201; Defendant HAKC then informed plaintiff Defendant does not receive the rent payment but rather the Defendants attorney (Ellis Law Offices) takes the payment, Jennifer Ellis (Ellis Law) informed plaintiff they do mot take receivership of rental payment but rather the Kittitas County Court takes the payment into a registry that was created by the Judge (Judge Sparks). Plaintiff then went to the county clerk to pay into the registry; however, Judge Sparks failed to create a registry to make payment into and consequently Plaintiff then had to discover how to contact Judge Sparks to make him aware of this failure. Plaintiff found he must go through a secretary who would schedule an appointment to see Judge Spark in this registry creation; unfortunately, the THREE DAYS of the PAY OR VACATE had passed and plaintiff had only a few hours to remove the most vital items from unit 201 before being forcibly evicted by a sheriff. A 15 year old computer system, some of his clothing (but not all), and personal care products were all Plaintiff had time to remove, all the rest had to be left behind in unit 201 or plaintiff would be arrested for trespass. Plaintiff had no housing options and was forced to live for 7 months in the basement of an abandoned building, through the winter in sub-zero temperatures, with no facilities to shower, no bathroom, no power, no light, no means to cook or store food. Plaintiffs already poor health became worse and plaintiffs hygiene declined to extremely unhealthy levels . Plaintiff is a combat veteran and was able to contact the VA for housing in April 2014 and was successful in entering the Home for Displaced Veterans (the VIP House) at 301 S 6th street Yakima WA 98901; where Plaintiff can recover his health. Plaintiff then received several MOVE OUT CHARGES notices of various amounts including a list of items left in unit 201 Defendant had taken out and put into Man of Steal moving/storage company ($372.93) (this list included items that were not in fact on the premises and important documents were not returned to plaintiff in violation of RCW codes). Those amounts were $11,513.60, $11,263.60, $6,839.11, $11, 771.60, and $7,094.11; each notice included “..and will be revised upon final billing. If HAKC (defendant) does not hear from you within 30 days a follow up letter will be sent giving you 15 days to respond.” Whereupon plaintiff did respond once in writing deposited into the office drop box (which defendant said was not received), plaintiff hand delivered a second reply to Defendant face to face and time/date stamped it from office. The reply stated the reasons the billing was not a payable amount as the total amounts where too many and at various amounts and how plaintiff was not culpable for the charges levied. Defendant then denied or ignored the plaintiffs replies and sent plaintiff to EVERGREEN COLLECTIONS. EVERGREEN COLLECTIONS then sent plaintiff notice stating “collection would be honored unless plaintiff could show evidence as to why plaintiff is not responsible for the billing. Plaintiff sent Evergreen this evidence and Evergreen DID NOT HONOR the collection request sent by Defendant (it was rejected).
Posted on: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 04:06:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015