On May 22, 2025, the West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Commission (RSC) remanded appeal D-4989 to the Hearing Examiner, allowing tenant Victor Pelayo of 1035 N. Hayworth Ave. #110 an opportunity to submit additional rent payment records to support his claim of overcharges. The decision, which passed with Vice Chair Frank D Rorie Jr. dissenting, highlighted the tension between procedural fairness and the city’s tenant-friendly rent stabilization laws.
Victor Pelayo, a 20-year resident of the property since 2004, sought a Maximum Allowable Rent (MAR) determination and a refund for rent overcharges in March 2025. The Hearing Examiner set the MAR at $1,200 and awarded $238.47 for overcharges spanning five months, based on limited evidence of two improper rent increases in July and August 2013 and an unauthorized pass-through fee. Victor appealed, arguing he misunderstood the evidence required, providing only two checks to establish a timeline rather than a full payment history. “I’ve lived there for 20 years and basically overpaid more than 10 years, and all I’m getting back is $200,” he said, requesting a remand to submit additional records.
The landlord, James Levi, argued the original hearing was sufficient, stating, “At the hearing… [Victor] understood what he had to bring, and whatever he had to bring, I would have been happy to pay back.” A new property manager, Brian Scholey, who took over the week prior, attended out of respect for the process but did not take a stance. The RSC’s legal counsel, Kellan Martz, noted the statute of limitations allows a three-year lookback from the property’s 2015 registration, extendable to the application date in 2025 for ongoing overcharges, but emphasized that the decision must rely on evidence presented at the hearing.
The RSC’s deliberations revealed a split on procedural fairness. Chair Adam G Bass, who proposed the remand, shared a personal anecdote about the complexity of gathering MAR documentation, noting it took him 10-12 hours to compile records for his own case. He argued that the Hearing Examiner’s one-day window to submit additional evidence—until January 17, 2025, following the January 16 hearing—was “completely insufficient,” stating, “The tenant made a good faith effort… assumptions could be made in conjunction with testimony.” Commissioner Agassi Topchian agreed, citing the Examiner’s decision to keep the record open as an invitation for more evidence, rendering the 24-hour limit unreasonable.
Vice Chair Frank D Rorie Jr. dissented, emphasizing the importance of adhering to process: “I’m such a strong proponent of the process, not substituting my judgment for the hearing examiner… I don’t feel comfortable making an exception.” He suggested that if remanded, the RSC should provide clear instructions, recommending that evidence be submitted before the new hearing. The commission ultimately remanded the case to review the period from 2012 to 2025, allowing both parties to submit additional evidence of rent payments, with a recommendation to submit records in advance.
For West Hollywood tenants, this case highlights the importance of thorough documentation in MAR and overcharge claims, as well as the RSC’s willingness to ensure procedural fairness, even if it means revisiting a decision. Landlords, meanwhile, are reminded of the city’s strict enforcement of rent stabilization rules, where improper increases can lead to refunds, albeit within defined limits. The remand offers Victor a chance to seek a more substantial refund, reflecting the RSC’s balance of process and equity.
Renting for 20 years? Good grief.
Sometimes it’s too good to leave.
Where ya been, Ham? Haven’t seen you around.
Probably owns an investment unit that he bought with all the money he saved on rent.