# Landlord, Compliance & Unaccredited Workers



## sage (Apr 29, 2007)

In a case pursued by the Maryland Department of the Environment, a Baltimore landlord was ordered to report to jail last week after he failed to bring all of his properties into compliance with the state’s lead-paint laws.
The landlord, Cephus Murrell, was ordered jailed for contempt of court, the Department of the Environment reported. He was to be detained until he brings the properties into compliance with lead laws or pays to relocate tenants of those properties, Baltimore Circuit Judge W. Michel Pierson ruled during a hearing Wednesday, Dec. 15. The judge ordered Murrell to report to the Baltimore City Detention Center at 9 a.m. Dec. 17. 
A spokesman for the Department of the Environment said Monday he had no additional information on the case, and was not aware whether Murrell had reported to jail.
State officials said Murrell has failed to meet a series of agreed-upon deadlines going back to February 2006 to obtain lead-risk reduction inspection certificates for all of his properties. Lead-risk reduction inspections “are a critical part of Maryland’s very successful fight against childhood lead poisoning,” the Department of the Environment said. “Since 1993, we have reduced childhood lead poisoning by nearly 98%”
Inspections are needed to identify lead contamination and ensure that properties are properly restored, the department said.
The Department of the Environment (MDE) filed a civil case in November 2006 against defendants Murrell and C. Murrell Business Consultants in Baltimore Circuit Court. In 2009, MDE filed a petition to have the defendants found in contempt for failing to meet the terms of an amended consent decree designed to settle the case. 
Murrell was found in contempt in June 2010 and was ordered to relocate tenants of eight rental units. Judge Pierson awarded MDE a judgment of $100,000. In October, after a series of follow-up hearings, the judge ordered that Murrell be incarcerated, but stayed the incarceration for as long as Murrell met a series of conditions. Those conditions included abating all unpaid rents for the affected properties and allowing tenants to live rent-free through Jan. 5, 2011, or, at any tenant’s request, relocating the tenant.
At the hearing last Wednesday, attorneys for MDE presented evidence that the defendant knowingly allowed unaccredited workers to perform lead-abatement work and that the workers failed to follow proper work practices. Three properties remain out of compliance, MDE said.
This is the second MDE lead program case to result in the incarceration of a property owner for civil contempt of court. The prior case involved a landlord who spent a weekend in jail in Dorchester County, MDE said.

Source


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

And that was started in 2007, under the "old" lead rules, makes you wonder what we will be reading in 4 more years?!?

Here is another one,



> WORCESTER — A Worcester area property owner has been indicted for fraudulently claiming his property was in compliance with lead laws and endangering children, announced Attorney General Martha Coakley.
> Jaroslaw Pianka, age 40, of Charlton, was indicted on charges of Child Endangerment, Larceny by False Pretenses, and Uttering (2 counts).
> “Exposure to lead can be extremely dangerous to young children,” AG Coakley said. “We allege that Mr. Pianka used fake documentation to falsely assert that his properties were properly deleaded, thereby endangering the health and lives of his tenants.”


More here....


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

One job I did not get (the one with 2-3 layers of wallpaper and lead paint) is being done with no compliance at all with RRP. It is a secondary residence (vacation cottage) and they do plan on renting it out to other people. I am guessing this would make them liable and not just the contractor if a child is exposed to lead paint when vacationing.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Dean,I would say this is probably a great example of what will happen as long as the EPA is not educating the consumer but only being concerned with fining the certified contractor.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

DeanV said:


> One job I did not get (the one with 2-3 layers of wallpaper and lead paint) is being done with no compliance at all with RRP. It is a secondary residence (vacation cottage) and they do plan on renting it out to other people. I am guessing this would make them liable and not just the contractor if a child is exposed to lead paint when vacationing.


The tenant (whether they have children or not) can turn the landlord into the EPA. The EPA could fine him for failure to disclose lead based paint. This would be Section 1018 lead disclosure rule. _I'm assuming landlord knows of lead based paint, since you mentioned it_.

Tenant would have an easy lawsuit on the landlord and contractor for failing to do RRP.

Tenant can turn in the landlord and contractor for RRP. 

You can turn in the landlord and contractor for RRP.

You can sue the contractor for "unfair competition".

Landlord could refuse paying contractor, since in most states you don't have to pay for illegal work.

A bunch of things "could" happen if someone wanted them to happen


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> The tenant (whether they have children or not) can turn the landlord into the EPA. The EPA could fine him for failure to disclose lead based paint. This would be Section 1018 lead disclosure rule. _I'm assuming landlord knows of lead based paint, since you mentioned it_.
> 
> Tenant would have an easy lawsuit on the landlord and contractor for failing to do RRP.
> 
> ...


God,I hate the fact that they are trying to turn us into "That Guy"


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Dean, wasn't there an exclusion for "temporary rentals"?

Not saying that it excuses that, but I was just wondering.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

Maybe in the eyes of the EPA, but probably not their insurance.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

RCP said:


> Dean, wasn't there an exclusion for "temporary rentals"?
> 
> Not saying that it excuses that, but I was just wondering.


Guess you are talking about the Lead Disclosure rule (section 1018)? In that case, _Short-term leases of 100 days or less, where no lease renewal or extension can occur._


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> God,I hate the fact that they are trying to turn us into "That Guy"


I fully understand.

But, I just happen to like being "that guy". Each their own.

Saw a news cast where I guy makes money by suing email spammers. :thumbup:


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> I fully understand.
> 
> But, I just happen to like being "that guy". Each their own.
> 
> Saw a news cast where I guy makes money by suing email spammers. :thumbup:


So your ok being the one who tells on everybody?
Don't you think that the EPA should be the 1 spending time & money,preferably the money taken in from certification & enforcement, educating HO's and enforcing their own regulations?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> So your ok being the one who tells on everybody?
> Don't you think that the EPA should be the 1 spending time & money,preferably the money taken in from certification & enforcement, educating HO's and enforcing their own regulations?


I would much rather EPA do the enforcement. Much rather. And I agree with your other statements totally.

However, I also know that the EPA is waiting on the contractor, homeowner and neighbors to let them know. Not right, but the way they do things.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Dean CRCNA said:


> I would much rather EPA do the enforcement. Much rather. And I agree with your other statements totally.
> 
> However, I also know that the EPA is waiting on the contractor, homeowner and neighbors to let them know. Not right, but the way they do things.


I respectfully disagree. 
Don't get me wrong,1 side of me gets furious when I loose a project to a contractor not following RRP and I want to be that kid who tells on all the other kids.
Then the other side is pissed that the EPA is trying to convince us that it is our responsability to do what we all know they could do but they wont spend the money.
So right now I choose to not be there b1tch.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

So since we are probably talking leases of a couple weeks at a time plus their own personal use, would RRP have to be followed or not? I think yes because it is a residential building. But, because of the short term leases, tenants do not have to be told if lead paint is present?


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

aaron61 said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> Don't get me wrong,1 side of me gets furious when I loose a project to a contractor not following RRP and I want to be that kid who tells on all the other kids.
> Then the other side is pissed that the EPA is trying to convince us that it is our responsability to do what we all know they could do but they wont spend the money.
> So right now I choose to not be there b1tch.


No problem with the way you or anyone else want to do it. I've just gotten to know the EPA a lot better and they operate of of complaints. 

With your way, if there are 10 competitors who are non-certified and no complaints, then there will be 10 competitors who are non-certified 2 years from now.

With my way, if there are 10 competitors who are non-certified and people make complaints, then there may be 5 new lead safe certified firms + 2 out of biz + 3 that are still non-certified (for a total of 10), 2 years for now.


----------



## Dean CRCNA (Feb 4, 2010)

DeanV said:


> So since we are probably talking leases of a couple weeks at a time plus their own personal use, would RRP have to be followed or not? I think yes because it is a residential building. But, because of the short term leases, tenants do not have to be told if lead paint is present?


If it is a couple of weeks, it may be more rental than leasing. But the RRP applies.

And you are right, because of the short term leases, tenants do not have to be told if lead based paint is present.

RRP applies. Lead Disclosure doesn't.

:wallbash:


----------

