Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program

Transcription

1 Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program 2010 Annual Report to the Washington State Legislature Washington State Office of Attorney General Rob McKenna

2 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM OVERVIEW 2 STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 4 COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS 7 PROGRAM BUDGET 9 MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY REGISTRATION 10 PROGRAM CHALLENGES FROM THE LAW 11 PROGRAM SUCCESS STORIES 12 APPENDICES 15

3 2010 Annual Report Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Executive Summary HISTORY During the 2007 session, the legislature approved House Bill 1461 authorizing the Attorney General to create and administer a program to regulate and enforce the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA, RCW 59.20). This law, Manufactured/Mobile Home Communities Dispute Resolution and Registration (RCW 59.30), authorizes the Attorney General to resolve disputes informally and, where necessary, impose sanctions and issue orders to bring about compliance with the MHLTA. The unit was created within the Attorney General s Consumer Protection Division to implement this legislation and began its operation in July of MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program (Manufactured Housing Unit; MHU), is to enforce the MHLTA, to educate stakeholders and encourage positive relationships between manufactured/mobile home community land owners and homeowners. The MHU facilitates communication among the parties in order to resolve disputes and avoid evictions. LEGISLATIVE INTENT In RCW , the Washington State Legislature lays out two reasons for the creation of the MHU. First, the legislature recognizes the unique relationship between landlords and tenants of mobile/manufactured housing communities and that the expense of relocating a home can affect the operation of market forces and lead to an inequality of the bargaining position of the parties. The legislature also acknowledges that a tenant may be subject to violations of the MHLTA without an adequate remedy at law. The second reason the legislature created the MHU lies in its recognition that litigation can be a costly and lengthy process and that many people cannot afford to pursue a court process to vindicate statutory rights. Finally, in RCW (3)(a), the legislature notes its intent to provide an equitable, less costly and more efficient way for landlords and tenants of manufactured/mobile home communities to resolve disputes. Following the intent of that legislation, the MHU focuses primarily on resolving the majority of the complaints through education and negotiation and avoiding costly litigation. Ultimately, the role of the MHU is to enforce the MHLTA. However, the MHU first strives to resolve complaints informally as a neutral dispute resolution service. The MHU does not represent either park owners or homeowners, but advances the public interest by identifying possible violations of the MHLTA and working with the parties to assure compliance with the MHLTA. The MHU s goal is to correct violations through education with focus placed on voluntary compliance and the prevention of future violations. Formal enforcement action is often unnecessary if the parties make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute informally through the MHU s process. 1

4 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Overview NEGOTIATIONS Both homeowners and landlords may file a request for dispute resolution 1 if they believe that there has been a violation of the MHLTA. The MHU will attempt to resolve the dispute as a neutral third party with the goal of achieving compliance through education and negotiation. Of the complaints that the MHU has jurisdiction to mediate, 69 percent are successfully resolved through the MHU s negotiation efforts and this process takes between 30 to 75 days. In 2010, the MHU resolved complaints through negotiation in an average of 58 days, which is a reduction of six days compared to This time may seem long to those waiting for resolution but it is significantly shorter than litigating the dispute in court. The MHU s negotiation efforts consist of gathering basic documents (such as leases and community rules) and gaining an understanding of the position of the parties and the resolution they seek. The MHU has separate communications with the parties via telephone, and letter. The MHU recognizes that complaints from both landlords and tenants can contain strongly held personal opinion and deeply entrenched positions and the staff attempts to work through these with a focus on the facts presented by the parties. The MHU staff also spends a large portion of time on the telephone informing and educating parties about the MHLTA and the MHU s authority. Cross complaints are not unusual and the office works to resolve disputes raised by both parties. Substantial MHU staff time is spent sorting out misunderstandings and poor communications between the parties that occurred prior to contact with the MHU. Approximately 24 percent of all complainants, whether landlords or tenants, report failed communication attempts with the other party and another six percent reported personality conflicts. Anecdotally, these reports range from disregard of notices, phone messages and letters to open hostility and threats resulting in fear for personal safety or eviction. The MHU continues to make referrals to in-person mediation services performed by local dispute resolution centers with the goal to resolve lingering communication problems that will inhibit resolution of future disputes. If a party fails to respond to the MHU s attempts to resolve a complaint or declines to participate in negotiation, or if a negotiated resolution is not possible, the MHU will review the complaint for formal investigation. RCW vests the MHU with discretion to investigate complaints if the parties cannot resolve them through negotiation. Before deciding whether to open a formal investigation, the MHU evaluates the scope of issues, whether there are any health or safety risks, and whether the situation involves possible eviction or retaliation. It is not unusual for groups of tenants or homeowners associations to want to file a complaint together. In July 2010 in an effort to increase efficiencies in the MHU process and deal with groups of tenants who were already filing complaints together, the MHU developed the petition complaint. The petition complaint allowed tenants from the same community with a common issue to file one complaint with multiple complainants. After using the new process for several months, the MHU suspended its use. The administrative efficiencies the MHU had hoped to achieve were not realized and in fact, it made the process more complex. Currently if a group of tenants wants to file a complaint together, they must simply have every individual fill out a form and mail the forms to the MHU together. FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS The objectives of investigation are to gather facts to assist in exercising impartial judgment regarding potential violations of the MHLTA. Formal investigations may consist of comprehensive record and document acquisition and review, site visits, in-depth interviews either in-person or over the telephone, and the retention of expert witnesses. In 2010, only eight percent of the complaints that fall within the jurisdication of the MHU were forwarded to formal investigations. This is a reduction from 16 percent in both 2008 and Requests for dispute resolution or complaints are formal requests for service that require the MHU action and are written on the MHU form and submitted via the Internet, fax or mail.

5 Following a formal investigation where a violation of the MHLTA has been found, the MHU will contact the respondent and explain the preliminary findings in an effort to encourage compliance without litigation. Where this is successful, the MHU sends each party a letter outlining the resolution of the issues and closing the matter. Sometimes following a formal investigation, previously reluctant respondents decide to take corrective action before a notice is filed. Thus, the dispute is resolved without further need for a formal determination by the MHU. DETERMINATIONS If compliance is not met or the parties do not agree to take corrective action, the MHU will issue written determinations of whether the MHTLA has been violated. The MHU s determinations, which may include orders to comply or cease and desist, fines, and penalties, are subject to appeal by either party before an administrative law judge (ALJ). In the assessment of how to apply the MHLTA, the MHU considers the intent of the legislature, industry practice, case law, and the positions of landlord and tenant advocates. Of the 21 Notices of Violation filed in 2010, two were appealed and the AGO decision was affirmed by the ALJ in both cases. Another issue that was pending from 2009 was settled prior to hearing in Of the five Notices of Non-Violation filed this year, one was appealed but the tenant failed to appear for the hearing and thus, the AGO decision was affirmed. A second issue was pending from 2009 and the ALJ affirmed the AGO decision. FINING AUTHORITY The MHU has had great success in achieving compliance without litigation or the imposition of fines. To date, the program has issued three fines. At this juncture, the MHU does not foresee fines as a significant source of revenue for the program as our deliberate efforts to arrive at negotiated settlements have achieved voluntary compliance without imposing fines. PROGRAM STAFFING The MHU is staffed by 4.5 FTEs: Cathie Caldwell, Program Manager, brings 12 years experience in legal services program development and management to the MHU. She provides long-term program vision and direction, interacts with stakeholders and legislators, and oversees staff and the day-to-day operations of the program. Bob Lipson, Senior Counsel, has been with the Consumer Protection Division for 10 years and with the Attorney General s Office for 23 years. He provides legal analysis and advice to the Program Manager and program staff. Pedro Bernal, Assistant Attorney General, joined the Attorney General s Office in Prior to joining the MHU, AAG Bernal represented the Department of Licensing and the Employment Security Department in litigation. He provides program litigation services and is fluent in Spanish. 3

6 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Amanda Philips, Compliance Specialist, has worked as a paralegal and legal assistant for the Attorney General s Office since She analyzes complaints and responses, engages parties in telephone mediation, and provides education to both parties in an attempt to bring compliance through negotiation. Toy Rodriguez, Program Coordinator, is the first contact for most constituents via telephone and has been with the Attorney General s Office since She answers questions about the program and the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants in addition to providing clerical and administrative support to the program. She is also fluent in Spanish. Mary Harper, Legal Assistant, joined the Attorney General s Office in November She provides part-time investigation and litigation support. Investigative Services are provided by experienced Consumer Protection Division investigators with more than 100 years of combined investigative and civil law enforcement experience. The MHU is part of the Consumer Protection Division and may draw upon the legal expertise and litigation support of the entire division. Statistical Overview The program received approximately 1,000 first time calls in 2010, which is comparable to The MHU staff spent an average of nine minutes with each of the callers. Callers are provided with information and education about the MHLTA. They also receive assistance with problem solving and self-help strategies as well as referrals to other agencies to help serve their legal, health and social service needs. Those callers who have an issue that may fall within the jurisdiction of the MHLTA are mailed a complaint form or directed to the Internet to file a complaint on-line. Approximately 275 constituents requested and were mailed information from the MHU. Additionally the MHU web pages had nearly 24,000 total page views by visitors to the website. COMPLAINTS THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF THE MHU JURISDICTION OR MAY BE UNMERITORIOUS The landlord association has suggested that the program should reject unmeritorious complaints. The MHU practices demonstrate that out of the more than 1,000 complaints it has received to date, the MHU has rejected 21 percent as unmeritorious or as falling outside its jurisdiction, many without ever being sent to the landlord. The MHU often has no way to know if a complaint is unmeritorious without a response from the other party. The MHU staff understands that there are two sides to every story and regularly tells respondents that their input is needed before we can understand what is going on and determine if we can help. Additionally, the MHU has a statutory duty to take complaints. A person must file a formal, written complaint on the MHU form to start the dispute resolution process. As shown on Chart A, of the written formal complaints MHU received in 2010, approximately 20 percent were: A outside the MHU s jurisdiction, which is limited to the MHLTA; informational in nature; closed because one of the parties did not engage in the process and there was insufficient information to warrant moving forward with a formal investigation. In these instances, the matter is closed without a resolution or a determination of violation or non-violation. 4

7 COMPLAINTS WITHIN THE MHU JURISDICTION B Of the remaining 80 percent of complaints over which the MHU has jurisdiction and in which the program engaged in dispute resolution with the parties, 69 percent were successfully resolved with MHLTA compliance. This is a reduction from 79 percent in This data, as shown in Chart B, reflects both landlord and tenant complainants. COMPARING COMPLAINTS FILED BY LANDLORDS AND TENANTS Although both landlords and tenants may file complaints with the MHU, 96 percent of the complaints were filed by tenants. This large number is not surprising given there are approximately 1,290 unique registered community owners (landlords) and 62,745 different households in manufactured/mobile home communities (tenants), meaning that tenants make up 98 percent of the universe of potential complainants. C D Statistics show significantly higher success rates of dispute resolution in the first stages of the program s process with landlord respondents. It is not unusual for a tenant respondent to not accept the MHU s invitation to engage in dispute resolution activities. For this reason, as seen in Charts C and D, a comparatively larger percentage of complaints made by landlords against tenants are moved to formal investigation and compliance has been successfully brought in all cases. Rarely do requests for dispute resolution allege a single issue. Often, at least one of the issues in a multi-issue complaint is one over which the MHU lacks jurisdiction. The MHU database is able to track multiple issues per complaint but only able to track one resolution or outcome. For this reason, the MHU reports far more issues than complaint resolutions. As a practice, the MHU staff determines the key issue where the office has jurisdiction and tracks the outcome of the primary complaint. 5

8 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna TOP 7 ISSUES REPORTED IN FORMAL COMPLAINTS By Tenants By Landlords 1. Rental agreement. 1. Tenant not following park rules. 2. Utilities (protection/maintenance 2. General maintenance of rented lot. of or overcharging for). 3. Health, safety, sanitation of rented lot. 3. Rent raises and/or fees (improper notice). 4. Pets. 4. Landlord not maintaining common areas. 5. Tenant not following laws or local codes. 5. Health, safety, sanitation of common areas 6. Unauthorized guests. or sewage on rented lot. 7. Rental agreement. 6. Landlord not maintaining permanent structures. 7. Landlord not enforcing park rules evenly or fairly. LANDLORD CHANGE IN BUSINESS PRACTICE It is believed that the MHU has positively affected many more than those who have personally filed a complaint with the program. Several landlords own or manage more than one community in Washington and often change their business practices affecting all of those homeowners and communities as a response to one complaint filed with the MHU. The average number of homes per community is 44, and multiplying that number by the 150 communities noted in the box to the right allows us to estimate that approximately 6,600 or more than 11 percent of the total households may have been directly or indirectly affected in 2010 by the MHU through changes in landlord practices. The result is a cost effective dispute resolution process and civil law enforcement authority that impacts landlord and tenant conduct through general deterence, mediation, and education aimed at voluntary compliance. NUMBERS OF COMPLAINTS FILED Complaints filed against Landlords in 2010: 6 communities had 10 or more complainants 42 communities had 2 to 9 complainants 102 communities had 1 complainant Total of 150 communities with complaints filed The MHU received 254 complaints in When adjusted for the three-month period during which the MHU accepted petition complaints 2, the total number of complainants is 379. This number is the best comparison to the 374 and 375 complaints received in 2008 and 2009, respectively. 2. See page 2 for a discussion of this process. 6

9 FOR THE ANNUAL REPORTING PERIOD OF DECEMBER 1, 2009 TO NOVEMBER 30, 2010: Formal Complaints filed By tenants By landlords 11 Complaint Closures Successful dispute resolution with MHLTA compliance 136 Issues determined to be outside the MHU jurisdiction 29 Complainants withdrawn or respondents did not respond & no further investigation necessary 11 No apparent MHLTA violation & no further investigation necessary 45 Anonymous complaints by tenants or info only (no action taken) 7 Referred to formal investigation 15 AGO Findings and Determinations following formal investigation 41 Notice of Violation filed 21 Notice of Non-Violation filed 5 Compliance met or resolution reached before issuance of Notice 15 Office of Administrative Hearings appeal outcomes 5 AGO position affirmed 4 Settlement Agreement prior to hearing 1 Enforcement action taken 1 Notice of Fine 1 As of December 10, 2010: Cases currently in active negotiation 45 Cases currently in active investigation 8 Cases currently pending compliance 15 Cases currently pending hearing at OAH 1 Community Connections The MHU devoted less staff time and resources to in-person outreach events this year. However, the MHU strategically targeted its outreach activities in order to maximize exposure. OUTREACH TO REFERRAL AGENCIES The MHU receives referrals from a network of legal service and Housing Justice Projects around the state. Those agencies focus their resources on eviction defense and providing short-term legal advice. This year, the MHU staff developed a one-page overview of the program 6 geared toward service providers to help ensure appropriate referral to the MHU from those agencies. The MHU sent this flyer to four different Housing Justice Projects and 16 satellite offices of Northwest Justice Project. Additionally, the MHU staff worked with Northwest Justice Project s Coordinated Legal Education Advice and Referral (CLEAR) unit to make sure its referral database contained accurate information about the MHU. 3. See Appendix A for detailed statistical report including types of issues reported. 4. There were 243 complaints filed by 367 tenants. Some were individual complaints and some were petition complaints. The petition complaint process has been discontinued. See page 2 for discussion. 5. There were 243 complaints closed involving 332 complainants. 6. See Appendix B. 7

10 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna QUARTERLY NEWSLETTERS This year, the MHU developed and distributed summer and winter editions of its newsletter entitled The Open Door News. 7 The content is directed to landlords and tenants and it is designed to educate constituents on frequently asked questions received by the MHU staff. The MHU distributes The Open Door News by and posts each edition on its web site. THE MHU WEB SITE 8 The MHU has enhanced its web pages to include more educational materials. In addition to continuing to post the program s quarterly statistics and case outcomes, new to the site is a Frequently Asked Questions section about the program and its services. 9 Also added this year are two short slide presentations with audio that discuss eviction from a manufactured housing community and provide an overview of the MHU program. Coming soon will be a presentation on retaliation and discrimination, a topic that is raised regularly by tenants contacting the MHU. These presentations are available on the web site and may be ed to people with questions on these topics. LANDLORD-TENANT COALITION The MHU has continued to be an active member of the Washington State Manufactured Housing Landlord-Tenant Coalition since its formation in March The mission of the coalition is to bring together supporters of the manufactured housing industry to identify issues of common interest and work cooperatively to ensure the success of the industry while considering many different perspectives, expectations, and needs of stakeholders. One of the goals of the coalition is to identify ambiguities and discuss interpretation and application of the MHLTA (RCW 59.20). The coalition meets once a month to share viewpoints and works to find common ground. The MHU staff regularly raises and participates in discussions of issues raised by both landlords and tenants over which the MHLTA has no jurisdiction and subject areas of the MHLTA in need of clarity. The MHU Program Manager and an Assistant Attorney General attend these monthly meetings in an advisory capacity and are not voting members of the coalition. See page 12 for information about the Best Practices Guidelines developed by the coalition. REACHING OUT TO AGENCIES SERVING SPANISH SPEAKING TENANTS Mobile/manufactured housing communities continue to house a large number of Spanish-speaking tenants, who are often isolated by cultural and language barriers. The MHU has made a pointed effort to educate this constituency about their rights and responsibilities under the MHLTA. Using the referral materials mentioned above, the MHU staff made connections with the following agencies serving tenants across the state: The Salvation Army Washington State Human Rights Commission YMCA/YWCA Department of Social and Human Services Northwest Fair Housing Alliance Kennewick Community Action Council Columbia Legal Services 7. See Appendix C See Appendix D. 8

11 CONSTITUENT SURVEYS Each month, the MHU surveyed groups of complainants and respondents who sought services and whose complaints were resolved through the MHU s negotiation and education efforts. 10 Complainants were asked to answer strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree or neutral or NA to the following statements: The MHU program was easy to reach by phone, , etc. The MHU staff was courteous. The MHU staff was knowledgeable and was able to answer my questions. The MHU process was clear and I understood what would happen next. The program s written materials or MHU staff clearly explained the limits of MHU powers. The MHU staff clearly explained the actions taken and the outcome of my complaint in our final discussion and/or closing letter. I am satisfied with the overall resolution of my complaint. Overall my interaction with the MHU exceeded my expectations. Because of my contact with MHU, I have a stronger understanding of the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. Overall my interaction with the MHU program has improved my communications with the other party. Of the 43 complainants who answered the survey, 74 percent answered strongly agree or agree to these questions indicating an overall positive rating for their interaction with the MHU. This is comparable to 2009 statistics in general satisfaction. Regarding the statement, I am satisfied with the overall resolution of my complaint, 60 percent of complainants answered positively and again this statistic is in line with The MHU staff continues to educate complainants regarding the law and its application to their specific complaint so they better understand the options for resolving their issue. Respondents to complaints were also surveyed and of those 19 who answered the statement, The overall resolution of this issue was in compliance with my understanding of the law, 74 percent reported positively for an increase of seven percentage points from Of the 19 respondents to complaints who answered the survey, 70 percent answered strongly agree or agree to the list of questions above indicating an overall positive rating of their interactions with the MHU. Program Budget PROGRAM REVENUE The MHU continues to refine procedures and work towards cost efficiencies in the conduct of its operations. The current state of the economy is a consideration, however, in spite of the lack of new communities coming into the marketplace, revenue remains stable. The program budget and revenue have been stable. The Department of Licensing continues to forecast revenue generated from registrations that fund this program. The AGO can impose fines up to $500 per day. To date, the MHU has not collected any revenue from fines in the current Fiscal Year (FY2011). One fine was levied in Calendar Year (CY2010), but no payment was made and the MHU has not yet pursued enforcement of the fine. The current program model, as directed by the legislature, focuses on resolving as many disputes as possible in the least costly and most efficient manner. Fines will not be a significant funding source for this program. 10. See Appendix E for survey summaries of complainants and respondents. 9

12 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna PROGRAM EXPENDITURES The funding source for the program in calendar year (CY) 2010 and in the biennium is exclusively Manufactured/Mobile Home Dispute Resolution fund dollars. The program budget and expenditures made in CY2010 follow: The fiscal year 12 (FY) 2010 program budget included 4.75 FTE staff and authority to spend $418,000. The program budget and expenditures made in FY2010 follow: The FY2011 program budget includes 4.5 FTE staff and authority to spend $409,000. The program budget and expenditures made in FY2011 to October 2010 follow: The program budget and expenditures made in the biennium to date follow: Does not include the full 2010 calendar because the calendar months were not final at time of printing. 12. A fiscal year is July 1 to June Does not include the full fiscal year because the fiscal months are not yet final. 14. Does not include the full biennium because the biennium months are not yet final.

13 Manufactured/Mobile Home Community Registration 15 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING: MASTER LICENSE SERVICE PROGRAM STATUS Filing Transactions & Dispute Resolution Fund Revenue Period Initial Park Registrations Park Renewals Revenue Deposited to Dispute Fund 12F FY ,414 $ 567,448 FY11 (Jul-Oct) $ 236,608 Funds deposited to the Master License Service Fund (03N) from the Registration Program activity only: Period Deposited to 03N FY10 $ 63,050 FY11 (Jul-Oct) $ 26,291 Statistics: 16 Active Park Registrations: 1,407 Active Mfd Home Units: 62,394 Legal Issues and Recommendations Constituents have complained to or inquired of the MHU regarding issues that are unaddressed or ambiguously addressed by current laws. The MHU will not recommend legislation during the 2011 Legislative Session but may consider legislative changes in the future to address these issues. RCW As set forth in RCW (3)(f), the MHU is to make recommendations for improvements to the program. During the 2009 Legislative Session, the MHU worked with representatives to propose changes to RCW however those efforts ultimately did not move legislation forward. The MHU believes RCW could be amended to make formal investigations more efficient. Currently, RCW authorizes the MHU to issue subpoenas only for the production of documents and for access to the relevant premises. However, many important facts necessary to resolve disputes are not contained in documentation, but are known by individuals. Therefore, the program could be improved by amending RCW to authorize the MHU to request written answers to interrogatories and take depositions of witnesses after commencing formal investigations. RCW For the last two years in its Annual Report to the legislature the MHU identified issues raised in disputes that are not addressed within the scope of the MHLTA as currently written. In addition to reporting these issues to the legislature, the MHU has also discussed these topics with the members of the Washington State Manufactured Housing Landlord-Tenant Coalition. 17 The coalition spent over a year working toward negotiated amendments to the MHLTA, but ultimately was unsuccessful. 15. Information provided by Department of Licensing Master License Service. 16. As of October 2, See page 8 for a discussion on the purpose of the coalition. 11

14 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Because the coalition was not able to reach consensus on how to resolve these issues through legislation, the MHU s Program Manager suggested a meeting to identify best practices to guide landlords and tenants in areas unregulated by the MHLTA. The goal of the meeting was to explore and identify creative and workable solutions to conflict arising from changing of community rules and leases and the removal of amenities. The group, guided by a trained facilitator, met for four and a half hours and included the MHU staff, seven tenants (and members of the two tenants associations), two property managers, three non-profit community managers, two community owners and the executive director of the statewide landlord association (Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington). The meeting produced a document outlining a series of best practices and a pledge by the landlord and tenant participants to promote its contents with their constituencies. This document has yet to be put into distribution by stakeholders and this coming year will determine whether landlords and tenants will benefit from this work of the coalition. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO CARE FOR HAZARDOUS TREES IN A TENANT S RENTED LOT? This question continues to be unanswered by the coalition or the MHLTA. The MHLTA requires landlords to maintain large trees only when they are located in the community common areas and are hazardous. The MHLTA does not assign duty to maintain trees on a rented lot. The MHU receives many requests for dispute resolution from tenants who have large trees on their rented lots that the tenants did not plant, but the landlords expect the tenants to maintain or remove at the tenant s expense. Many of these tenants are elderly or low income so they either cannot do the maintenance themselves or cannot afford to hire a tree maintenance service. Tenants are expected to ask for, but are not always given, permission to remove a tree on their rented lot. Some landlords expect tenants to bear the cost when these trees fall and damage homes, cars, or other personal property. A landlord may be liable for damages under other legal theories, such as a land use law or the common law of negligence. However, this does not help a tenant to prevent such damage when they are not granted permission to remove a dangerous tree on their lot or cannot do the work because of physical health or financial limitations. The MHU has not been successful in resolving most of these disputes because the MHLTA does not address the issue and the MHU s scope of authority is restricted to violations of the MHLTA. 12

15 Examples of Program Successes In February 2010, the MHU received a complaint from a tenant because a nearby creek had flooded and the floodwaters caused the home to shift off the footings and disconnected the sewer system. As a result, there was a large amount of sewage under the tenant s home. The MHU informed the landlord about their responsibility under the MHLTA to maintain and protect all utilities provided to the mobile home lot and to prevent the detrimental effects of moving water. The owner acknowledged the error, repaired the main sewer line, and reimbursed the tenant $3,000 for the damage to their home. The MHU received 13 complaints from tenants in a single community in Eastern Washington in September The utility charges were not properly assessed in the rental agreements as required by the MHLTA and tenants were receiving the amount due for utilities on post-it notes on their doors. The MHU worked to resolve the problem with the park owner who withdrew the practice of charging utility fees to all tenants until the revision of tenants rental agreements and charges could be accurately assessed. The MHU helped to open a line of communication between the manager and tenants. In August 2010, a couple complained to the MHU that after they had sold their manufactured home and moved out of the community, they had not received a refund of their security deposit. The MHU successfully engaged the landlord in informal dispute resolution and the landlord refunded the security deposit in the amount of $475. In September 2010, the MHU received a complaint from a tenant that the landlord was charging her for the delinquent rent and fees owed by the previous homeowners, totaling more than $2,600. The MHU worked with the park owner to verify the charges and sort out the actual amount due from the new tenant. The community owner acknowledged the accounting errors and credited the tenant for rent and late fees, resulting in a reduction of the amount due to $990. In September 2010, a landlord sought the help of the MHU to compel a tenant to remove old appliances and excess garbage from the rented lot. After years of problems with this tenant the landlord was ready to move towards eviction proceedings. However, the MHU was able to educate the tenant about her duty under the MHLTA and she subsequently complied with all of the requests. In the process, the MHU helped the parties open a channel of communication where there was none before. In May 2010, a tenant experienced an overflow of sewage into and under his home. The tenant hired a plumber to determine the exact problem; the diagnosis was a broken pipe fitting from the septic system s main line underneath the tenant s driveway. The tenant paid for the initial diagnosis and then asked the landlord for reimbursement with no success. The tenant filed a complaint and the MHU explained to the landlord his duty under the MHLTA to maintain a working septic system. The landlord repaired the septic line and reimbursed the tenant for the cost of the initial diagnosis. In June 2010, the MHU received a complaint from a tenant who had not been provided with proper notice for a rent increase for several years. The MHU successfully educated the landlord on her obligation under MHLTA to provide legal notice. The landlord agreed to reimburse the tenant a total of $572. Contact with the MHU succeeded in beginning a generally positive dialog between the manager and tenant. The MHU received six complaints from tenants in a single community in August The tenants reported that the common areas of the community were not being maintained and contained health and safety risks. Their concerns included unsafe roads, abandoned homes, and excess utility charges. The MHU educated the landlord on his requirement under MHLTA to maintain all roads, common areas, and vacant lots. As a result, the landlord repaired the potholes in the roads and removed piles of asphalt and abandoned homes. Further, as a result of the MHU s dispute resolution efforts, the tenants now receive itemized monthly statements for their electric and other charges. A community owner complained to the MHU about a tenant who failed to keep their rented lot clean and free from waste. The landlord had unsuccessfully sought the tenant s compliance for months. The MHU notified the tenant in writing of the community owner s request for dispute resolution and the tenant s obligations to comply with park rules and regulations. Subsequently the tenant removed all excess garbage and debris from their rented lot. 13

16 14 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna

17 2010 Annual Report Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Appendices APPENDIX A 16 Statistics on Complaints made by Tenants 16 Statistics on Complaints made by Landlords 18 Combined Statistics on Landlord and Tenants Complaints 19 Findings and Determinations 23 APPENDIX B Program Overview (for referring agencies) 24 APPENDIX C Open Door News summer and fall editions 25 APPENDIX D Frequently Asked Questions 28 APPENDIX E Program User Satisfaction Survey 30 Complainant Summary 30 Respondent Summary 32 15

18 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Appendix A Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Statistics on Complaints made by Tenants From December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010 COMPLAINANTS CASES Requests for Dispute Resolution filed by Tenants Complaint closures Successful dispute resolution with MHLTA compliance Rental agreements Failed communication attempts Utilities Health, safety or sanitation General maintenance Rent raise Fees Rules & enforcement Maintenance of road Repair timeline Infestation 11 5 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy Maintenance of permanent structures Receipt for money paid 10 5 Privacy Issues 8 8 Trees 6 6 LL/T personality conflicts 6 6 Improper service of notice 5 5 Lack of landlord enforcement 5 5 Pets 4 4 Late or non-payment of rent 4 4 Security deposits 4 4 Live-in care providers 3 3 Duty to comply with laws & codes 3 3 Restriction/choice of goods or services 2 2 Eviction 2 2 Discrimination 2 2 Guests 2 2 Closing community 1 1 Abandonment of MH 1 1 Disputes between tenants 1 1 Retaliation Issues determined to be outside the MHU jurisdiction Rental agreements 7 7 Rules & enforcement 6 6 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 5 5 Late or non-payment of rent 5 5 Utilities 4 4 Rent raise 4 4 Disputes between tenants 4 4 LL/T personality conflicts 4 4 Eviction 3 3 Failed communication attempts 3 3 Pets 2 2

19 COMPLAINANTS CASES Fees 2 2 Residential Landlord-Tenant 2 2 Trees 2 2 Improper service of notice 1 1 Security deposits 1 1 Permanent residence RVs 1 1 Towing vehicles 1 1 Retaliation 1 1 Guests 1 1 Privacy Issues 1 1 Closing community 1 1 Prevent entry/require removal of MH 1 1 Lack of landlord enforcement 1 1 Duty to comply with laws & codes 1 1 No apparent MHLTA violation & no further investigation necessary Rules & enforcement 9 9 General maintenance 8 8 Utilities 6 6 Failed communication attempts 5 5 Fees 5 5 Rental agreements 5 5 Health, safety or sanitation 4 4 Maintenance of road 3 3 Rent raise 3 3 Disputes between tenants 3 3 LL/T personality conflicts 3 3 Privacy Issues 2 2 Retaliation 2 2 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 2 2 Maintenance of permanent structures 2 2 Restriction/choice of goods or services 2 2 Permanent residence RVs 2 2 Infestation 2 2 Security deposits 2 2 Lack of landlord enforcement 2 2 Repair timeline 1 1 Trees 1 1 Duty to comply with laws & codes 1 1 Late or non-payment of rent 1 1 Towing vehicles 1 1 Closing community 1 1 Prohibition of tenant meetings 1 1 Complainants withdrew or respondents did not respond & no further investigation necessary Rental agreements 6 6 Rules & enforcement 5 5 General maintenance 3 3 Rent raise 3 3 Fees 2 2 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 2 2 Utilities 2 2 Disputes between tenants 2 2 Retaliation 1 1 LL/T personality conflicts

20 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna COMPLAINANTS CASES Eviction 1 1 Security deposits 1 1 Maintenance of road 1 1 Lack of landlord enforcement 1 1 Pets 1 1 Trees 1 1 Duty to comply with laws & codes 1 1 Assigned to formal investigation Failed communication attempts 7 5 Health, safety or sanitation 7 5 Utilities 7 5 Trees 6 4 General maintenance 5 3 Maintenance of permanent structures 5 5 Repair timeline 4 4 Duty to comply with laws & codes 3 1 Fees 2 2 Rental agreements 1 1 Maintenance of road 1 1 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 1 1 Lack of landlord enforcement 1 1 Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Statistics on Complaints made by Landlords From December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010 COMPLAINANTS CASES Requests for Dispute Resolution filed by Landlord Complaint closures Successful dispute resolution with MHLTA compliance 8 6 General maintenance 6 4 Health, safety or sanitation 5 3 Rules & enforcement 5 4 Failed communication attempts 3 2 Duty to comply with laws & codes 3 2 Pets 1 1 Issues determined to be outside the MHU jurisdiction 4 4 Rules & enforcement 3 3 Failed communication attempts 2 2 Guests 2 2 Pets 2 2 LL/T personality conflicts 1 1 Assigned to formal investigation 3 3 Failed communication attempts 3 3 General maintenance 2 2 Health, safety or sanitation 1 1 Rental agreements 1 1 Guests 1 1 Pets 1 1 Rules & enforcement

21 Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Combined Statistics on Landlord & Tenant Complaints From December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010 Requests for Dispute Resolution filed COMPLAINANTS 379 CASES 254 Rental agreements Utilities Rent raise Failed communication attempts General maintenance Health, safety or sanitation Rules & enforcement Maintenance of permanent structures Fees Duty to comply with laws & codes Screening / denial of sale or tenancy Maintenance of road LL/T personality conflicts Trees Disputes between tenants Infestation 12 6 Privacy Issues Pets Receipt for money paid 10 5 Prevent entry/require removal of MH Lack of landlord enforcement 9 9 Late or non-payment of rent 9 9 Security deposits 8 8 Repair timeline 8 8 Eviction 7 7 Guests 6 6 Improper service of notice 5 5 Closing community 4 4 Restriction/choice of goods or services 4 4 Discrimination 4 4 Permanent residence RVs 3 3 Retaliation 3 3 Towing vehicles 3 3 Residential Landlord-Tenant 2 2 Live-in care providers 2 2 Abandonment of MH 1 1 Prohibition of tenant meetings 1 1 Complaint closures Successful dispute resolution with MHLTA compliance Rental agreements Failed communication attempts Health, safety or sanitation General maintenance Utilities Rent raise Fees Rules & enforcement

22 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna COMPLAINANTS CASES Maintenance of road Repair timeline Infestation 11 5 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy Maintenance of permanent structures Receipt for money paid 10 5 Privacy Issues 8 8 Trees 6 6 LL/T personality conflicts 6 6 Duty to comply with laws & codes 6 5 Improper service of notice 5 5 Pets 5 5 Lack of landlord enforcement 5 5 Late or non-payment of rent 4 4 Security deposits 4 4 Live-in care providers 3 3 Restriction/choice of goods or services 2 2 Eviction 2 2 Discrimination 2 2 Guests 2 2 Closing community 1 1 Abandonment of MH 1 1 Disputes between tenants 1 1 Retaliation 1 1 Issues determined to be outside the MHU jurisdiction Rental agreements 7 7 Rules & enforcement 6 6 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 5 5 Late or non-payment of rent 5 5 Utilities 4 4 Rent raise 4 4 Disputes between tenants 4 4 LL/T personality conflicts 4 4 Unlawful eviction 3 3 Failed communication attempts 3 3 Pets 2 2 Fees 2 2 Residential Landlord-Tenant 2 2 Trees 2 2 Improper service of notice 1 1 Security deposits 1 1 Permanent residence RVs 1 1 Towing vehicles 1 1 Retaliation 1 1 Guests 1 1 Privacy Issues 1 1 Closing community 1 1 Prevent entry/require removal of MH 1 1 Lack of landlord enforcement 1 1 Duty to comply with laws & codes

23 COMPLAINANTS CASES No apparent MHLTA violation & no further investigation necessary Rules & enforcement General maintenance 8 8 Failed communication attempts 7 7 Utilities 6 6 Fees 5 5 Rental agreements 5 5 LL/T personality conflicts 4 4 Health, safety or sanitation 4 4 Maintenance of road 3 3 Rent raise 3 3 Disputes between tenants 3 3 Privacy Issues 2 2 Retaliation 2 2 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 2 2 Maintenance of permanent structures 2 2 Restriction/choice of goods or services 2 2 Permanent residence RVs 2 2 Guests 2 2 Pets 2 2 Infestation 2 2 Security deposits 2 2 Lack of landlord enforcement 2 2 Repair timeline 1 1 Trees 1 1 Duty to comply with laws & codes 1 1 Late or non-payment of rent 1 1 Towing vehicles 1 1 Closing community 1 1 Prohibition of tenant meetings 1 1 Complainants withdrew or respondents did not respond & no further investigation necessary Rental agreements 6 6 Rules & enforcement 5 5 General maintenance 3 3 Rent raise 3 3 Fees 2 2 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 2 2 Utilities 2 2 Disputes between tenants 2 2 Retaliation 1 1 LL/T personality conflicts 1 1 Eviction 1 1 Security deposits 1 1 Maintenance of road 1 1 Lack of landlord enforcement 1 1 Pets 1 1 Trees 1 1 Duty to comply with laws & codes

24 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna COMPLAINANTS CASES Assigned to formal investigation Failed communication attempts 10 8 Health, safety or sanitation 8 6 General maintenance 7 5 Utilities 7 5 Trees 6 4 Maintenance of permanent structures 5 5 Repair timeline 4 4 Duty to comply with laws & codes 3 1 Rental agreements 2 2 Fees 2 2 Maintenance of road 1 1 Screening / denial of sale or tenancy 1 1 Lack of landlord enforcement 1 1 Guests 1 1 Pets 1 1 Rules & enforcement

25 Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Findings and Determinations From December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010 Total matters assigned to formal investigation Landlord complainant 3 Tenant complainant 16 Investigation outcomes (closed from Dec 1, 2009 to Nov 30, 2010) 41 Notice of Violations filed 21 Failure to comply with codes, statues, ordin & admin rules 15 Maintenance of common area 15 Maintenance of roads 15 Health and sanitation 3 Protect & maintain utilities 3 Maintenance of permanent structures 2 Notice of Non-Violations filed 5 Improper enforcement of park rules 2 Extermination of rodents 1 Charging in excess of actual utility costs 1 Maintenance of permanent structures 1 Giving notice before entering rented lot 1 Accumulation of stagnant water 1 Compliance met or resolution reached before issuance of Notice 15 Charging in excess of actual utility costs 4 Maintenance of permanent structures 3 Health and sanitation 3 Protect & maintain utilities 2 General maintenance of rented lot 2 Maintenance of roads 1 Maintenance of common area 1 Sale of home in park/transfer of rental agreement 1 Office of Administrative Hearings appeal outcomes 5 Notice of Violations appealed 3 AGO decision affirmed 2 Maintenance of permanent structures Charging in excess of actual utility costs Settlement agreement reached prior to hearing 1 Maintenance of common areas Notice of Non-Violations appealed 2 AGO decision affirmed 2 RV that is not permanently affixed does not fall under the MHLTA Tenant failed to appear for hearing Complainants usually have more than one issue which results in multiple findings. 23

26 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Appendix B Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program (MHDRP) PROGRAM OVERVIEW The MHDRP is a neutral third party that gathers facts and evidence in an attempt to help parties come to an agreement that complies with the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA), RCW * WHO DO WE HELP Tenants who are Homeowners Landlords Managers WHAT DO WE DO Take complaints Provide educational materials Resolve disputes about RCW Enforce RCW Provide referral information about other agencies WHO TO REFER Tenants who own their home; AND Are renting a lot within a manufactured housing community; AND Have an issue involving the MHLTA; AND Would like more information about filing a complaint. WHO NOT TO REFER Someone who needs legal advice. Tenants who need eviction defense in court. Tenants who are renting the home. Tenants with neighbor disputes. MHDRP Complaint Process Both Landlords and Tenants may file a complaint at NO-COST (Include copies of all supporting documents). MHDRP will review a complaint for possible violations of the MHLTA. The process starts when staff sends an opening letter to the parties and requests a response from the Respondent. After the response is received, MHDRP begins negotiations by talking to the parties on the telephone. The goal is to resolve disputes and foster compliance with the MHLTA using negotiation and education. If negotiations are unsuccessful, MHDRP will review the case and investigate at its discretion. Investigation will result in issuance of Notice of Violation, Notice of Non-Violation, or Notice of Non- Violation w/ Voluntary Compliance. For more information or to obtain a complaint form: Statewide: 1 (866) King County: (206) Fax: (206) MHDR@atg.wa.gov We provide services in Spanish. Mission The MHDRP enforces the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.20), educates stakeholders and fosters relationships between manufactured/mobile home community land owners and homeowners. We facilitate communication among parties in an effort to resolve disputes and avoid evictions. *Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA) - Chapter 59.20, RCW The law that governs the duties and responsibilities of Landlords & Tenants. Landlord is a land owner/park owner or their agent. Tenant owns a manufactured/mobile home and rents land in a park/community. A park must meet the legal definition of manufactured housing community to be governed by the MHLTA. 24 Washington State Office of the Attorney General

27 Appendix C Open The Door News A publication of the Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program of the Washington State Attorney General s Office Summer Quarter 2010 Featured Outreach presentation for Tenants and Landlords Please come to our free public forum in Olympia where MHDRP staff will meet with tenants and landlords on Thursday, August 19 from 6:30 PM until 8:00 PM. We will provide a short presentation about the law followed by a question and answer session. Please join us at the Tumwater Office of the Attorney General, 7141 Cleanwater Ln SW, Olympia, New Petition Complaint forms now available for tenant groups and homeowners associations! We often hear from individuals representing a group of tenants wanting to file a complaint on their behalf. Now we have an easy way for tenants in the same community with the same issue(s) to do so by filing a Petition Complaint. Only one complaint form needs to be filled out and additional tenants who have personally experienced the exact same issue and want to join simply need to sign the petition and include their contact information. Those signing tenants should make sure to thoroughly read the complaint and only sign their names if their dispute is concerning the same specific issue(s) raised in the complaint. Join our MHDRP ListServ! Join the MHDRP ListServ for periodic messages from the program including updates on the law. By registering, you will have access to future newsletters and updates about legislation and laws pertaining to manufactured/mobile homes. Your contact will be used only by us. We will not share your information with anyone else nor will others be able to send you s through this group. Posters required in parks As required by law, we have created 11x17 laminated posters covering some of the basic rights and responsibilities of homeowners and information about how to contact our office. All landlords must place this poster in a clearly visible location in all common areas of manufactured/mobile home communities such as clubhouses, bulletin boards, or mailbox areas. Whether you are a landlord or a tenant, take a look around your community and see if you have posters. If not, feel free to contact us. We will be happy to send out additional materials. Posters with Spanish translation are also available upon request. Check it out The MDHRP website is a great resource for additional information about our services. There you will find electronic versions of complaint forms, a flow chart of the complaint process, our annual report to the Legislature, links to the laws that affect manufactured/mobile home communities and information about case outcomes and statistics. Mission The Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program (MHDRP) enforces the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act, (MHLTA) educates stakeholders and fosters relationships between manufactured/mobile home community land owners and homeowners. We facilitate communication among parties in an effort to resolve disputes and avoid evictions. The MHDRP is committed to: Providing accessible, friendly, and efficient service; Ensuring fair and balanced administration of the law; and Increasing community awareness of the landlord/ tenant rights and responsibilities assigned by the law. Contact Us Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program (MHDRP) Attorney General s Office 800 5th Ave, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA statewide toll free local fax MHDR@atg.wa.gov Complaint closures where MHDRP had jurisdiction What Would You Like to Learn About? Future Newsletter Ideas: 55+ park Eviction 15 day Notice to Comply or Vacate 25

28 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Appendix C Open The Door News A publication of the Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program of the Washington State Attorney General s Office 26 Fall Quarter 2010 Featured Petition Complaints Suspended After using this new complaint process for several months and careful review of the pros and cons, we have decided to suspend its use. The administrative efficiencies we had hoped this process would bring have not come to fruition; in fact, it made our complaint handling process more complex. For this reason, we are returning to using the individual complaint forms only. We understand that groups of tenants may want to file complaints together. If this is the case, we ask tenants to please use individual forms. These may be mailed in together, however make sure the issues raised are currently relevant and the form is mailed within a week of signing. Communication is a Skill Successful communication is a skill that takes practice and thoughtful preparation. Often we get calls from landlords and tenants asking for suggestions on how to resolve a conflict with the other party. We would like to take a moment here to touch on this important topic to provide some suggestions that might help before communication problems arise between the parties. If you have concerns and want to approach the other party to discuss a difficult topic, take some time to prepare; think about your goals, how to best achieve them, and what a reasonable solution would be for both parties. Identify your common goals and be open to working together on a solution that both parties can agree to. Agree on a time and place to meet. Be open to ideas and suggestions. Ask questions so you understand their position. Be clear with your request. Avoid always and never. Do not use accusations. Low-cost mediators are available to help people talk about their non-legal issues that may be impeding productive conversations at Maintenance of Carports & Sheds Use a neutral tone of voice. Smile. Speak in a way that you would like to be spoken to. Stay on topic. Listen and do not interrupt. Avoid trying to prove them wrong. Reschedule if the discussion escalates There is a specific section of the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act that addresses the maintenance of permanent structures (RCW ). This section prohibits mobile home park owners from transfering the duty to maintain permanent structures in mobile home parks to tenants. Permanent structures include the clubhouse, carports, storage sheds (cont.) To get periodic s from us including future versions of the Open Door News, join our MHDRP ListServ! Mission The Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program (MHDRP) enforces the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act, (MHLTA) educates stakeholders and fosters relationships between manufactured/mobile home community land owners and homeowners. We facilitate communication among parties in an effort to resolve disputes and avoid evictions. The MHDRP is committed to: Providing accessible, friendly, and efficient service; Ensuring fair and balanced administration of the law; and Increasing community awareness of the landlord/ tenant rights and responsibilities assigned by the law. Future Newsletter Topics: 55+ park Eviction 15 day Notice to Comply or Vacate Trees Contact Us Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program (MHDRP) Attorney General s Office 800 5th Ave, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA statewide toll free local fax MHDR@atg.wa.gov Constituent Contacts Jan 1, Nov. 30, 2010 Telephone calls from first time callers 772 Questions by 74 Hits to our webpage 19,219 Requests for materials to be mailed 227 1

29 The Open Door News Fall Quarter 2010 Maintenance of Carports & Sheds (cont.) or other permanent structure [RCW (3)]. However, a permanent structure does not include structures built or affixed by a tenant. (emphasis added) Therefore, landlords are not responsible for permanent structures that were built by a tenant. Did You Know... That when you file a request for dispute resolution on-line you can attach electronic documents that you want us to review? We often get questions about permanent structures that are built by the landlord, but modified by the tenant. Modifications may include adding a floor, windows, dry wall, electricity, etc. Every situation has to be assessed on its own facts, but in most cases the erection of additional structures or major modifications by the tenant to the original permanent structure does not relieve the landlord of his or her duty to maintain the original structure. However, the landlord does not assume responsibility to maintain or repair those additions or modifications; that responsibility remains with the tenant. Tenants may request for repair of a permanent structure to their landlord in writing. As with all written correspondence, the author may want to date it, sign it and keep a copy for their records. We would appreciate that the landlord be given written notice and the opportunity to make repairs before the tenant files a complaint with our office. What is a Service Animal? Recently we ve received inquiries concerning service animals within mobile home parks. The WA State Human Rights Commission offers information on their website about service animals, which may be helpful to both landlords and tenants. Q. What is a service animal? Service animal means an animal that is trained for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a disabled person s sensory, mental, or physical disability. Q. How can I tell if an animal is really a service animal and not just a pet? There are no legal requirements for service animals to be specially identified. Some, but not all, service animals, wear special collars and harnesses. Some, but not all, are licensed or certified and/or have identification papers. If you are not certain that an animal is a service animal, you may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service animal required because of a disability. A housing provider may ask for a health care professional s statement that an individual is a person with a disability and will be assisted by a service animal. A housing provider may not ask for details or the nature of an individual s disability. Q. What about any no pets policies? Legally, a service animal is not a pet. You are required to modify your no pets policy to allow the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability. A no pets policy may be continued, but you must make an exception to your general rule for service animals. To view the rest of the Frequently Asked Questions on this topic, go to: The Human Rights Commission also provides information about fair housing, discrimination in housing and the work place and disabilities. For additional questions, they may be reached at To get periodic s from us including future versions of the Open Door News, join our MHDRP ListServ! 2 27

30 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Appendix D Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program Frequently Asked Questions I have filled out a complaint form. What can I expect will happen next? We will send a simple letter confirming receipt of your complaint. Within a week, our team will review your complaint and decide if it is an issue that we may be able to help you with. If we think we may be able to help, you will receive another letter that explains our processes and indicates the staff member assigned to your case. We will then start the negotiation phase by sending a copy of your complaint to the other party (we call that person the respondent ) and asking for a response within 10 days. If your issue is outside of our power to help, we will refer you to any available resources. What is the negotiation phase? In this first phase of the process, we will talk with both the complainant and the respondent individually by phone. During this time, we gather facts, provide education and information and determine the positions of the parties in an effort to bring compromise and compliance with the law What if we don t get anywhere in the negotiation phase? Negotiation is sometimes unsuccessful because the parties provide conflicting information or are unwilling to participate. If this is the case, the next step is for our staff to decide if the complaint is something we should investigate further. If we decide not to investigate, both parties will receive letters explaining our decision. What will happen in the investigation phase? If we decide to investigate formally, letters are sent to both parties explaining the process and what they can expect. During this phase, our investigator may conduct site visits, interview witnesses, search public records, subpoena documents from parties, engage the services of an independent expert, etc. Following a formal investigation, we will issue a written determination of whether or not a violation occurred and what actions are required to fix the problem. What can I appeal and how do I do it? Only written determinations by the Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program (MHDRP) issued following a formal investigation can be appealed in court. This means that you should expect a written determination to be made for your complaint only after you ve received a letter informing you that an investigation has been opened for your complaint. All written Notices of Violation or Nonviolation may be appealed by writing us a letter and requesting a hearing. All fines can also be appealed. Sometimes we will issue an order that may require a party to take some action or stop something they are doing and those orders are also appealable. How does the MHDRP enforce those notices? The MHDRP is empowered to fine respondents who do not fulfill the requirements of the Notice of Violation. This fine can be up to $250 per day. 28

31 What does it mean to appeal (or challenge) an order, fine, or notice? When you appeal an order, fine or notice, we will set up a hearing with an administrative law judge (ALJ). Administrative court is somewhat less formal than the regular county superior courts, but the ALJ will do much the same thing as a courtroom judge. There will not be a jury, however, and the ALJ will decide whether or not to support whatever decision we had previously made. If the ALJ agrees with us, then whatever was appealed goes back into effect. Otherwise, the challenged action is vacated, which means it never really happened. I received a complaint from the MHDRP. Do I have to respond? The short answer is no. No one is required to take part in the negotiation phase of the MHDRP, but we strongly encourage everyone to do so because we find that many disputes can be resolved quickly and to both parties satisfaction during this phase. Additionally, the MHDRP is also an enforcement agency that will review all unresolved complaints for potential violations of the law and may initiate a formal investigation to determine whether the law has been violated. See above under What if we don t get anywhere in the negotiation phase. What does this service cost? This service is free to use. The program is funded by a $10 annual fee paid by the landlord for each pad rented in their community. The landlord may collect $5 of that fee from the tenant. What can I do to help my case? Come to the program in good faith with a willingness to work to resolve the issue; try to set aside any anger you have and be ready to focus on the issues. Send us COPIES of any documents, letters, notices, photos, etc. that will support your claim. Please include a copy of your lease and park rules. Keep all original documents. 29

32 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Appendix E Complainant Summary 30

33 31

34 Washington State Attorney General - Rob McKenna Complaint Respondent Summary 32

35 33

36 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB MCKENNA 1125 Washington St. SE PO Box Olympia, WA