By Adam Pagnucco.
Rockville City Council Member Izola Shaw, who is running for the County Council District 3 seat, is known for her advocacy on renters’ rights. She is the city’s primary advocate for rent control, having twice unsuccessfully attempted to get her colleagues to adopt it, and describes herself as a “housing justice advocate” on her campaign website. But she has also been a landlord, and in 2019, four of her tenants filed a complaint with the county’s Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs, summoned a housing inspector who found eight violations and ultimately sued her over the conditions in their building.
District Court case 06-01-0010827-2019 contains a 72-page file chock full of emails and records detailing the tenants’ experiences at Shaw’s property (12303 Judson Road in Glenmont) as well as correspondence between the tenants, Shaw and her property management company. The file contains complaints by the tenants dating back to October 2018 concerning gutter and wall damage, roof leaks, birds in the attic, front step issues, water in the basement, mold and asbestos tiles.
12303 Judson Road in Glenmont, the rental property owned by Izola Shaw.
Here are some of the tenants’ specific statements to the property manager and/or Shaw.
“The birds in the ceiling are getting increasingly loud and active. They’re really a problem now, and we need something done about them as soon as possible.”
“In the meantime, we have some robins (unsure if the same birds that were evicted from the vents) that are nesting on one of the pillars by the front door. This wasn’t an issue until last week when they started getting aggressive, and at this point they are starting to outright attack us on our way in and out of the house. Could you please contact Potomac Pest Control again?”
“First and foremost, we want to emphasize that we enjoy living in this house, and would love to renew the lease if given the option when this current one is due to end.
Having said that, we are concerned about how long it has taken for major maintenance issues (mostly the basement) to be addressed by the homeowner. It has been four months since we first logged the maintenance ticket for the basement, and the fact that the work has not started has us concerned that the roof issue will also go several months without resolution. Your update earlier this morning was helpful, but we still worry.
Ideally, we would like to have this settled through you; as we just want the homeowner to treat these maintenance requests with more urgency, and be more prompt about approving fixes. If this isn’t possible, we don’t feel like we have any other choice but to involve the county’s Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs.”
“Thank you for your understanding, however you’re missing a few key issues. First, this ‘basement issue’ has caused us to not have safe and usable access to an entire floor of the house we rented for at least six of the twelve month lease. During this time, we have not been offered alternatives or rent rebates to help offset the issue caused by a sudden and severe lack of storage space…
The asbestos issue is not what caused this, more that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Had this job been scheduled in a timely manner, the asbestos issue would have been discovered months ago. The fact that there has been water intrusion in two points (roof and basement) for nearly six months and only now were the repairs attempted is, frankly, absurd. Water intrusion can cause serious health issues but we were willing to ignore that as long as the work was done. Unfortunately, the work wasn’t getting done.”
The tenants also took notes on their interactions with the property manager, contractors and Shaw. This is their account of Shaw’s reaction when shown asbestos tiles in the basement.
*****
Interaction Report
Approximately 7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 22nd, 2019
Landlord (Izola Shaw) arrives for requested visit and asks Tenant Ian Jordan to be shown the basement.
Upon being taken to the basement, Landlord looks at the area where the carpet had been pulled back to expose asbestos tiles. Tenant Ian informed her of tenant concerns over the asbestos and potential mold. Landlord dismissed the asbestos as being no danger due to it being in solid form, and dismissed the likelihood of mold due to the fact that she did not see any mold present. Landlord expressed that the evidence of tenants’ cats being present in the basement indicated that the tenants did not think there was any real danger.
Landlord decided she had seen enough, and left approximately at 8:00 PM.
*****
In another interaction, the tenants alleged that Shaw “claims that she ‘just signs the checks’, and that she does not handle any scheduling or hiring arrangements, as this is what she hired a Property Manager for.”
In May 2019, the tenants formally requested an “action plan” to deal with the maintenance problems. They also told the property manager: “At this point, we have also decided that we will be contacting the Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs, both to have their authority ensure that the action plan is followed properly and to begin the process of setting up a rent escrow account. All rent from this point forward will be paid into the account until all work is completed in a satisfactory manner.”
The tenants then called in a county housing inspector, who found eight violations in the house: water/mold-heavy in the basement, water/mold light in the basement, dryrotten boards in the deck/balcony, leaking/water damaged interior upper floor related to the roof, water/mold light in the upper and lower halls, leak damage to include baseboards in the floor, warped floor in the kitchen and water leaking into the basement. The inspector’s report, sent to Shaw on June 5, 2019, is reprinted below.
On 6/19/19, the tenants sued Shaw in district court. Their complaint is shown below with phone numbers redacted.
The tenants also filed a complaint with the county’s Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs on 6/30/19. In the complaint, they wrote:
*****
State specific complaint
Major maintenance concerns originally reported September 2018 (water damage from roof) and December 2018 (water damage caused by foundation issues in basement) were not seriously addressed, nor work begun, until mid-May 2019, and repairs only began in earnest in mid-June, after tenants had a county Housing Inspector come out to document the damages (Case #155692). Tenants missed an estimated combined 10 full days of work meeting contractors during the period when no work was performed or even scheduled.
State what action(s) will resolve your complaint
The return of 45% of the $17,500.00 in rent payments made starting from December 2018 when the basement issue was reported and the water damage was discovered to be stemming from the roof. This requested amount is to compensate for the loss of use of the basement of the property, and the lost income from the days spent waiting to meet contractors for work estimates between December and April.
The complaint is shown below with email addresses and phone numbers redacted.
*****
On July 12, the tenants made a motion for continuance/postponement in their lawsuit, stating, “We… are attempting to engage our current Landlord (Izola Shaw) in formal mediation before we continue with any court proceedings.” The file contains no records thereafter. The case was closed on 8/24/20. The property was advertised for rent in 2020. Shaw still owns the property, does not claim it as a principal residence in assessment records and receives tax bills at a rental building in Rockville.
I asked Shaw and her spokeswoman for comment on this case. This was their response in full.
*****
Regarding the closed case that occurred nearly seven years ago and never went to trial, the property damage was caused by a severe flash flood that critically damaged multiple homes in the neighborhood. This situation was worsened by there only being a handful of contractors specializing in the major construction required by the multiple homeowners at once. Nonetheless, all the repairs were completed. The tenants were invited to a resolution meeting, but they declined. Following an investigation, no compensation was awarded, the court deleted the trial, and closed the case.