of directors asking for the assessment of cost. the department reviewed the information and found that that notification was a civil matter between her and the bank, and indicated nothing else would occur. >> what is staff recommending? >> that that was a civil matter between the parties. the $1,300 in the assessment of cost is to repaid to the department. as far as recovering that, that should be between the new and old owner. that is the department's recommendation. >> it is 2009 on your recommendation. on the sheet it says 2010.

>> you are talking about the recommendation on the staff report? >> typo? >> yes, that was issued in 2009. that was a typo. any other questions? >> three minutes for the request your. -- requester. >> good morning, president, commissioners. my name is christina fong, and i am the requester of your view to grant back jurisdiction to reverse the order of abatement as well as the penalties

assessed against me. in february 2008, i became a first-time homeowner with the intent to occupy the house with my mom but had been forced to become an unwilling landlord to nonpaying occupancy. i am sad to say my mother and i are still unable to occupy the house because for the last nine months, i have had to hire an eviction attorney and company to evict the non-paying occupancy in the house. i am requesting the board to take back jurisdiction of my appeal because i find it unfair that i was denied the opportunity to fill the order of the bateman issued on february 11 since technically, as the property owner, i did not receive notification of the hearing. because i was not notified, i did not attend the scheduled hearing. consequently, i was not able to appeal this before the board and was therefore denied the right to appeal the directors' decision within the 10 days

allowed because i was not made aware that there was a proceeding. i did my due diligence once i became aware of the issue and believe that dbi was negligent in not pursuing its notices hearing and order of the basement with the bank. now that i have corrected the problem, i am forced to pay the fee that was made against the bank. when i purchased this house, i was not over there was a complaint filed with dbi or notices of proceedings that followed. this is evidence from the housing record of all documents from december 23 through april 21% to the bank of new york, the trustees. the only document that was said to me as acknowledgement that i was the owner was the august 13 final bill assessing cost of $1,300. dbi did not in good fit provide me notice at the directors hearing or order of abatement and i disagree with the directors believe that dbi for

build its obligation when it notified the bank. i believe dbi failed in its fiduciary duty to notify the property owner and is hiding behind the excuse that notice to the bank was sufficient notice to the property owner at the time. >> i have a question. how did you learn about the order of abatement? >> after going through hell after buying this house, because of the problem with trying to evict the current occupants, an attorney had advised me, since you're having so many problems, you sit see if there is a complaint filed at dbi, given the totality of my situation. that is the reason i contacted the housing inspection and asked if there was a complaint filed against the property. i am really unfamiliar with anything having to do with buying a house, let alone being a landlord to people who are not

paying. my attorney recommended that i check with dbi. that is what i found out there was a complaint in december that the furnace needed to be fixed. that is how i learned about the order of abatement. that was in july. >> and what was the role of your realtor, agent in this process? >> apparently, they did not do their fiduciary duty to help me, so i have been screwed left and right by everybody who i thought was here to protect me. it has been held. i wish i had never bought this house. >> i have a question of counsel. should we do that now or after? this is an interesting issue of

me for noticing. i have a question as to -- this is at the crux of it for me. even though there was a new owner of the time we issued a notice, we issued it to the wrong person because we believe the previous owner was still the current owner. who was the legal owner of the time of the issuance of hour notice? >> there was a notice for the directors hearing in january. then there was the actual order of abatement. at the time, the order of abatement issued ownership had changed, according to the document -- >> the follow up is, is it then the bank's responsibility to notify any subsequent owner, transfer? that is not really within your

jurisdiction -- >> this is more establishing for me whether or not i will vote to have a new hearing or not. the hearing notice was sent to the right owner, the bank? >> let me ask this question. what does our board have jurisdiction over? we do not have jurisdiction over the director board hearings. we listen to appeals for order of abatements. is that correct? i am more interested on the notice of the order of abatement. >> the issue here is why she missed the 10-day hearing of the abatement. the board needs to make a finding, whether under the code, for delay in missing the deadline was somehow caused by a misrepresentation, mistake, or terror by the city. >> so the question is, when did

the letter of a bid to go out? >> three days after the ownership change. so my question is, it is not just what we have jurisdiction over and the city failed to record in due time the order of abatement, and we can and are supposed to look at whether we can allow a rehearing of the abatement. >> it is not a rehearing. you would be granting jurisdiction to allow her appeal for the abatement order for the first time to the aab. commissioner lee: i have another follow-up question. given the city took this time and did not record it, and we sent the first letter to the bank, the owners, is there any

recourse for the city to go after the previous owner? they could have dealt with this before they sold the house, right? >> between the requester and the bank? commissioner lee: yes, the bank could have dealt with this with the city as well. they are also responsible to the city, not just her because they sold her a problem, are they not? is the bank, the previous owner, responsible for taking care of something with the city? can any odor just pass off their problems to the city of knowingly? >> it is the current owner at any time. they are responsible for the

property. commissioner murphy: looking at this, the way i see it, the rules were written in december 2009. at that time, the bank of new york own the property. there was no compliance and the case was scheduled for the directors hearing. the notification at that time went to bank of new york. between the time of the notification and the hearing, title was taken to the property. nobody showed up. the order was then issued. in march, the order of abatement was mailed to the bank of new

york. the owner claims that mail should have gone to her and not the bank of new york. she made repairs, is that true? >> yes. the invoice and reinspection took place. it was repaired within less than 10 days. commissioner murphy: so she made the repairs as soon as she was aware of them and then mailed it to the housing inspector in july. for some reason, the inspector did not verify those repairs until october. commissioner lee: i think you just made your case that the board of abatement went to the wrong party. commissioner murphy: yes, so i see the present owner -- commissioner walker: and that is

what we are looking at. i feel the same way. i feel the order of abatement went to the wrong person, and we did not know. it is not because we made an error. we relied on information in our system, but another entity in our system had not updated it to give us proper, immediate ownership. so the issue for me is a fair notice opportunity. that is what we're looking at, not the facts of anything else. that is for another day commissioner murph. commissioner murphy: if we want to point the finger at anybody, it would be the assessor's office. commissioner lee: why don't we take public comment now. any public comment?

>> i can weigh in on some of this, as an agent in san francisco. whatever has become a liability of the acquiring party is what ever is recorded at the time of the sale, so if a material was disclosed in the sale, and the party acquired the property agrees -- title or any other negative aspect associate with property. they buy an understanding that is an issue they have to deal with. given that this was being sold by the banks, it sounds like it was not a regular transaction. in the case of a bank doing a sale, the rules are very

different, and i can say that from experience. if i have a clyde buying a property from a bank, i make it clear to the client that the rules of disclosures, and no moral procedures for transaction do not apply and the bank has all the resources legally and otherwise to know what the law is, what their obligations are and it's probably fair to say there is a fair degree of and chartered territory, even though we have been in the short sale business for a few years. so some of this probably has not been tested in courts, so we do not know exactly what the law is. but as a buyer, you should be prepared for some nasty surprises, just as you are in the event of an estate sale. it is one of the few cases where the term as is has muscle.

it is what it is when that happens. i thought i would share that with you. thank you. commissioner lee: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner walker. commissioner walker: it seems to me, ms. fong was caught in the middle of a quick sale, lack of updating notice. i would like to make a motion that we grant her request to take back jurisdiction and allow her appropriate notice. maybe today we could notice her -- i do not know. >> the way this agenda allows you to take up the merits of the appeal -- if you were to grant

jurisdiction, would be to proceed to hear the case today on the merits. commissioner lee: i wanted to state, the department did nothing wrong in this case. i believe dbi sent the letters to the proper property owner, as listed in the recorder's office. however, it did appear that they were a little slow in the listing the new owner. the notice of the director's chair was sent to the bank, which was the right place, but they should have informed the new buyer. that is my belief. subsequently, nobody showed up at the directors hearing and an abatement order was issued. technically, the abatement issue should have been sent to the new

owner, but it was not. if it was received by the new owner, they had the appeal to -- right to appeal the within 10 days. so i would support. commissioner walker: maybe we could look at ways of letting this to the assessor's office somehow? especially in our new system. if there are violations attached to property, that these things are recorder quickly so that people and the public are updated as to the reality of it. >> so commissioner walker, or motion to take jurisdiction over the case? that is your motion? all those in favor? oppose? the motion carried unanimously. the payment appeals board is taking jurisdiction over item to which is case 6743.

the owner of record it in the appellant is christina fong. the department has seven minutes if it wishes to state its case. ms. fong will then have seven minutes. commissioner lee: then we will have public comment and rebuttal. >> since i have already summarized the case, i want to address some of the question that have come up previously. the timeframe from the position of the director's officer to the time it gets sent to the recorder, it is because the delay of the process, we have to wait for the 10-day appeal period. so when we issue it and send it out, then there is a 10-day

period we must wait for the order of record that has been noticed, whether or not we send it over to the recorder's office, so there is around a 30-day period before it gets sent to the recorder. part of the problem is, as far as future direction to the department, maybe the recorder's office, there is a delay between when instruments are recorded and when it appears. i think that is part of the problem. also, when we take a document, order of abatement, revocation of an order, it could be some weeks before that is recorded. we stand behind individuals coming that day to get their documents recorded. i will say that ms. fong, when she was contacted by us, when she got access to the property,

looked at the complaint. regarding the delay to the inspection, there was no delay. if you look at the data sheet, the assigned housing director did make continuous efforts to contact to the owner was to get in and verify that we could conclude this particular case. so with that, unless you have any other further questions -- commissioner lee: ms. fong, you have seven minutes. >> good morning again. as i've previously indicated, on july 8 is when i became aware of the complaint filed. based on my own volition and advice from my attorney, i looked it through.

a housing inspector assigned mae an official who provided mea copy of the case file. within 10 days, i ordered for a service technician to repair the heater. i provided a copy of the invoice on july 20 as proof of repair. on july 16, i have corrected the order of payment as soon as i was made aware of the problem. if i had known about the order of abatement sooner, i would have been able to appeal and follow the process that you have outlined. as soon as i learned of it, even though it was after the fact, i made the corrections, made the repairs as soon as possible. i do not know if i have anything more to add but i appreciate that you took that jurisdiction. i also want to thank a couple of individuals from your staff who helped me to get through this

process that i needed to have the abatement appeals board take back jurisdiction before i could have an appeal heard. so i do want to thank ms aherne and ms. harrison. that is all i have to say. thank you. commissioner lee: questions, commissioners? any public comment? commissioner walker: rebuttal? >> we do have three minutes, if the department or appellant needs it. i do not think ms. fong has anything else to say. there is no public comment. commissioner walker: this is

unfortunate, one of those issues that should have been included in the description sheet. the bank should have been responsible for that. these issues are real that we deal with. i appreciate that you have carried forward but i think the assessment of cost is the amount of money that we put into it as a department. to me, it looks like the department acted rightly in this case. i think i will be supporting upholding the assessment of cost and upholding the department's recommendation on this case and ask that the bill be taken care of.

i think you are then free to do what you want against the previous owner, because it is a civil matter and out of our hands. commissioner lee: commissioner hechanova? commissioner hechanova: in light of what has happened, my primary comment would be that we provide service to the citizens of our city and we not be punitive where in the course of due process, there were balls that were dropped. the category of being rational and practical about this, without getting lost in the department policy on such a minor item, where the owner had really taken into account responsible action, and along with that, it was really simple.

we should extend a courtesy of service by granting this appeal. we need to take care of our citizens. it was really out side of her scope when the former owner dropped on her this item. so there are process cheese, but the category is we should be rational and practical. something like this is fairly minor. commissioner murphy: i would agree with commissioner hechanova. i think ms. fong did everything right and she is getting slapped on the wrist here -- at least that is the intenst.

at the time, too bad for the owner -- i do not particularly like that. i am sure there was some staff time spent on this. maybe too much time. that is not for me to say. that is just my humble opinion. commissioner lee: i think that this is unfortunate that this situation rises but i do not think our department did anything wrong. completely waving the fee would be admitting that we did something wrong. maybe there could be a compromise, maybe a midpoint? how about 50% of what the fee was and then suggest that the owner seek remediation or

something with the previous owner? >> i do not believe the owner will have a chance to get the money from the bank. we are charging this fine to her when she did nothing wrong. i am wholly opposed to that. commissioner walker: i think this is setting a bad precedent. is basically allowing banks to do what they want to do. ultimately, it is the bank's faults, but ultimately we are setting a precedent here because there is no other argument other than the bank failed to deal with this issue and we fail to record it. we allowed for the new hearing -- maybe i can get an assessment from the department on what about this is -- excuse me,

fines and penalties? >> the amount in the final bill that was sent out august 13 is $1,346.50. that is our time. that was the final bill. that was before this appeal. >> i would like to make a motion that we -- commissioner walker: i already made a motion. >> i would like to make a motion that the case be dropped with no funds to the owner. >> motion to grant the appeal and reverse the assess the cost. it is not penalties of fine, it is assessment of cost. commissioner lee: second.

any further discussion? >> we will take a roll call vote. [roll call] the motion carries on a vote of 4-2. commissioner lee: thank you. >> item d is general public >> item d is general public comment.