(A) It is unlawful for an owner, or any person acting on his or her behalf, to take any retaliatory action toward a tenant who reports a suspected lead-based paint hazard to the owner or to the city. Retaliatory actions include but are not limited to any actions that materially alter the terms of the tenancy (including rent increases and non-renewals) or interfere with the occupants’ use of the property.
(B) There shall be a rebuttal presumption that any attempt by the owner to raise rents, curtail services, refuse to renew or attempt to evict a tenant within six months after any report to the city or the owner or any enforcement action in connection with a suspected lead hazard is a retaliatory action in violation of this section, except that in instances of nonpayment of rent or commission of waste upon the premises by the tenant no presumption shall apply. After six months from the date of the reporting of a suspected lead hazard, or the most recent activity related to any enforcement action, the defense of retaliatory eviction shall remain available to the tenant, but without the benefit of the presumption created by this section.
(C) The provisions of this section shall not be given effect in any case in which it is established that the condition from which the complaint or action arose was caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant’s household or a guest of the tenant. Nor shall it apply in a case where a tenancy was terminated pursuant to the terms of a lease as a result of a bona fide transfer of ownership.
(Ord. 2008-3, passed 3-11-2008) Penalty, see § 95.999