Torrington commission gets training on scope of powers, retaliation protections and procedures

Torrington’s Fair Rent Commission held a training session on Feb. 20, 2025, with attorneys Rafi Podolsky of Connecticut Legal Services and Sarah White of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center reviewing the commission’s statutory powers, evidentiary practices and common procedural issues.

The training focused on why the commission exists and how it may respond to complaints about rent increases, reductions in services and unsafe housing conditions. "They are municipal boards with the power to limit or modify rent increases, but also rental charges in general, which are really broadly defined to include fees as well," Sarah White said during the presentation.

The session explained the commission’s statutory decision framework, including the familiar 1969 standard referenced in practice: whether a rental charge is “so excessive as to be harsh and unconscionable,” and an additional remedy to set rent to an amount that is “fair and equitable.” Podolsky described the practical focus: "your basic standard is what in the statute is referred to as... the rental charge being so excessive as to be harsh and unconscionable." Commissioners were reminded the statute lists 13 factors to consider (size and history of increases; what services and utilities are included; unit condition and code compliance; landlord operating costs; tenant income and availability of alternatives; comparable rents and others), and that not every factor applies to every case.

Why it matters

Presenters said the commission plays a dual role: (1) an individualized rent‑stabilization mechanism that can prevent displacement of in‑place tenants, and (2) a practical enforcement partner that can buttress housing‑code work. White said a powerful, practical remedy is reducing or suspending rent until repairs are made: "A fair rent commission, you know, choosing to suspend rent or reduce rent until repairs are made, can more directly often, incentivize the landlord to finally get things fixed." Podolsky and White cautioned that commissions typically try to avoid operating as rent collectors — for example, most commissions avoid maintaining escrow accounts even when suspending rent, and some commissions instead lower rent to a nominal figure (for example, one dollar) as an alternative to managing escrow accounts.

Evidence and procedure

Podolsky and White emphasized that commissions will usually rely on evidence the parties bring. On comparables, White warned there is no perfect dataset and comparables are only one of many factors: "Zillow has a dataset. Apartments.com has data. HUD, you know, does a survey, but none of them like, nowhere nowhere aggregates, like, all of the rents in a town or city." They told commissioners staff can and should collect routine information (for example, code‑enforcement reports) so commissioners have records at hearing time, and that commissions may request operating statements from landlords — or treat a party’s refusal to produce data as weakening that party’s argument.

Retaliation protections

Presenters reviewed retaliation law and the commission’s role. Podolsky explained an immediate statutory protection: filing a complaint with the commission or receiving a commission order triggers a statutory six‑month anti‑retaliation protection under the landlord‑tenant statute (cited in discussion as 47a‑20). He also explained that separate law allows claims beyond six months where motive must be shown (referred to in the session as 7‑148d). Podolsky described how the commission can hear nonrenewal and other retaliation claims and said commissioners should expect to see claims that arise both during commission proceedings and after an order expires.

Language access and accommodations

Commissioners asked about interpreters and accommodations. The city’s corporation counsel (present on the call) said she had added line items to the corporation counsel office budget for the Fair Rent Commission that include interpreter services and supplies, and that the ordinance/regulation language requiring parties to provide interpreters will be removed so the commission or city will pay for interpretation going forward. White noted Title VI and related federal guidance bearing on language access; presenters also pointed to ADA and Rehabilitation Act sources for sign‑language needs.

Conciliation, hearing practice and outreach

Both presenters recommended using conciliation: many complaints settle with assistance from a neutral staff person before reaching a formal hearing. They also urged commissioners to be flexible when parties appear without counsel: ask targeted questions to obtain relevant facts, but avoid trying to rewrite claims for a party. Podolsky and White recommended keeping an open‑ended complaint field ("Why are you filing this complaint with us?") so staff can triage and encourage conciliation when appropriate. Commissioners were told outreach (pamphlets, presence at community events) increases tenant awareness and will likely increase complaint volume; New Haven’s outreach was cited as an example.

Legislation and statewide coordination

Presenters flagged several bills under consideration at the state level that could affect commissions, including proposals discussed during the meeting that would (a) create presumptions around allowable rent increases following a change in ownership, and (b) in some versions limit the duration or scope of anti‑retaliation remedies. White and Podolsky described the Connecticut Fair Rent Commissions Network (a nascent statewide monitoring and coordination group) as a resource for tracking legislation and sharing practice guidance.

Actions and procedural notes

During the Feb. 20 meeting the commission approved the minutes from the Nov. meeting by voice vote after a motion and second. The commission discussed officer elections and mayoral appointment rules (commission members noted that officers are selected internally but appointments are made by the mayor) and agreed to defer officer elections to the next meeting. Commissioners also discussed quorum timing and whether any immediate votes were required while a full quorum was present.

What was not decided

Presenters and commissioners did not adopt new rules at the meeting; the city’s corporation counsel said she will propose ordinance/regulation edits to remove any language forcing parties to provide interpreters and will rely on the budgeted interpreter line going forward. Commissioners were not asked to vote on those ordinance edits during this session.

Next steps and contacts

Presenters invited follow‑up questions and offered to provide model forms and sample decision lengths (the presenters recommended one‑year decision durations as a typical starting point). Rafi Podolsky and Sarah White provided their institutional affiliations for follow up: Podolsky, Connecticut Legal Services; White, Connecticut Fair Housing Center.

Ending

The training closed after questions about outreach, case volume and local legal aid access. Commissioners and staff indicated plans to review suggested ordinance edits, finalize budgeted interpreter support and continue outreach work.