communicate the continuing issues with the premises,
including a clogged kitchen sink and dishwasher, and
malfunctioning outlets, but the defendant did not use
[the] online portal to notify the plaintiff about them,
and no work orders were placed for those issues.
Instead, the defendant contacted [the] Hamden Housing
Authority and asked for an inspection. The inspection
took place on May 9 and confirmed some of the defen-
dant’s complaints, requiring the plaintiff to correct
them.
‘‘The defendant was served a notice to quit by abode
service on March 2, 2024, for ‘nonpayment of rent within
the grace period provided for residential property’ with
a quit date of April 7. The notice also indicated that
any future payments would be accepted ‘for reimburse-
ment of costs and for use and occupancy only . . . .’
A letter was also sent to the New Haven Housing Author-
ity, as the section 8 rental assistance administrator, that
a notice to quit had or would be served on the defendant.
The defendant, however, did not receive the notice [to
quit] until March 10, as he was out of town. Upon
receipt, the defendant reached out to his HUD-VASH
counselor for advice. At some point prior to April 3,
Young communicated to the defendant and his HUD-
VASH counselor that, in addition to the defendant’s
portion of the rent from January to April, he would also
have to pay $375 to reimburse the plaintiff for the legal
fees associated with serving the notice to quit. On April
3, the defendant purchased and mailed to the plaintiff’s
attorney four money orders for $93 each and indicated
that they were for January through April rent. On April
5, Young emailed the defendant and [his] HUD-VASH
counselor, informing them that she had received the
money orders and indicating that they could only be
accepted as use and occupancy payments. She further
indicated that [the] $375 fee remained, which would
increase to $1600 after April 7. The defendant agreed
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0