SCHWELB, Associate Judge: Goodman asks us to review a decision of the District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission holding
that his landlord, Graybill, was entitled to claim exemption from rent stabilization under the so-called "small landlord"
provision of the Rental Housing Act. See D.C. Code § 45-1516 (a)(3) (1981). 1 This section excludes from coverage
"any rental unit in any housing accommodation of 4 or fewer units." Id.; see Blacknall v. District of Columbia Rental Housing
Commission, 544 A.2d 710, 711 (D.C. 1988). He also contends that he was denied the opportunity to present favorable evidence
to the Commission, and that Graybill should not have been granted an exemption because he allegedly failed to give Goodman
statutorily-required written notice, before the execution of Goodman's lease, that the property was not subject to the provisions
of the Act. 2 We agree with the Commission that Graybill was entitled to the exemption, and we hold that Goodman has not presented us with
an adequate record to support his claim that his right to present evidence was improperly restricted. The question regarding
Graybill's alleged failure to provide Goodman with the statutorily-required notice is more difficult. 3 The point was never
directly articulated to the Commission, and the Commission did not rule on it. Although there are some arguably extenuating
circumstances in this case for Goodman's failure to preserve the issue, and although we are reluctant to insist on rigorous
adherence to procedural niceties in proceedings under a remedial statute which relies in substantial part on lay litigants
to enforce it, we are compelled to conclude that the record before us with respect to the landlord's alleged failure to comply
with the statutory notice requirement is simply inadequate to enable us to review it in any meaningful way. No error having
been demonstrated, we affirm the Commission's decision.