(a)(1) The PHA grievance procedure shall be applicable (except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section) to all individual grievances as defined in § 966.53 of this subpart between the tenant and the PHA.
(2)(i) The term due process determination means a determination by HUD that law of the jurisdiction requires that the tenant must be given the opportunity for a hearing in court which provides the basic elements of due process (as defined in § 966.53(c)) before eviction from the dwelling unit. If HUD has issued a due process determination, a PHA may exclude from the PHA administrative grievance procedure under this subpart any grievance concerning a termination of tenancy or eviction that involves:
(A) Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other residents or employees of the PHA;
(B) Any violent or drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises; or
(C) Any criminal activity that resulted in felony conviction of a household member.
(iii) For guidance of the public, HUD will publish in the Federal Register a notice listing the judicial eviction procedures for which HUD has issued a due process determination. HUD will make available for public inspection and copying a copy of the legal analysis on which the determinations are based.
(iv) If HUD has issued a due process determination, the PHA may evict the occupants of the dwelling unit through the judicial eviction procedures which are the subject of the determination. In this case, the PHA is not required to provide the opportunity for a hearing under the PHA's administrative grievance procedure.
(b) The PHA grievance procedure shall not be applicable to disputes between tenants not involving the PHA or to class grievances. The grievance procedure is not intended as a forum for initiating or negotiating policy changes between a group or groups of tenants and the PHA's Board of Commissioners.
[40 FR 33406, Aug. 7, 1975. Redesignated at 49 FR 6714, Feb. 23, 1984, and amended at 56 FR 51579, Oct. 11, 1991; 61 FR 13273, Mar. 26, 1996; 66 FR 28804, May 24, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (1987).
· cites it 2× “See 24 CFR § 966.51 (b) (1986). HUD itself has never provided a procedure by which tenants could complain to it about the alleged failures of PHA's to abide by their annual contribution contracts, the Brooke Amendment, or HUD regulations; nor has it taken unto itself the task of…”
Hous. Auth. of New Haven v. Martin, 898 A.2d 245 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, the defendant argues that the second notice did not state that the proposed eviction was for serious criminal activity as defined in 24 C.F.R. § 966.51 (a) (2) (i) (A) or for a drug related criminal activity as defined in 24 C.”
Carrera v. Yepez, 6 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 966.51 (a). "Grievance” refers to "any dispute which a tenant may have with respect to PHA action or failure to act in accordance with the individual tenant's lease or PHA regulations which adversely affect the individual tenant’s rights, duties, welfare or status.”
Hous. Auth. of City of New Haven v. Deroche, 962 A.2d 904 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
“The preter-mination notice stated that the defendant’s actions in starting a fire while intoxicated involved criminal activity and was conduct that presented an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants and the landlord.”
United States v. Laurent, 861 F. Supp. 2d 71 (E.D.N.Y 2011).
“1437d(k) (stating that tenants must be given an opportunity to contest a termination of tenancy through the public housing authority’s grievance procedure); 24 C.F.R. § 966.51 (a)(2) (excluding evictions based on certain types of tenant criminal activity from the grievance…”
Corpus Christi Hous. Auth. v. Lara, 267 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App. 2008).
“See 24 C.F.R. § 966.51 (a)(1) (2008). 3 Even when an exception applies and a grievance hearing is not required, the regulations mandate that the judicial procedure used to evict a tenant must possess the basic elements of due process.”
Colvin v. Hous. Auth., 71 F.3d 864 (11th Cir. 1996).
“§ 1437d(k); see also the corresponding regulation at 24 C.F.R. 966.51(a)(ii). Congress has not given that power to Public Housing Authorities under this part of Section 8.”
White v. State of California, 195 Cal. App. 3d 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
“§ 1437d(k); 24 C.F.R. § 966.51 (b)), the court twice noted the remedy made no provision for class relief.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 966.51(a)(2)(i) — 1 case
— 24 C.F.R. § 966.51(a)(ii) — 1 case
Colvin v. Hous. Auth., 71 F.3d 864 (11th Cir. 1996).
“§ 1437d(k); see also the corresponding regulation at 24 C.F.R. 966.51(a)(ii). Congress has not given that power to Public Housing Authorities under this part of Section 8.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 966.51(b) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.