C.F.R. » Title 24 » CHAPTER IX—OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT › PART 966—PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE › Subpart B—Grievance Procedures and Requirements

24 C.F.R. § 966.57

Decision of the hearing officer

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The hearing officer must prepare a written decision, including the reasons for the PHA's decision within a reasonable time after the hearing. A copy of the decision must be sent to the complainant and the PHA. The PHA must retain a copy of the decision in the tenant's folder. The PHA must maintain a log of all hearing officer decisions and make that log available upon request of the hearing officer, a prospective complainant, or a prospective complainant's representative.

(b) The decision of the hearing officer will be binding on the PHA unless the PHA Board of Commissioners determines that:

(1) The grievance does not concern PHA action or failure to act in accordance with or involving the complainant's lease on PHA regulations, which adversely affects the complainant's rights, duties, welfare or status; or

(2) The decision of the hearing officer is contrary to applicable Federal, State or local law, HUD regulations or requirements of the annual contributions contract between HUD and the PHA.

(c) A decision by the hearing officer or Board of Commissioners in favor of the PHA or which denies the relief requested by the complainant in whole or in part will not constitute a waiver of, nor affect in any manner whatever, any rights the complainant may have to a trial de novo or judicial review in any judicial proceedings, which may thereafter be brought in the matter.

[81 FR 12375, Mar. 8, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth., 327 P.3d 600 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth., 327 P.3d 600 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “See 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (a). RAC is a group of SHA tenant leaders seeking copies of all SHA grievance hearing decisions dated June 17, 2007, or later.”
Sager v. Hous. Comm'n, 855 F. Supp. 2d 524 (D. Maryland 2012). · cites it 4× “” 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (a). Even if I can consider the “Hearing Summary” from the hearing, see note 9, supra, despite the fact that it was not included with plaintiffs Complaint, the “Hearing Summary” does not defeat plaintiffs claim for the following reasons.”
Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Hous. Auth., 865 F. Supp. 2d 307 (E.D.N.Y 2012). · cites it 5× “24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (c) (IHA Grievance Procedure VILE.”
Laticia Farley v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth. Floyd Baker Pamela Dunbar Claude Ross, 102 F.3d 697 (3rd Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “” 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (b) (1994). Her cause of action arises, strictly under § 1437d(k).”
Shepherd v. Weldon Mediation Servs., Inc., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (W.D. Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “” 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (a). The SHA requires a written decision within 10 business days of the hearing.”
Hunter v. City of Des Moines Mun. Hous. Auth., 742 N.W.2d 578 (Iowa 2007). “24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (c) (emphasis added). While there is very little judicial authority on the application of this regulation, we question whether it prohibits a grievance decision from being used to preclude reliti-gation of the issues decided.”
Sager v. Hous. Comm'n, 957 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D. Maryland 2013). “" 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (c). A tenant who continues to dispute a maintenance charge after an adverse grievance decision may continue their challenge in a § 8-402.”
Dowell v. Comm'r of Transitional Assistance, 424 Mass. 610 (Mass. 1997). “02 (6); 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (b) (granting tenants of State and Federal public housing the right to an administrative appeal of adverse decisions).”
Corcoran Mgmt. Co. v. Withers, 513 N.E.2d 218 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). “” 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (c) (1987). If there were any errors in the proceedings before the grievance panel, they provide no cause for any relief to the tenant in the-appeal before this court since he obtained a trial de nova which superseded all that had occurred at the grievance…”
Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 858 F. Supp. 464 (E.D. Pa. 1994). “(Procedure, ¶ l(e)(10) and (13)); 24 C.F.R. § 966.57 . The grievance procedures provide for an “emergency grievance hearing” which “shall be scheduled within seven (7) working days of the filing of a Grievance Hearing Request.”
Hous. Auth. of St. Louis Cnty. v. Lovejoy, 762 S.W.2d 843 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “24 C.F.R. § 966.57 (c). Like the federal regulation, the respondent’s grievance procedure provides: “Paragraph (F).”
Conway v. Hous. Auth. of City of Asheville, 239 F. Supp. 2d 593 (W.D.N.C. 2002). “Defendants next argüe that the Plaintiff was simply not entitled to a grievance hearing.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— 24 C.F.R. § 966.57(a) — 1 case
Samuels v. Dist. of Columbia, 669 F. Supp. 1133 (D.D.C. 1987).
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.