(a) Initial term. The initial term of a voucher must be at least 60 calendar days. The initial term must be stated on the voucher.
(b) Extensions of term. (1) At its discretion, the PHA may grant a family one or more extensions of the initial voucher term in accordance with PHA policy as described in the PHA Administrative Plan. Any extension of the term is granted by PHA notice to the family.
(2) If the family needs and requests an extension of the initial voucher term as a reasonable accommodation, in accordance with part 8 of this title, to make the program accessible to a family member who is a person with disabilities, the PHA must extend the voucher term up to the term reasonably required for that purpose.
(c) Suspension of term. The PHA must provide for suspension of the initial or any extended term of the voucher from the date that the family submits a request for PHA approval of the tenancy until the date the PHA notifies the family in writing whether the request has been approved or denied.
(d) Progress report by family to the PHA. During the initial or any extended term of a voucher, the PHA may require the family to report progress in leasing a unit. Such reports may be required at such intervals or times as determined by the PHA.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0169)
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 45661, Sept. 1, 1995; 63 FR 23860, Apr. 30, 1998; 64 FR 26644, May 14, 1999; 64 FR 56913, Oct. 21, 1999; 80 FR 50573, Aug. 20, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case:
Sabi v. Sterling, 183 Cal. App. 4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
Sabi v. Sterling, 183 Cal. App. 4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“( 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 (a) & (b) (2010).) We now come to the actual payment of housing assistance under the contract between the PHA and the owner, referred to as the HAP (housing assistance payment) contract, “(a) Payments under HAP contract.”
Ely v. Mobile Hous. Bd., 13 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (S.D. Ala. 2014).
· cites it 3× “” 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 (a). Plaintiffs voucher plainly satisfied that criterion.”
Donavette Ely v. Mobile Hous. Bd., 605 F. App'x 846 (11th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “24 C.F.R. § 982.303 (b). “[A] benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.”
Burgess v. Alameda Hous. Auth., 98 F. App'x 603 (9th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 (b)(1) (1999) {‘At its discretion the [housing authority] may grant a family one or more extensions of the initial term .”
Liberty Resources, Inc. v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 528 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
“Under HUD regulation 24 CFR § 982.303 (b), PHA may grant extensions to vouchers, which normally expire after sixty days, and it consistently has done so for mobility disabled voucher holders when requested.”
Pickett v. Hous. Auth. of Cook Cnty., 114 F. Supp. 3d 663 (N.D. Ill. 2015).
“It is true that 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 vests a PHA with discretion to “grant a family one or more extensions of the initial voucher term — ” But this discretion is not unfettered.”
Womack v. Hous. Auth. of Chester Cnty. (E.D. Pa. 2020).
· cites it 3× “HACC failed to publish or promulgate an Administrative Plan which included rules regarding extensions of voucher in violation of 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 . In violation of 24 C.”
Lundregan v. Hous. Opportunities Comm'n (D. Maryland 2024).
· cites it 2× “a person with disabilities”? 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 (b)(2). And ifa landlord or some other individual conjures negative allegations against someone with a disability, could it not place some obligation on HOC to go beyond one- sided allegations of witnesses and subject them to…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.303(b)(2) — 2 cases
Womack v. Hous. Auth. of Chester Cnty. (E.D. Pa. 2020).
“HACC failed to publish or promulgate an Administrative Plan which included rules regarding extensions of voucher in violation of 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 . In violation of 24 C.”
Lundregan v. Hous. Opportunities Comm'n (D. Maryland 2024).
“a person with disabilities”? 24 C.F.R. § 982.303 (b)(2). And ifa landlord or some other individual conjures negative allegations against someone with a disability, could it not place some obligation on HOC to go beyond one- sided allegations of witnesses and subject them to…”
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.