(a) PHA option and owner responsibility. (1) The PHA has no liability or responsibility to the owner or other persons for the family's behavior or suitability for tenancy. However, the PHA may opt to screen applicants for family behavior or suitability for tenancy. The PHA must conduct any such screening of applicants in accordance with policies stated in the PHA Administrative Plan.
(2) The owner is responsible for screening and selection of the family to occupy the owner's unit. At or before PHA approval of the tenancy, the PHA must inform the owner that screening and selection for tenancy is the responsibility of the owner.
(3) The owner is responsible for screening of families on the basis of their tenancy histories. An owner may consider a family's background with respect to such factors as:
(i) Payment of rent and utility bills;
(ii) Caring for a unit and premises;
(iii) Respecting the rights of other residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their housing;
(iv) Drug-related criminal activity or other criminal activity that is a threat to the health, safety or property of others; and
(v) Compliance with other essential conditions of tenancy.
(b) PHA information about tenant. (1) The PHA must give the owner:
(i) The family's current and prior address (as shown in the PHA records); and
(ii) The name and address (if known to the PHA) of the landlord at the family's current and prior address.
(2) When a family wants to lease a dwelling unit, the PHA may offer the owner other information in the PHA possession, about the family, including information about the tenancy history of family members, or about drug-trafficking by family members.
(3) The PHA must give the family a statement of the PHA policy on providing information to owners. The statement must be included in the information packet that is given to a family selected to participate in the program. The PHA policy must provide that the PHA will give the same types of information to all families and to all owners.
(4) In cases involving a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) applies.
(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; 61 FR 27163, May 30, 1996; 64 FR 26645, May 14, 1999; 64 FR 49658, Sept. 14, 1999; 73 FR 72344, Nov. 28, 2008; 75 FR 66263, Oct. 27, 2010; 81 FR 80816, Nov. 16, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Baldwin v. Hous. Auth. of City of Camden, NJ, 278 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D.N.J. 2003).
· cites it 7× “307 , which deals directly with tenant screening, provides: (a) PHA option and owner responsibility: (1) The PHA has no liability or responsibility to the owner or other person for the family’s behavior or suitability for tenancy.”
Columbus Park Hous. Corp. v. City of Kenosha, 2003 WI 143 (Wis. 2003).
· cites it 2× “1 (a)(2); (2) may provide information regarding tenancy and drug history to owner to *75 assist in owner's screening of tenants, 24 C.F.R. § 982.307 (b)(2); (3) receives a copy of a notice of termination of the lease from the family, 24 C.”
Karim-Panahi v. 4000 Mass. Apts., 302 F. Supp. 3d 330 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“(citing 24 C.F.R. § 982.307 (a) (discussing landlord's obligation to screen prospective tenants and factors properly considered in so doing) ); see Pasquince v.”
Bourbeau v. Jonathan Woodner Co., 549 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2008).
“2d at 330; see also 24 C.F.R. § 982.307 (a)(3) (“The owner is responsible for screening of [voucher holders] on the basis of their tenancy histories,” including such things as drug-related criminal activity, rental payment history, and care of premises.”
Austin Apt. Ass'n v. City of Austin, 89 F. Supp. 3d 886 (W.D. Tex. 2015).
“See 24 C.F.R. § 982.307 (a) (discussing landlord’s obligation to screen prospective tenants and factors properly considered in so doing).”
Roth v. City of Syracuse, 96 F. Supp. 2d 171 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” The New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed Judge Stone’s determination, stating: “The authority granted to owners to screen tenants was permissive, not mandatory (see, 24 CFR 982.307 [former (a)(2)]). Because respondent could not suspend petitioners for…”
Roth v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 270 A.D.2d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000).
“The authority granted to owners to screen tenants was permissive, not mandatory {see, 24 CFR 982.307 [former (a) (2)]). Because respondent could not suspend petitioners for failing to screen tenants, any misrepresentation by petitioners *910 that they had screened prospective…”
Williams v. Candletree Apts., 38 F. Supp. 3d 801 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
“” 24 C.F.R. § 982.307 (a)(3)(iv). Additionally, the regulations provide for a claim of discrimination by a Section 8 applicant on the basis of “face, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status or disability,” but make no mention of discrimination on the basis of…”
Anderson v. 124 Green Street, LLC, 28 Mass. L. Rptr. 119 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 3× “24 C.F.R. §982.307 . Under the regulations, the property “owner is responsible for screening and selection of the family to occupy the owner’s unit.”
Karim-Panahi v. 4000 Massachusetts Apts. (D.D.C. 2018).
“(citing 24 C.F.R. § 982.307 (a) (discussing landlord’s obligation to screen prospective tenants and factors properly considered in so doing)); see Pasquince v.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 982.307(a)(2) — 2 cases
Roth v. City of Syracuse, 96 F. Supp. 2d 171 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
“” The New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed Judge Stone’s determination, stating: “The authority granted to owners to screen tenants was permissive, not mandatory (see, 24 CFR 982.307 [former (a)(2)]). Because respondent could not suspend petitioners for…”
Anderson v. 124 Green Street, LLC, 28 Mass. L. Rptr. 119 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2011).
“24 C.F.R. §982.307 . Under the regulations, the property “owner is responsible for screening and selection of the family to occupy the owner’s unit.”
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.