(a) The owner is responsible for performing all of the owner's obligations under the HAP contract and the lease.
(b) The owner is responsible for:
(1) Performing all management and rental functions for the assisted unit, including selecting a voucher-holder to lease the unit, and deciding if the family is suitable for tenancy of the unit. The fact that an applicant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is not an appropriate basis for denial of tenancy if the applicant otherwise qualifies for tenancy.
(2) Maintaining the unit in accordance with HQS, including performance of ordinary and extraordinary maintenance. For provisions on family maintenance responsibilities, see § 982.404(a)(4).
(3) Complying with equal opportunity requirements.
(4) Preparing and furnishing to the PHA information required under the HAP contract.
(5) Collecting from the family:
(i) Any security deposit.
(ii) The tenant contribution (the part of rent to owner not covered by the housing assistance payment).
(iii) Any charges for unit damage by the family.
(6) Enforcing tenant obligations under the lease.
(7) Paying for utilities and services (unless paid by the family under the lease).
(c) For provisions on modifications to a dwelling unit occupied or to be occupied by a disabled person, see 24 CFR 100.203.
(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 23861, Apr. 30, 1998; 64 FR 26647, May 14, 1999; 73 FR 72345, Nov. 28, 2008; 75 FR 66264, Oct. 27, 2010; 80 FR 8246, Feb. 17, 2015; 81 FR 80817, Nov. 16, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case:
Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2010).
Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2010).
“404 (a)(1) and (2); see also 24 C.F.R. § 982.452 (b)(2) (stating that the owner is responsible for “[mjaintaining the unit in accordance with HQS, including performance of ordinary and extraordinary maintenance”).”
Ali v. Bunny Realty Corp., 253 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998).
“The owner of the premises, not the PHA, was responsible for any abatement (24 CFR 982.452). The PHA had no enforcement power with respect to the lead-paint regulations; the remedy available was to cancel the Section 8 housing contract (24 CFR 982.”
6601 Dorcheser Inv. Grp., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
· cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 982.452 (a)–(b). b. HUD-VASH Program Established in 2012, HUD-VASH is a collaborative program between HUD and the VA that combines HUD housing vouchers with VA supportive services (e.”
Hochmuller v. New York City Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 106 A.D.3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).
“Indeed, the owner of the premises, not HPD, is responsible for performing “ordinary and extraordinary maintenance” (24 CFR 982.452 [b] [2]). Although HPD has the authority to terminate a housing assistance payment contract when the owner fails to maintain the dwelling unit in…”
Hochmuller v. New York City Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 106 A.D.3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).
“Indeed, the owner of the premises, not HPD, is responsible for performing “ordinary and extraordinary maintenance” (24 CFR 982.452 [b] [2]). Although HPD has the authority to terminate a housing assistance payment contract when the owner fails to maintain the dwelling unit in…”
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.