All Topics     |     Industry News     |     Knowledge Base     |     Company News     |     Product Updates

FAQ Friday: Port Returning to Initial PHA

Posted by NMA on Jan 5, 2018 8:50:51 AM
FAQ Friday: Port Returning to Initial PHA

QUESTION     We are not sure what to do in this situation. An HCV participant has been in the process of moving into our PHA’s jurisdiction for several months. Our PHA issued a voucher with an expiration date 30 days after the expiration date of the voucher the client received from the initial PHA. We later approved a 30-day extension of the voucher term at the client’s request, and the extension is about to expire.

The client has not submitted any requests for tenancy approval (RFTAs). She says that she has applied with several local landlords, who have rejected her due to a recent history of eviction. The client has decided to return to her original PHA and seek housing in its jurisdiction. She is requesting that we grant a 60-day extension to seek housing there. We are hesitant to do this since it ties up one of our vouchers. Is our PHA responsible for extensions in this situation?

ANSWER     No, the receiving PHA (in this case, your agency) is not responsible for extending the voucher term when a client exercising portability decides to return to the initial PHA or to seek housing in a third jurisdiction. While not addressed in the applicable regulations, HUD has issued guidance on the issue in Notice PIH 2016-09:

Family Decides Not to Lease in the Receiving PHA’s Jurisdiction. If an incoming family ultimately decides not to lease in the jurisdiction of the receiving PHA, the receiving PHA must refer the family back to the initial PHA. The voucher of record for the family is once again the voucher originally issued by the initial PHA, and the initial PHA’s policies apply. Any extensions of the initial PHA’s voucher to allow the family additional search time to return to the initial PHA’s jurisdiction or to move to another jurisdiction are at the discretion of the initial PHA. The initial PHA must apply its own policies on moves for families that decide not to use their voucher to port to another jurisdiction.

Once the participant has decided not to lease a unit in your jurisdiction, your agency is no longer responsible for voucher extensions. The initial agency will have to decide whether to extend its voucher to provide additional search time.

Are you a PIH Alert subscriber? Every Friday, the PIH Alert includes one frequently asked question (FAQ) submitted by our readers. Sign up today for a free 30-day trial subscription! Email sales@nanmckay.com to get started. To submit your question, email Annie Stevenson at annie@nanmckay.com with the subject line "FAQ Friday."

Topics: PIH Alert, Q&A, Knowledge Base

FAQ Friday: Social Security/SSI COLA

Posted by NMA on Dec 15, 2017 5:03:00 AM

q-and-a-standard.jpgQUESTION     I see that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has announced the 2018 cost of living adjustment (COLA). We are currently processing annual reexaminations which will be effective January 1, 2018. However, our clients have not yet received 2018 award letters for Social Security (SS) or SSI, and the EIV system is still showing the 2017 benefit amounts. Can we wait for updated documentation or must we apply the COLA beginning with January reexaminations?

ANSWER     Yes, you must apply the COLA beginning with January reexaminations which have not yet been completed. The SSA announced on October 13 that the Social Security and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits will increase 2 percent in 2018. HUD has issued guidance on applying the SSA COLA in Notice PIH 2012-10:

Effective the day after SSA has announced the COLA, PHAs are required to factor in the COLA when determining SS and SSI annual income for all annual reexaminations and interim reexaminations (in accordance with PHA-established policy) of family income which have not yet been completed and will be effective January 1st or later of the upcoming year.

To factor in the COLA, multiply the current benefit amount by the percentage increase. For example, imagine that you are processing a January reexam for Mr. Miller. The EIV printout shows current SS benefits of $1000 per month and Mr. Miller agrees with this amount. To project annual income for 2018:

  • Multiply the current benefit amount by the percentage increase: $1000 X 2% [or 0.02] (COLA rate) = $20 COLA
  • New gross SS benefit effective 01/01/2018 = $1020 ($1000 current benefit + $20 COLA)
  • Annual income effective 1/1/2018: $1020 X 12 = $12,240
  • Alternatively, you could multiply the current benefit by 102%

Document your calculation on the EIV report or case narrative. Leave a clear audit trail showing how you arrived at annual income shown on form HUD-50058.

Are you a PIH Alert subscriber? Every Friday, the PIH Alert includes one frequently asked question (FAQ) submitted by our readers. Sign up today for a free 30-day trial subscription! Email sales@nanmckay.com to get started. To submit your question, email Annie Stevenson at annie@nanmckay.com with the subject line "FAQ Friday."

Topics: PIH Alert, Program News and Notices, Q&A, Industry News, Knowledge Base

FAQ Friday: HCV Rent Increases

Posted by NMA on Dec 1, 2017 5:00:00 AM

Editor’s Note: Due to HUD’s recent publication of 2018 annual adjustment factors, we are reprising this FAQ from August 2015. The links have been updated for this year’s notice.

q-and-a-standard.jpg

QUESTION     You mentioned during a webinar that the only limit on rent increases in the HCV program is rent reasonableness. Our PHA restricts rent increases to the annual adjustment factors (AAFs) published by HUD. We have this policy in our administrative plan and have imposed this limit for years. We feel that this helps to control program costs and helps to control rents in the community as a whole. Why isn’t this permissible as long as it is stated in the administrative plan?

ANSWER     This is an example of a policy that was valid when written, but which is now obsolete. AAFs were used in the old certificate program to determine (or limit) owner rent increases. The certificate program came to an end 17 years ago. AAFs have never been used in the voucher program.

Each year HUD publishes a Federal Register notice discussing the AAFs. Here is an excerpt from this year’s notice, published November 8:

Housing Choice Voucher Program: AAFs are not used to adjust rents in the tenant-based or the project-based voucher programs.

Since agency policies must comply with regulatory requirements, PHAs do not have discretion to impose limits on rent increases in this manner. The applicable regulation is at 24 CFR 982.308(g):

The owner must notify the PHA of any changes in the amount of the rent to owner at least sixty days before any such changes go into effect, and any such changes shall be subject to rent reasonableness requirements.

The following is an excerpt from Section 12.5 of HUD’s HCV Guidebook:

INCREASES IN RENT TO OWNER
An owner may increase the unit rent any time an increase is allowed under the terms of the lease. The owner must give the PHA at least 60 days advance notice of any changes in the amount of rent to the owner. The allowed rent increase is the lesser of the following:

  • The reasonable rent as determined by the PHA; or
  • The amount requested by the owner.

Also please note the table in Chapter 1 of the guidebook, comparing the certificate and HCV programs:

Rent Increases:

CERTIFICATES: Annually on the anniversary date, the PHA uses annual adjustment factors published by HUD to approve rent increases which are subject to a rent reasonableness test.

HCV: Rent increases are not limited by the annual adjustment factor but are subject to a rent reasonableness test.

The current rule is intended to increase program participation by owners of properties in lower-poverty areas. The “market” rent is to be charged for both assisted and unassisted tenants.

Are you a PIH Alert subscriber? Every Friday, the PIH Alert includes one frequently asked question (FAQ) submitted by our readers. Sign up today for a free 30-day trial subscription! Email sales@nanmckay.com to get started. To submit your question, email Annie Stevenson at annie@nanmckay.com with the subject line "FAQ Friday."

Topics: PIH Alert, Program News and Notices, Q&A, rent calculation, Industry News, Knowledge Base

HCV and PH question: VAWA certification issues

Posted by NMA on Sep 18, 2017 8:52:04 AM

VAWA certification issuesQUESTION     Is the PHA allowed to question a client’s VAWA certification? A client has requested a mid-year transfer based on a list of claimed incidents (stalking). The alleged perpetrator is a former significant other of the client. The case manager questions whether any of these incidents actually happened. The case manager suspects that the client may be claiming VAWA protections in order to leverage a transfer to a more desirable dwelling unit. Is the PHA allowed to ask questions or to investigate the current whereabouts of the alleged perpetrator?

ANSWER     No, the PHA is not permitted to investigate the client’s claims for protections under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The regulation governing permissible documentation requirements is at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 5.2007(b). The rule states that the PHA may accept an individual’s verbal statement, or may request documentary evidence such as a certification (Form HUD-5382).

While the PHA may request third-party documentation if there is conflicting evidence (for example, when two household members each claim to be the victim), the PHA cannot investigate further. The staff member’s suspicion does not rise to the level of reliable conflicting evidence.

Here is an excerpt from Notice PIH 2017-08:

PHAs and owners are prohibited from conducting further fact finding for the purpose of trying to verify the “validity” of an applicant or tenant’s victim status. For example, PHAs and owners are prohibited from conducting interviews with neighbors or employers to determine if the applicant or tenant is “really” a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. Doing so would be in violation of the documentation requirements of the VAWA final rule and may result in a violation of the victim confidentiality requirements of the VAWA final rule.

However, if the PHA or owner already has or regularly receives reliable information that conflicts with the submitted documentation the PHA may require third-party documentation of victim status, based on information outside of the submitted documentation. Examples of reliable information include surveillance footage, police report(s), and other verifiable information. This information must not be collected for the purpose of discrediting claims for VAWA protections, but may be collected for other legitimate reasons; such as addressing safety in the community.

Are you a PIH Alert subscriber? Every Friday, the PIH Alert includes one frequently asked question (FAQ) submitted by our readers. Sign up today for a free 30-day trial subscription! Email sales@nanmckay.com to get started. To submit your question, email Annie Stevenson at annie@nanmckay.com with the subject line "FAQ Friday."

Topics: PIH Alert, Program News and Notices, Q&A, VAWA

Q&A: HOTMA implementation

Posted by NMA on Oct 3, 2016 2:01:08 PM

Q&A: HOTMA implementationQUESTION    We understand that HOTMA was signed into law by the president on July 29, 2016. Inasmuch as there are many substantive administrative changes to the HCV and public housing programs contained in this new law, we are wondering whether PHAs need to await the issuance of a HUD notice before they implement these changes (for example, increase in elderly/disabled deduction, asset limitations, reporting changes of 10 percent or more) or whether PHAs are obligated to immediately adopt these changes even before HUD issues new rules clarifying this new law? We have many recertifications in the pipeline and an answer to this question will obviously impact these pipeline cases.

ANSWER    Most provisions of the Housing Opportunity through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) will not take effect until HUD has completed the formal rulemaking process. This typically involves issuance of a proposed rule, review of public comments, and publication of a final rule. Changes would likely go into effect 30 days after publication of the final rule, so it may be a year or more before PHAs are permitted to implement the new law.

Five self-implementing provisions of HOTMA were discussed in a letter to executive directors dated September 26. While the remaining HOTMA changes will be implemented through the formal rulemaking process, these five sections became effective immediately upon enactment. Implementation requirements are described below.

Reasonable accommodation payment standards: Section 102(d) of HOTMA provides that PHAs may establish, without HUD approval, a payment standard of up to 120 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability. Since this option was made available under the March 8 streamlining final rule, no further action is required.

Fair market rents: Two changes involving FMRs are included in Section 107 of HOTMA. The first change involves HUD’s methods for establishing and publishing FMRs. HUD will no longer publish “proposed” and “final” versions of the FMRs, but PHAs and other interested parties may comment on the FMRs and request HUD to reevaluate them in a jurisdiction before those rents become effective. FMRs for fiscal year 2017 were published on August 26 using the new method.

HOTMA also provides that no PHA in the housing choice voucher (HCV) program is required, as a result of a reduction in the FMR, to reduce the payment standard applied to a family continuing to reside in a unit under a housing assistance payment (HAP) contract at the time the FMR was reduced. PHAs must adopt policies in their administrative plans that further explain this provision. According to the letter:

Effective July 29, 2016, PHAs may choose, but are no longer required, to reduce the payment standard for a family that remains under HAP contract at the family’s second annual reexamination if, as the result of a decrease in the FMR, the payment standard would otherwise fall outside the basic range. HUD will issue additional guidance on this change in the future.

Family Unification Program (FUP) changes: HOTMA expanded FUP eligibility and increased time limits for eligible youth. The changes were effective upon enactment. HUD issued a letter to FUP executive directors on August 29 to ensure awareness of the changes.

Citizenship preference: This provision applies only to Guam and requires a preference for U.S. citizens and nationals over citizens of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. It was effective upon enactment of HOTMA.

Exception to resident board member requirement: HOTMA provides an exception to the requirement that the board must include at least one public housing resident for the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles and for any PHA in the states of Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi. Since the provision has been in effect for a number of years through appropriations acts, no further action is required.

The letter contained the following guidance on HOTMA implementation:

All of the other sections in HOTMA that impact the HCV and public housing programs require that HUD first issue a notice or regulation for the provision to become effective. Until HUD issues the applicable notices or regulations, your PHA may not implement those additional sections. This information will also be transmitted in the near future via a Federal Register notice.

We realize that many PHAs are eager to implement the flexibilities and other statutory changes provided under HOTMA, so please be assured that HUD is working diligently to develop and provide the necessary implementation guidance in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please send them to HOTMAquestions@hud.gov.

Are you a PIH Alert subscriber? Every Friday, the PIH Alert includes one frequently asked question (FAQ) submitted by our readers. To submit your question, email Annie Stevenson at annie@nanmckay.com with the subject line "FAQ Friday." If you'd like to try a free 30-day trial subscription to the PIH Alert, email sales@nanmckay.com to get started.

Topics: appropriations, final rule, FMR, HOTMA, PIH Alert, Program News and Notices, proposed rule, Q&A, reasonable accommodation, recertification, rent calculation, seniors and elderly, streamlining, voucher reform legislation

Subscribe to our blog via email!    

Recent Posts

Posts by Topic

see all