If owners and managers of HUD Project-Based Section 8 properties doubt the importance of ensuring that tenant notices contain the exact wording required by HUD, a recent court case out of New York [Lambert Houses Redevelopment Company v. Jobi, May 2014] should be instructive.
Resident Jobi had last recertified on March 1, 2012. On November 1, 2012, the owner personally served her with the first annual recertification reminder. The second notice was served on December 1, 2012 and the third notice was sent by certified mail on January 2, 2013.
The notices informed the resident that failure to recertify would result in her having to pay contract rent of $1,423 per month beginning in March 2013. The owner even served fourth, fifth and sixth notices. Still, the resident failed to recertify and her subsidy was terminated. On June 18, 2013, the owner sent a ten-day notice of termination, demanding $5,380 in rent arrears. No payment was received and the resident did not move.
The owner went to court to recover rent arrears of $6,803 (this included amounts that had accrued after the subsidy termination). Jobi failed to appear at the July 29, 2013 hearing and judgment was entered in favor of the landlord.
The resident’s attorney asked that all judgments be vacated because the resident was unlawfully charged the full contract rent without being properly represented and terminated from the Section 8 program. The attorney argued that the three recertification notices were deficient in that they did not include all information required by HUD in the notices – specifically, the name and contact information and office hours of the person who would be handling the recertification.
The owner argued that all HUD requirements were met, but the New York civil court disagreed and dismissed the owner’s nonpayment proceeding.
The court stated that the owner was required to provide very detailed notices as mandated by HUD regulations, and that the owner did not do so. Specifically, the notices did not (1) state the name of the staff person to contact about scheduling the recertification; (2) provide contact information for this person; and (3) give the location, days and office hours during which the staffer would be available. Also, the third notice was required to have been sent no less than 60 days prior to the recertification date of March 1, 2013. It was sent January 2, 2013, which was 58 days prior to the recertification date; it should have been sent on December 31, 2012.
This case reiterates the importance of strict adherence to HUD requirements regarding notice language. The failure to comply with these notice requirements invalidates the notices and bars collection of contract rent from a tenant in a project-based Section 8 project.