What rights do I have in a review hearing?

    You have the right to a hearing before an impartial, unbiased hearing officer.[1364] That means that hearing officer should be independent, with no stake in the outcome of the hearing, and ready to hear both sides. He/she should not be the same person who made the original decision to deny you, or anyone who works for the person who made the original decision to deny you.[1365]
    You have the right to an opportunity to make an argument (called a “rebuttal”) to challenge the information the PHA or owner relied upon in denying you.[1366]
    You should be allowed to explain why you pled guilty to a past conviction.[1367] The hearing’s decision maker may find your explanation important and relevant.
    You should ask for a written transcript and an audio recording of the review hearing (the “record”). If the hearing officer won’t provide you this, you can ask to bring in your own recording device (many cell phones have this function).
    Question witnesses, and to ask that they testify under oath.[1368]
    The right to a written decision after the review hearing (for most government-assisted housing programs).[1369] The written decision must be given to you within a reasonable period of time (usually 10-30 days), state the reasons for the decision, and state the evidence the hearing officer relied upon in making a decision.[1370]
    Extra Rights for Public Housing & Voucher housing programs: In addition to the requirements above, for public housing and the voucher program ONLY, there is the additional protection that the subject of the hearing can only go into the issues that were presented in the rejection notice.[1371] At the hearing, no information should be presented if it was not the basis for the rejection, because otherwise you don’t have an opportunity to investigate ahead of time and challenge that new information at the hearing.
    The rules for Rural Development (RD) hearings are different. Read more in APPENDIX J, PG. 435.
  1. 1364

    Billington v. Underwood, 613 F.2d 91, 95 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Piretti v. Hyman, No. 79-622-K, slip op. (D. Mass. July 23, 1979), vacated as moot without opinion, 618 F.2d 94 (1st Cir. 1980) (in a case regarding termination of tenant-based assistance, decision-maker not impartial when the attorney presenting the PHA’s case also advised the hearing officer).

  2. 1365

    See 24 C.F.R. § 982.554(b)(1); HUD, Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook, § 4.9 and App. VIII (Applicant Notice of Rejection) (June 2003); HUD, Voucher Program Guidebook, Housing Choice, 7420.10G, ¶ 16.5 (Apr. 2001) (voucher program); HUD, Occupancy Requirements Of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs ¶ 4-9(D)(1) (requiring that any meeting with the applicant to discuss the applicant’s rejection must be conducted by a member of the owner’s staff who was not involved in the initial decision to deny admission or assistance); see also Davis v. Mansfield Metro. Hous. Auth., 751 F.2d 180, 185 (6th Cir. 1984); Billington v. Underwood, 613 F.2d 91, 95 (5th Cir. 1980).

  3. 1366

    Billington v. Underwood, 613 F.2d 91, 95 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Edgecomb v. Hous. Auth. of Town of Vernon, 824 F. Supp. 312, 314-16 (D. Conn. 1993) (in a termination of benefits case, the hearing decision could not be based wholly on hearsay; hearing decision inadequate because no reasons given; participant was entitled to cross-examine witness); Kurdi v. Du Page County Hous. Auth., 514 N.E.2d 802, 806 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (setting aside a termination decision based wholly on hearsay); see also 7 C.F.R. § 3560.160(h) (2007) (rural development housing).

  4. 1367

    Gibson v. Gibson, 15 Cal. App. 3d 945 (1971); see also Costa v. Fall River Hous. Auth., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 269, 283 (2008).

  5. 1368

    Neddo v. Hous. Auth. of City of Milwaukee, 335 F. Supp. 1397, 1400 (E.D. Wisc. 1971); see also 7 C.F.R. § 3560.160(h) (2007) (RD housing).

  6. 1369

    See, e.g., New York City Housing Authority, Division of Applicant Appeals, Public Housing Hearings, Report of Informal Hearing, August 6, 2007, No. 113-52-7732 copy available as Exhibit 3 of this Chapter (applicant with felony convictions found to have made significant positive changes and improved since the offenses).

  7. 1370

    4 C.F.R. §§ 882.514(f) (Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation) and 982.552(b)(3) (voucher program) (2007); HUD, Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook, ¶ 4.9 (public housing); HUD Handbook 4350.3, REV-1, CHG-2, ch. 4-9D (June 2007) (final decision must be given to applicant within five business days of meeting); Neddo v. Hous. Auth. of City of Milwaukee, 335 F. Supp. 1397 (E.D. Wisc. 1971); see also Edgecomb v. Hous. Auth. of Town of Vernon, 824 F. Supp. 312 (D. Conn. 1993) (in a termination of benefits case, hearing decision could not be based wholly on hearsay; hearing officer decision inadequate because no reasons given; participant entitled to cross-examine witness); Powell v. D.C. Hous. Auth., 818 A.2d 188 (D.C. 2003) (reversing PHA’s termination decision for alleged fraudulent underreporting of income because hearing officer failed to make findings with respect to each contested material allegation of fact as required by due process and applicable local Administrative Procedure Act (APA); see also Hicks v. Dakota County Cmty Dev. Agency, No. A06-1302, 2007 WL2416872 (Minn. App., Aug. 28, 2007) (the record must be sufficient to facilitate meaningful review and where there are no findings or credibility determinations, the court could not conduct a meaningful review); see, e.g., New York City Housing Authority, Division of Applicant Appeals, Public Housing Hearing, Report of Informal Hearing, August 6, 2007, No. 113-52-7732 (copy available as Exhibit 3 to this Chapter). For Rural Development housing, the notice must be served within ten days of the hearing. 7 C.F.R. § 3560.160(i)((2) (2007). As noted above, the decision also should not be based wholly upon uncorroborated hearsay.

  8. 1371

    See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974); Billington v. Underwood, 613 F.2d 91, 93-95 (5th Cir. 1980); Singleton v. Drew, 485 F. Supp. 1020, 1024 (E.D. Wisc. 1980); McNair v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 613 F. Supp. 910, 914-15 (1985).