Grounds for program termination include any family member’s act or failure to act that results in a failure to fulfill the Family Obligations.1  Such failures include a family member’s absence from the unit, failing to notify the housing authority of an eviction notice or subsequent eviction from the unit, abandoning the unit (including constructive abandonment by leaving the unit unoccupied for more than 180 days), subletting the unit, failing to give the housing authority notice before vacating the unit, failing to provide proof of citizenship or immigration status, failing to allow HQS inspections, committing bribery or fraud in connection with the program, and not promptly informing the PHA of additions to the household.2

Participants can also be terminated from the HCVP if they are evicted for a “serious violation of the lease.”3  Defenses to termination may include that the eviction was for something other than a lease violation, that the tenant was not at fault, that the lease violation was not serious, that the eviction was illegal under applicable law, that another statutory protection should have precluded the eviction (e.g., VAWA or FHA protections), and that other circumstances argue against terminating assistance (if the local Administrative Plan so provides).

In proving a serious violation of the lease, the PHA should not be able to rely simply on the fact that the eviction judgment was issued. For the PHA to rely on the judgment as conclusive proof of a serious violation constitutes offensive collateral estoppel by a non-party. This extreme use of preclusion is unsupported by Louisiana precedent.4

Once a person becomes a participant, the HCVP becomes very unforgiving when it comes to criminal activity. Where federal law mandates that each PHA establish rules that allow it to terminate assistance if it determines that a family member is currently engaged in or has a pattern of illegal drug use or drug-related criminal activity, engaged in violent criminal activity, or engaged in alcohol abuse that may threaten others, the PHA must prove any such action by preponderance of evidence.5  As with a denial of assistance, any criminal record relied upon by the PHA must be presented to the family for an opportunity to review and dispute the accuracy and relevance of that record.6

• 1See 24 C.F.R. § 982.551.
• 224 C.F.R. §§ 982.551, .552(e).
• 324 C.F.R. § 982.551(b)(2).
• 4See Alonzo v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 2002-0527, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/8/04), 884 So. 2d 634, 638–39.
• 524 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(6).
• 624 C.F.R. §§ 982.555(e)(2), .553(d).

The PHA must give an opportunity for an informal hearing of the PHA decision to terminate assistance.1  When a hearing is requested, the PHA must proceed with the hearing in a reasonably expeditious manner if the family so requests.2  If the Section 8 participant timely requests a hearing, then the PHA must provide continued program assistance if the participant has an active HAP contract.3

24 C.F.R. § 982.555(e) lays out the basic requirements for PHA hearings for HCVP participants. A family facing a proposed termination from the program can seek assistance from a lawyer or other representative.4  Before the hearing, the family and/or its representative must be given the opportunity to examine any PHA documents directly relevant to the hearing. If the PHA does not make the document available for examination on request of the family, the PHA may not rely on the document at the hearing.5

The hearing can be conducted by any person, other than the person or a subordinate of this person who made or approved the decision to propose termination. The person who conducts the hearing is to regulate the conduct of the hearing in accordance with the PHA hearing procedures, but the rules of evidence are lax in comparison to most judicial proceedings. Nonetheless, due process is required. The PHA and the family must be given the opportunity to present evidence and may question any witnesses. Following the hearing, the person who conducts the hearing must provide the family with a written decision that states the PHA’s reasons.6

The PHA is not bound by a hearing decision if it involves a matter for which the PHA is not required to provide an opportunity for an informal hearing7  or the decision is contrary to HUD regulations or requirements or to federal, state, or local law.8  If the PHA determines that it is not bound by a hearing decision, the PHA must promptly notify the family of that determination and the PHA’s reasoning.

Factual determinations relating to the individual circumstances of the family must be based on a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing.9  Remember that the PHA bears the burden of proving the alleged violation.10

• 124 C.F.R. § 982.555(a), (c)(2). This hearing may provide greater protections than the informal review accorded to applicants.
• 224 C.F.R. § 982.555(d).
• 324 C.F.R. § 982.555(a)(2).
• 424 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(3).
• 524 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(2)(i).
• 624 C.F.R. § 982.555(e).
• 7See 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(b) for a list of these eight matters.
• 824 C.F.R. § 982.555(f).
• 924 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(6).
• 10See Basco v. Machin, 514 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2008).

If the family includes a member with a disability, the PHA decision concerning termination is subject to a request for a reasonable accommodation.1

• 124 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2)(i), (iv).

• Make the request for an informal hearing as soon as you receive notice of a proposed termination.
• Request an informal hearing and request to view the tenant file in writing and make a copy for your records.
• Submit a pre-hearing memorandum to the Hearing Officer or Panel. Spell out the facts, give an analysis under the regulations as to why the PHA should not take the proposed action, and provide supporting documentation. If there is countervailing or exculpatory evidence, submit a copy with hearing memo but be sure to bring the evidence along with the memo to the actual hearing.
• Always remind the PHA that it bears the burden of proving the alleged program violation by a preponderance of the evidence and, if applicable, that the termination is not mandatory but discretionary. Discretionary grounds are listed in 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c), as opposed to the mandatory grounds in § 982.552(b). Be aware that the local PHA may make discretionary grounds mandatory; the discretionary and mandatory grounds for a termination will also be listed in the PHA Administrative Plan. The plan may also have language creating additional protections for the client. Argue that all pertinent circumstances and alternatives should be taken into account in determining whether to uphold a discretionary termination.1
• In some cases, a post-hearing memo should also be forwarded or may be requested by the hearing officer. In situations where evidence will potentially become available only after the hearing, note this in the pre-hearing memo and at the hearing. If the hearing goes forward, supplement as soon as possible
• A participant may seek judicial review following an adverse decision at the informal hearing. The hearing officer’s decision may be reversed if there is a determination that the decision is arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to HUD regulations or to federal, state, or local law. Terminations may be challenged in court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the PHA decision violates specific federal statutory entitlements or constitutional requirements. Not all statutory requirements can be enforced through § 1983.2
• Federal law requires that the person who conducts the hearing be neither the person who proposed termination nor a subordinate of that person. This is very helpful if termination notices are sent out under the signature of the PHA program director because every Section 8 employee is a subordinate of that individual. To comply with the law, the PHA must either designate a non-subordinate to conduct the hearing or else ensure that executive-level heads do not participate in the decision to terminate.
• PHAs often overreach and assert grounds when no underlying facts support the termination. For example, PHAs frequently allege fraud when only tenant omission or error exists.
• The PHA is restricted to conducting a hearing only as to those issues delineated in the termination notice.
• Review the PHA file immediately and make note via memo or otherwise to the PHA/Hearing Officer/Panel in the event the determinative evidence is not located in the file.
• While this is an informal hearing, prepare your client as you would normally for any civil hearing. Many clients become nervous, and emotions run high. Do your best to put your client at ease and maintain control during the hearing.
• Many times the only witnesses available to the PHA are the client’s caseworker and client’s landlord. You have the right to question all witnesses. Be prepared to ask questions if necessary. Even for violations specifically related to a client-landlord interaction, the PHA or Hearing Officer may neglect to have the landlord present for hearing.
• Object to the PHA using police reports3  or other hearsay as evidence. Though the rules of evidence are relaxed in an administrative hearing, hearsay cannot constitute “substantial evidence” unless factors that assure the “reliability and probative value of the evidence” are present.4
• Object to any PHA reliance on a judgment as conclusive of a lease violation. The PHA must independently prove the violation to terminate the voucher.5
• Bring a copy of all case law, statutes, and sections of the Administrative Plan to the hearing along with extra copies of any and all documents that you wish to use to make your case. 

• 124 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2).
• 2See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (explaining criteria for identifying a private right of action under federal legislation). Before bringing a § 1983 action on the basis of a statutory violation, advocates should determine whether binding circuit precedent has foreclosed a private right of action.
• 3La. C.E. 802; State v. Robinson, 02-1253 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/8/03), 846 So.2d 76, 84; State v. Cockerham, 522 So. 2d 1245, 1247 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1988).
• 4U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Webb, 595 F.2d 264, 270 (5th Cir. 1979).  The factors considered are whether (1) the out-of-court declarant was not biased and had no interest in the result of the case; (2) the opposing party could have obtained the information contained in the hearsay before the hearing and could have subpoenaed the declarant; (3) the information was not inconsistent on its face; and (4) the information has been recognized by courts as inherently reliable. Basco v. Manchin, 514 F.3d 1177, 1182 (11th Cir. 2008). The Basco test has been applied in the 5th Circuit. Henley v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, No. 12–2687, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62255, at *12, 2013 WL 1856061 (E.D. La. May 1, 2013).
• 5La. R.S. 13:4231; see Tranchina v. State, 99-C-1332, p.2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1999), 740 So. 2d 713, 714; State ex rel. Robinson, 517 So. 2d 477, 479 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987).