The right to a grievance procedure is one of the most important advantages that a public housing tenant has over other federally subsidized and private tenants. All PHAs must establish a grievance procedure that affords a tenant the opportunity for an informal grievance meeting and a formal grievance hearing. This procedure is available whenever a tenant disputes any PHA act or a failure to act, except for certain types of evictions (e.g., drug-related or criminal-activity terminations) and class grievances.1
Note that the federal regulations formerly required tenants to escrow rent when a grievance involved a rent dispute. However, that regulation was eliminated in 2016. If a PHA has a policy that still requires rent to be escrowed, you should argue that the HUD regulation was eliminated and that the PHA’s policy should be updated.2
A tenant must present the grievance to the project manager or someone else at the main office and discuss the grievance informally.3 The manager then prepares a summary of the discussion and gives a copy to the tenant.4 If the tenant is not satisfied with the result, the tenant may request a formal hearing within a reasonable time after receiving the written decision.5 You should consult the individual PHA grievance policy or Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) for specific rules governing the grievance hearing process. The written request must state the reason for the request and the specific relief sought.6
Tenants are not entitled to use the PHA grievance process to contest proposed evictions for criminal activity that threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other residents or employees of the PHA; violent or drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises; or criminal activity that resulted in felony conviction of a household member if the PHA has decided to exclude such matters from the grievance process and HUD has determined that the state’s eviction court procedures satisfy due process.7 Sometimes these evictions are called “one strike” evictions.
In the case of an eviction, the PHA or public housing provider must notify the tenant of their right to a grievance or, in the case of one strike evictions, that a grievance is not available.8 The PHA may not continue with the eviction process until the time for requesting a hearing has elapsed.9 If the tenant timely requests a grievance, the eviction is indefinitely suspended until the completion of the hearing process. A tenant has the right to review all relevant PHA documents prior to the hearing, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to have the assistance of an advocate at the hearing, and to have the hearing in public or private upon request.10 The tenant is entitled to a written decision, which generally binds the PHA unless the decision is contrary to law.11
You should use the informal and formal grievance process when available for eviction proceedings, disputes over rent or other charges such as maintenance fees, transfer disputes, and repairs. You may often experience lengthy delays in getting an informal grievance, getting a written decision from the informal grievance, and getting a date set promptly for a formal grievance hearing. The grievance process can be used in conjunction with a request for rent abatement.
Under current law, failure to provide a grievance process prior to termination gives rise to a § 1983 cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(k), the grievance provision.12 There may also be a § 1983 cause of action for violation of the Due Process Clause.
- 124 C.F.R. § 966.51.
- 2See 81 Fed. Reg. 12354-01 (March 8, 2016) (removing 24 C.F.R. § 966.55).
- 324 C.F.R. § 966.54.
- 4Id.
- 524 C.F.R. § 966.56.
- 624 C.F.R. § 966.55.
- 724 C.F.R. § 966.51(a)(2)(i).
- 824 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3).
- 924 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(iv).
- 1042 U.S.C. §1437d(k); 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(m), .56.
- 1124 C.F.R. §§ 955.56–.57.
- 12Stevenson v. Willis, 579 F. Supp. 2d 913, 923 (N.D. Ohio 2008); Conway v. Hous. Auth. of City of Asheville, 239 F. Supp. 2d 593, 599 (W.D.N.C. 2002); Gammons v. Mass. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 523 F. Supp. 2d 76, 84 (D. Mass. 2007). Advocates should be sure to follow developments in the law that may limit use of § 1983 to enforce federal rights.