Sunday, March 1, 2015

The OHA Blocked Me From Evicting Their Informant


 you won't believe what else they did

After making the decision to evict a tenant, for her habitual failure to follow the rules and repeated violations of her lease, I sent a copy of the proposed eviction to the Ogden Housing Authority, as required. 

The eviction was largely based upon paragraph 23, subsection d(2) of the tenant's lease, which provided for the termination of the tenancy, due to repeated violations of the lease. 

Less than an hour after serving the tenant with a 30-day Notice to Vacate, I received the following e-mail from Robeka Sessions at the Ogden Housing Authority, stating that on a 30-day notice to terminate a lease under the Mod-Rehab Program, the termination must be for "Serious & repeated violations of the lease". (which is incorrect)

Robeka's response was puzzling, because paragraph 23, subsection d(2) of the tenant's lease allowed for termination of the tenancy for repeated minor violations of the lease (right), provided that the minor violations fall within the criteria specified.
Even more puzzling was the fact that Robeka's response driectly contradicted documentation that the OHA had published and provided to me, which states, "...for serious and/or repeated violations of the lease.  With the Ogden Housing Authority, it's the and/or stuff you have to watch out for.

This tenant had been the recipient of numerous lease violations, for reasons ranging from:
  • Failing to report additional household members to the Housing Authority;
  • Permitting unauthorized persons to live in the unit with her;
  • Violation of a signed lease addendum resulting in damages to the unit;
  • Permitting unauthorized vehicles to park on the premises;
  • Permitting visitors and non-residents to enter the building through the rear of the unit;
  • Interfering with the building's management by gossiping and spreading false rumors; and
  • Attempting to incite tenant discord and unrest.
Obviously this tenant had no intention of upholding the terms of her lease and further complained to the housing authority when management enforced the lease terms she agreed to.  She was also acting as the OHA's informant, supplying false information to them to gain special treatment.


In May 2010,  Lin Fulcher, the Special Programs Manager of the Ogden Housing Authority, notified me that the lease that Kier Management had been using for my property had been previously disapproved by their agency for prohibited content, but the leases at my property, (including this tenant's lease) were never amended to remove that content.

Given the email I received from Robeka Sessions (above) regarding this eviction, combined with Kier Management's propensity for continuing to use a lease that had been disapproved by the Ogden Housing Authority, I made several attempts to obtain a confirmation from the Housing Authority that paragraph 23 of this tenant's lease did not have any prohibited content. A simple enough question... for anyone BUT the Ogden Housing Authority.

I responded to Robeka Sessions' email with this email and a copy of the lease paragraph in question, asking for a clarification... SHE DID NOT RESPOND TO IT. 

I made a second attempt to get clarification from the Housing Authority... THEY FAILED TO RESPOND AGAIN.\


Because the Ogden Housing Authority repeatedly failed to respond to my question, I issued a withdrawal of the resident's 30-day Notice to Vacate until a determination could be made regarding her lease content, reminding them again that I was awaiting their response.

The Housing Authority finally responded with this email, 2-days after making my first inquiry, clearly oblivious to the question posed to them. At no time did I ask the Housing Authority to approve this termination. The question posed to them was whether the content of paragraph 23 of this resident's lease was prohibited under the Program. Rather than providing an answer, Ms. Fulcher reiterates the information provided by Ms. Sessions, making the subtle, but obvious  change in verbiage from, "Serious and repeated violations" to "Serious OR repeated violations

I responded to Ms. Fulcher, pointing out to her again that I had not asked the Ogden Housing Authority to approve the termination. What I was asking them to do was to review paragraph 23 of the resident's lease for prohibited content.

Ms. Fulcher responded to me with this email, skirting the question posed yet again, defining the difference between "Serious" and "Repeated" violations of the lease instead. Honestly? I don't know how I could have possibly been more clear or articulate in posing my question to the Housing Authority, yet they repeatedly failed to answer it. 

In this email response to Ms. Fulcher, I spell out my question to the Housing Authority once again, reminding her that she had previously informed me that there was prohibited content in this resident's lease and that given Ms. Sessions original response to me, I had very real concerns about this particular lease paragraph. 


After 5-atempts in 6-days, Ms. Fulcher finally provided the answer to my question.... Sheesh! 

Ask them one simple question regarding the inconsistency of the information they provide and you get a 6-day ride on the OHA-go-round.   

The correct rule verbiage is:
...for serious OR repeated violations of the lease. 

Because I could not get a straight answer out of the OHA, I withdrew the eviction, which is exactly what the OHA wanted... 


No comments: