Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination Sample Clauses

Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination. Documentation of habitability recertification must be kept in the client file. Habitability Complaint Procedure Each household must be informed in writing of the habitability complaint process and assured that complaints regarding their housing unit’s safety and habitability will not affect the household’s program eligibility. Each landlord must be informed in writing of the habitability complaint process and that subsidy payments to landlords may be terminated if landlords fail to resolve habitability issues according to the Washington State Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18). Lead/subgrantee must have a written procedure describing the response to complaints regarding unit safety and habitability. The procedure must include: ✓ Mandatory inspection when a complaint is reported using the HHS Form, HQS Inspection Form, or documenting the specific complaint in an alternate format that includes follow-up and resolution. ✓ Actions that will be taken to ensure habitability is restored and steps that may lead to termination of payment to a landlord if they fail to restore habitability according to the Washington Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18).
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination. Habitability can be documented by the Landlord Habitability Standards Certification Form or inspection. If the housing unit is provided to a different household within 12 months of documented habitability, an additional certification/inspection is not required. One of the following methods must be applied to each subsidized unit: ✓ The CBRA Landlord Habitability Standards Certification Form references the state Landlord Tenant Act (RCW 59.18.060) and requires the landlord (as defined in RCW 59.18.030) to certify that the unit meets the safety and habitability standards detailed in the law. The landlord’s failure to comply with the law may result in termination of the rent subsidy. OR ✓ Inspections: in lieu of (or in addition to) the above landlord certification, grantees may choose to inspect all or some housing units. Grantees may use the Commerce Housing Habitability Standards (HHS) form or the HUD Housing Quality Standards (HQS) Inspection form. Documentation of habitability certification or inspection must be kept in the client file.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination. Documentation of habitability recertification must be kept in the client file.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination. Habitability can be documented by the Landlord Habitability Standards Certification Form or inspection. Both methods are valid for 12 months from the date documentation was signed or inspection conducted. If the housing unit is provided to a different household within 12 months of documented habitability, an additional certification/inspection is not required. One of the following methods must be applied to each subsidized unit:  The CBRA Landlord Habitability Standards Certification Form references the state Landlord Tenant Act (RCW 59.18.060) and requires the landlord (as defined in RCW 59.18.030) to certify that the unit meets the safety and habitability standards detailed in the law. The landlord’s failure to comply with the law may result in termination of the rent subsidy. OR  Inspections: in lieu of (or in addition to) the above landlord certification, grantees may choose to inspect all or some housing units. Grantees may use the Commerce Housing Habitability Standards (HHS) form or the HUD Housing Quality Standards (HQS) Inspection form. Documentation of habitability certification or inspection must be kept in the client file. Habitability Recertification
Sample 1
Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination. Habitability can be documented by the Landlord Habitability Standards Certification Form or inspection. If the housing unit is provided to a different household within 12 months of documented habitability, an additional certification/inspection is not required. One of the following methods must be applied to each subsidized unit:  The CBRA Landlord Habitability Standards Certification Form references the state 2 PII includes name, social security number, birthdate, address, phone number, email, and photo. Landlord Tenant Act (RCW 59.18.060) and requires the landlord (as defined in RCW 59.18.030) to certify that the unit meets the safety and habitability standards detailed in the law. The landlord’s failure to comply with the law may result in termination of the rent subsidy. OR  Inspections: in lieu of (or in addition to) the above landlord certification, grantees may choose to inspect all or some housing units. Grantees may use the Commerce Housing Habitability Standards (HHS) form or the HUD Housing Quality Standards (HQS) Inspection form. Documentation of habitability certification or inspection must be kept in the client file. Habitability Recertification Grantees must document recertification of habitability upon complaint of the habitability condition of the unit by the tenant or a third party. (see 5.4.1. Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination). Documentation of habitability recertification must be kept in the client file. Habitability Complaint Procedure Each household must be informed in writing of the habitability complaint process and assured that complaints regarding their housing unit’s safety and habitability will not affect the household’s program eligibility. Each landlord must be informed in writing of the habitability complaint process and that subsidy payments to landlords may be terminated if landlords fail to resolve habitability issues according to the Washington State Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18). Lead/subgrantee must have a written procedure describing the response to complaints regarding unit safety and habitability. The procedure must include:  Mandatory inspection when a complaint is reported using the HHS Form, HQS Inspection Form, or documenting the specific complaint in an alternate format that includes follow-up and resolution.  Actions that will be taken to ensure habitability is restored and steps that may lead to termination of payment to a landlord if they fail to restore habitability according to th...
Sample 1

Related to Allowable Methods for Unit Habitability Determination

  • Eligibility Determination The State or its designee will make eligibility determinations for each of the HHSC HMO Programs.

  • Determination of Responsiveness 28.1 The Procuring Entity's determination of a Tender's responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the Tender itself, as defined in ITT28.2.

  • Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because Family Dollar sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured for sale consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties based on the excess emissions of VOCs. Administrative penalties are also obtained in some cases. In this case, the total penalty is $4000 for emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on 0.23 tons of excess VOC emissions. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and Family Dollar made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. Additionally, Family Dollar is no longer selling Modesa Extra Firm Holding Hairspray and Family Dollar Extra Firm Hold Hairspray. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by Family Dollar that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and Family Dollar that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against Family Dollar, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that Family Dollar may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was practicable because Family Dollar gave sales data necessary to make this quantification. Based upon this information (which Family Dollar has designated as confidential), the violations were calculated to have 0.23 tons of excess VOC emissions emitted in California.

  • Benefit Level Two Health Care Network Determination Issues regarding the health care networks for the 2017 insurance year shall be negotiated in accordance with the following procedures:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.