Phoenix — Ch. 22 Art. VI Property Maintenance § 22-397
Defenses
Operative Text
(a) It shall be a defense to a violation charged under this subdivision if the owner, manager, person exercising control, his attorney, or any other agent or representative proves the hearing officer's satisfaction that: (1) The violation alleged in the notice does not in fact exist, or at the time of the hearing the violation has been remedied or removed; (2) The violation has been caused by the current building occupants and that in spite of reasonable attempts by the owner, manager, or person exercising control to maintain the building free of such violations, the current occupants continued to cause the violations; (3) An occupant or resident of the building has refused entry to the owner or his agent to all or a part of the building for the purpose of correcting the violation. (b) This section does not create a defense to a person who has been charged with encouraging or permitting illegal activity on any premises in violation of this subdivision.
Phoenix City Code § 22-397 establishes specific circumstances under which a property owner or manager may successfully contest a code-violation charge before a hearing officer. Three recognized defenses include showing the violation never existed or has since been corrected, demonstrating that current occupants caused the violation despite reasonable maintenance efforts, or proving that an occupant refused the owner access needed to make repairs. Notably, the provision explicitly carves out an exception: none of these defenses are available to someone charged with encouraging or permitting illegal activity on the premises.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under § 22-397, compliant operators generally keep thorough documentation of maintenance efforts, tenant communications, and any access requests or denials, since these records form the evidentiary backbone of the defenses the section recognizes. When a violation notice is received, operators typically act promptly to remedy the condition and bring proof of correction to the hearing. Operators should also be aware that § 22-397(b) forecloses all listed defenses in cases involving charges of encouraging or permitting illegal activity on the property.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Section § 22-397 is primarily a procedural tool for property owners, but tenants should understand how it affects their situation: if an owner claims a tenant caused a violation or denied access, that claim becomes part of the hearing record and may influence the outcome of enforcement proceedings. Tenants who believe a defense is being raised improperly—for example, a claim of access denial that did not occur—may have the opportunity to present their own account before the hearing officer. Tenant-rights organizations in Phoenix can help residents understand how these defenses interact with their rights under the city's property maintenance code.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated November 10, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.