HUD HCV Guidebook § 13.3

In deciding whether to deny assistance because of action or failure to act by members of the family, PHAs
have discretion to consider any of the circumstances in each particular case. Circumstances could include,
for example, the seriousness of the case, the extent of participation or culpability of individual family
members, mitigating circumstances related to the disability of a family member, and the effects of denial or
termination of assistance on other family members who were not involved in the action or failure to act.84

However, PHAs must85 deny admission to lifetime registered sex offenders and persons convicted of
methamphetamine production in assisted housing, without consideration of the circumstances.

The PHA's admission and termination actions must be consistent with fair housing and equal opportunity
provisions of 24 CFR 5.105, and with the requirements of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).86 If the family includes a person with
disabilities, the PHA decision concerning such action is subject to consideration of reasonable
accommodation in accordance with part 8 of this title.87

When one household member causes the family to be ineligible, the PHA may choose to admit the family on
the condition that the household member does not reside with the family.

82
   24 CFR § 5.2005(b)
83
   24 CFR § 5.2005(a); The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
84
   24 CFR § 982.552(c)(2)
85
   24 CFR § 5.856; § 982.553(a)(2); PIH Notice 2012-28
86
   24 CFR § 982.552(c)(2)(v)
87
   24 CFR § 982.552(c)(2)(iv)

PHA Options: Making a Decision to Deny Assistance

In each instance before making a decision to deny HCV program assistance, PHA staff
      should consider the specific circumstances of the family under review and determine
      if denial is the best response.
      In some instances, the PHA may determine that the seriousness of the situation does
      not warrant denial. For example, a family whose previous assistance was terminated
      for failure to recertify may be evaluated differently than an applicant family who was
      terminated from public housing for wanton destruction of public housing property.
      Timing may also influence the judgment of PHA staff. A family that was terminated
      very recently for failure to recertify might be denied, while staff might determine
      that a family evicted from public housing 10 or 12 years ago for property destruction
      might be given more consideration, particularly if more recent evidence suggests a
      change in family behavior.
      Similarly, if damage caused by a family evicted 10 years ago was attributed to a
      teenager no longer living with the family, admission to the program might seem a
      reasonable decision.