Thursday, July 10, 2008

child abuse - expungement - founded report - PFA case

Philadelphia DHS v. DPW - Commonwealth Court - July 10, 2008

A PFA order in collateral case finding father sexually abused his child provided a sufficient basis for a "founded report" of abuse, 23 P.S. 6303(a), under the Child Protective Services Law.

"Where only one defendant is charged with abuse in a PFA action, only one person defends those charges, an adjudication finds that such abuse occurred and prohibits further contact between the victim child and that defendant, the PFA order is an adjudication containing a sufficient definitive finding upon which DHS based the Founded Report."

These facts were held to distinguish this case from J.G. v. DPW, 795 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), where the court held that a generalized finding in a dependency case - with no definitive finding that a particular individiual was responsible for the abuse - did not preclude an appeal in a related expungement case.

"A Founded Report may be based upon any judicial adjudication finding that the child who is the subject of the report has been abused, including, but not limited to, criminal charges. The ALJ erred as a matter of law in relying upon J.G. to conclude that the PFA hearing in this case was not, on its own, able to support a Founded Report of abuse. Thus, the DPW did also err in adopting the recommendation of the ALJ and directing that the Founded Report of child abuse against R.G.S. be expunged."

False Claims Act - charging excess rent in HCV program - OIG alert

SUMMARY: This notice provides important information recently issued by HUD’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on a recurring problem in the Housing Choice Voucher program. The problem which this notice addresses is landlords submitting false claims for periodic payments under housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts.

Fraud Information Bulletin: Excess Rent

This Bulletin highlights a recurring problem in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. Specifically, this Bulletin discusses the submission by landlords of false claims for periodic payments under Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts, where such landlords have violated their continuing obligations to not charge tenants rents in excess of what is authorized by the HAP contracts.

The Problem
Improperly requiring tenants to pay rent in excess of what is authorized by the applicable HAP contract represents both an actionable offense under the False Claims Act and deplorable behavior directed towards the very persons whom the HCV program was designed to serve. (Additionally, depending on the intent, such an action may qualify as a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. 287, 1343, etc.) OIG will not tolerate such conduct, and rather will cooperate with efforts to bring offending landlords to justice and to remedy their wrongs.

HUD administers Federal aid to local housing agencies (HAs) that is intended to implement housing assistance programs for low-income residents. With respect to the HCV program, HUD funds HAs via annual contributions contracts. The HAs, in turn, enter into HAP contracts with individual landlords. These HAP contracts provide for periodic housing assistance payments on behalf of eligible lowincome tenants. The HAP contracts also may require eligible tenants to make supplemental rent payments; however, the contracts expressly prohibit landlords from requiring tenants to pay rent in excess of what is authorized by the HAP contracts.

Pursuant to qui tam complaints and citizen complaints filed throughout the nation and subsequent activities, OIG has become aware of a number of landlords who have improperly required tenants to pay rent in excess of what is authorized by the HAP contracts, and thereby submitted or caused to be submitted false claims for HAP contract periodic rent payments.

On July 29, 2005, a Connecticut tenant filed a qui tam complaint, under 31 U.S.C. 3730, against her former landlord. See Coleman v. Hernandez, 490 F. Supp.2d 278 (D. Conn. 2007). The tenant complained that pursuant to a HAP contract the landlord had agreed to accept $1,550 per month for the rental of an apartment in Stamford. Of this $1,550, the tenant was personally responsible for $20, and HUD via the HA paid the complementary $1,530. In spite of the explicit prohibition in the HAP contract, however, the landlord required the tenant to pay an ‘‘additional rent payment’’ of $60 on six separate occasions. In other words, the landlord inappropriately extracted an additional $360 from the helpless tenant. OIG is aware of numerous similar examples of this sort of egregious conduct nationwide.

Pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., persons who submit to HUD or a HUD intermediary claims that are false, fictitious or fraudulent are liable for an assessment equal to three times the amount of the claim, plus a penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000 per claim. The United States may take the position that the entire amount of its HAP payment, not merely the amount of the excess payment by the tenant, is the claim that should be trebled where landlords make false certifications concerning excess rent charged.
Additionally, each periodic rent payment constitutes a separate claim; thus, in the Coleman case the court levied a $33,000 (6 × $5,500) penalty against the landlord for her $360 victimization of the tenant.

Pertinent Information
If you have pertinent information regarding this bulletin, please contact: Office of Legal Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh St., SW., Room 8260, Washington, DC 20410. Dated: July 1, 2008.

Kenneth M. Donohue, Inspector General.