prepare to move was simply further evidence of her refusal to acknowledge the import of the
November 30 letter.
Ms. Lora credibly testified that the language in both the November 30 and February 6 letters
about further notification "as it gets closer to the move out date for you to come to the office to
sign all the transfer paperwork and pick up the keys", did not mean there would be any further
written notification which, in any event, is not required by the HUD Handbook. Notification in
those later stages of the transfer process meant telephone calls to work out the details and Ms.
Lora made clear that Petitioner works with tenants who must transfer, saying that "we want them
to feel comfortable as much as possible." Respondent simply was not credible when she testified
that she did not know that her subsidy had been terminated and that "nobody ever told me".
Respondent's claim that the proposed relocation apartment was a "dump house" and its
condition was the reason she did not move was also unsupported and not credible. In her HP
Action Petition filed on February 22, 2017 Respondent listed none of the conditions she claimed
to have observed during her walk-through with Ms. Roman in early February 2017 - problems
with the closets in both bedrooms, mold in the bathroom, a dislodged radiator and a "busted
window" covered with a board [FN10]
in one of the bedrooms. While Respondent testified that she took photographs during the
walk-through with Ms. Roman in early February 2017, they were not offered into evidence.
Respondent conceded that only two of the five conditions she listed in her HP Action Petition
were still present on March 1, 2017 when the HP Action inspection was done. Further, it is