Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)

Citation
Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
Parent Document
Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
Effective Date
1994-11-04

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text

751 chars
23
The Tenants argue that by converting from checkmetering to retail service, THA is effecting an increase in their rent in violation of the Brooke Amendment because they will be required to pay a security deposit to TECO, and in some cases an arrearage as well. This argument fails to recognize that rent is defined as the "amount payable monthly by the Family ... to the PHA." 24 C.F.R. Sec. 913.102 (emphasis added). Amounts paid under retail service are not paid to the PHA, but to the utilities; thus, they are not within the HUD definition of "rent." The HUD regulations recognize this fact when they speak of utilities "not supplied by the PHA" and state that "the cost thereof is not included in the amount paid as rent." Id. (emphasis added).