Implement recommendations 1A through 1D to ensure that $2.24 million in housing assistance funds will be put to better use.
2017-KC-0002 | January 19, 2017
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Did Not Always Prevent Program Participants From Receiving Multiple Subsidies
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-EOpenClosed$2,244,680Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
2017-KC-1001 | December 15, 2016
Majestic Management, LLC, a Multifamily Housing Management Agent in St. Louis, MO, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements When Disbursing Project Funds
Housing
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-AOpenClosed$17,414Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide support showing that $17,414 in management fees charged to the projects using a budgeted amount represented actual amounts or repay the difference to each affected project.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-BOpenClosed$447,345Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide documentation to support that it paid itself $447,345 for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-DOpenClosed
Verify all management fees charged to the projects from 2013 through 2015 were appropriate.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-AOpenClosed$231,091Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Require Majestic Management to reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $231,091 for work not completed or overbilled.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-BOpenClosed$462,281Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Require Majestic Management to provide support that $462,281 paid for procurements was reasonable or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-AOpenClosed$11,184Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-BOpenClosed$48,891Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide documentation to support that $48,891 was spent for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-0001 | October 14, 2016
FHA Paid Claims for an Estimated 239,000 Properties That Servicers Did Not Foreclose Upon or Convey on Time
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0001-001-AOpenClosed$2,238,721,464Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
PriorityPriorityWe believe these open recommendations, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
Issue a change to regulations at 24 CFR Part 203, which would avoid unnecessary costs to the FHA insurance fund, allowing an estimated $2.23 billion to be put to better use. These changes include (1) a maximum period for filing insurance claims and (2) disallowance of expenses incurred beyond established timeframes.
Status
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reported that the recommendation cannot be closed out without the publication of the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. The proposed changes have been on HUD’s regulatory agenda since Spring 2020 but, as of February 2025, the Office of Single Family Housing does not have an estimated publication date.
Analysis
To fully address this recommendation, HUD must publish the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. Implementation of this rule should result in HUD putting $2.23 billion to better use.
2016-AT-1014 | September 30, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse its program $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-NY-0001 | September 19, 2016
Operating Fund Calculations Were Not Always Adequately Verified
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-AOpenClosed$3,630,286Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of the Public Housing Financial Management Division determine whether any of the overpayment of $3,630,286 was ineligible and take appropriate actions to recoup the ineligible payments.
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-BOpenClosed$1,191,767Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
We recommend that the Director of the Public Housing Financial Management Division validate the $1,191,767 in underpayments and determine if any corrections should be made.
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-FOpenClosed$116,218Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of the Public Housing Financial Management Division recapture the overpayment of $116,218 disbursed for the units, which exceeded the PHAs’ Faircloth limit.
2016-PH-1006 | August 31, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide documentation to support program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2015-LA-1009 | September 30, 2015
loanDepot’s FHA-Insured Loans With Downpayment Assistance Funds Did Not Always Meet HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2015-LA-1009-001-EOpenClosed$72,210Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse FHA borrowers $25,700 for fees that were not customary or reasonable and $46,510 in discount fees that did not represent their intended purpose.
2015-LA-1010 | September 30, 2015
loanDepot's FHA-Insured Loans With Golden State Finance Authority Downpayment Assistance Gifts Did Not Always Meet HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2015-LA-1010-001-EOpenClosed$13,726Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse $13,726 to FHA borrowers for the fees that were not customary or reasonable.
2015-AT-0002 | August 21, 2015
HUD’s Office of Multifamily Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight Did Not Comply With Its Requirements For Monitoring Management Agents’ Costs
Housing
- Status2015-AT-0002-001-AOpenClosed
Comply with its Management Agent Handbook requirements that stipulate HUD must perform management reviews of the management agent’s central office activities as well as regular onsite reviews of functions carried out at the projects. These central office reviews should be performed at least once every 18 months.
2015-PH-0004 | August 21, 2015
HUD Policies Did Not Always Ensure That HECM Borrowers Complied With Residency Requirements
Housing
- Status2015-PH-0004-001-COpenClosed
Implement controls to prevent or reduce instances of borrowers violating HECM program residency requirements by concurrently participating in multifamily programs, including policies and procedures to at least annually coordinate with HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing Programs to match borrower data in the Single Family Data Warehouse to member data in the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System.
2015-CH-0001 | July 31, 2015
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Its Section 203(k) Rehabilitation Loan Mortgage Insurance Program
Housing
- Status2015-CH-0001-001-AOpenClosed$792,837Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require the lenders to support that the repairs to the properties associated with the 32 loans without evidence of permits complied with local code or reimburse HUD $792,837 for the escrow repair funds.
- Status2015-CH-0001-001-BOpenClosed$305,395Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require the lenders to support that the repairs to the properties associated with the six loans were not structural repairs or indemnify HUD for the four active loans with a total estimated loss of $222,073 and reimburse HUD for the actual loss of $83,322 incurred on the sale of two properties associated with FHA case numbers 052-4308836 and 034-8239100.