My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-109 Resolution
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Legislation
>
2007
>
2007-109 Resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2014 3:51:26 PM
Creation date
12/19/2013 3:58:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Number
2007-109
Legislation Date
9/18/2007
Year
2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
?.H?. <br />1l <br />a. A eopy of the case chronology sheet, or other written <br />documentation that describes or- summarizes the steps tal<en Co <br />ohtain the complainant's caoperation. <br />b. Evidence that at least two telephone calls wei-e attempted, one <br />during normal business hours and one duriiig non-business hours. <br />D. Laclc of Jurisdiction - A]acl: of jurisdiction (LO:I) must apply to both I-IUD and <br />the agency. Where only one agency has jurisdiction, the complaint must not be <br />dual-filed. <br />Requirements for Acceptance The LOJ must not have been evident on the <br />face of the camplaint i.e., where the date of filing exceeds the agency's <br />filing period, the number of exemptions are less than the agency's law <br />permits; a basis is not covered; or special interim ab •eements or more <br />provisions are in effect which prohibit dual-filing because of deficienc,ies <br />in the agency's law.) <br />?. Documentation Required (To be mailed to HLTD at time of reporting the <br />closure to HUD): <br />a. A written explanation setting forth the reason that the lacl: of <br />jurisdiction could not be determined at intalce; and <br />b. A written explanation for closin`; the complaint for lack of <br />jurisdiction. <br />VI. DISMISSALS <br />A. Banicruptcy is not an appropriate reason for dismissing a complaint. <br />B. A respondent's defense and rebuttal of complainancs' allegations are not sufficient <br />reasons for dismissing a case. Only the investigation and facts discerned by the <br />investigation support dismissal. <br />C. Any withdrawal, with or without settlement, that contains information or <br />documentation by the complainant, which indicates that the complainant was not <br />completely satisfied with the terms of the withdrawal, should not be dismissed by the <br />agency before confen-ing with the GTR at HLJD. Closure violations of this paragraph <br />may result in rejection of payment for such complaint. <br />VIl. CUSTOMER SATIST'ACTION STANDARDS <br />A. The f'ollowing performance standal-ds must be incorl)orated in the agency's complaint <br />process. Tf1e aaency's goal should be to pi-ovide satisfaction to its customers. <br />Therefore, the agency should malce sure that it meets the following standards: <br />???a? ? ?? . a?,??.? ??-?? ? _.. ,, ???. r .? -,?..,?_. ?• _ ?, . _ <br />?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.