![]() The owner also directed the resident to leave the apartment at the expiration of his lease.Īs I have written many times – “no pets” provisions are fine, but assistance animals are not pets under the FHA and property management must have a procedure in place to address reasonable accommodation requests. As the parties continued a back and forth, HUD claims that the owner demanded the assistance animal be “certified and trained” to address his disability as well as rejecting various medical verifications and contacting the complainant’s roommates seeking their assistance to rent the room to another resident once the then-current lease expired. While the parties continued discussions about an assistance animal, HUD claims the property owner said her daughter (who lived in another unit in the same building) has a dog which could be used for his therapeutic needs and that had the resident told the owner about his need for an assistance animal at any time prior to signing the lease, the owner would have directed the resident to look for other housing opportunities. The owner responded by reasserting the “no pets” prohibition in the lease and asking if the resident could hold off on obtaining the animal until after his lease expired. Following what looks like a couple of months of therapy, the resident noted he was considering getting an assistance animal to help with his disability. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) charged a New York property owner with discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) asserting that the owner failed to permit a resident to keep an assistance animal.įactually, the complainant (and two roommates) moved into an apartment in Buffalo pursuant to a lease with a “no pets” provision. ![]() In a press release issued a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |