A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

CA’s obligation to reconcile the Voucher with the property

In the past year or so I have had two clients who after several months of having their vouchers revised by their CA, were not given any reason for the revision and when they inquired as to why their voucher was revised they were simply told to “figure it out on their own”. I got involved with my clients to help resolve the issues and called the CA myself. Rarely did I get a return phone call and there was never any follow up from the CA. Meanwhile, the Property Manager was getting squeezed from the owner wondering where their subsidy payment was. This put the PM in a very difficult position and often put their job at risk. This situation could have easily been avoided by the CA by them sending a reconciliation report back to the property after each months’ review. This gives the PM an opportunity to do their own reconciliation to see each tenants subsidy amount paid. In my opinion, the CA is there to help facilitate the process and not impede it. The intention of the RHIIP was to reduce under payments and over payments. I don’t see how CA’s who behave in this manner, contribute to this initiative when they fail to fully service the contract. I know they are not alone.

Relief is in the next TRACS release according to HUD staff from the last TRACS Industry meeting in March where we were given some additional information about the voucher detail. The new “Voucher Detail and Adjustments” specification in the 202D will allow the exchange of voucher detail and adjustment information between O/A’s and CA’s. With the inclusion of these records into the MAT30, the full HUD 52670 HAP voucher can be transmitted to a CA from an O/A eliminating the need for sending paper or emailed copies of printed vouchers. The site will continue to maintain a printed and signed voucher in its files. For the CA, the advantage of the full electronic voucher is that it permits an automated compare between the O/A voucher and the one generated by CA software. This comparison should be faster, more accurate and more complete than the current manual compare. The CA is required to send a final approved voucher, in the new MAT30 format, to the O/A for use in reconciliation activities at the property. In addition, the CA may optionally send a preliminary voucher to the O/A if the CA allows changes to the current voucher before closing it out. Since the new record types are not to be transmitted to TRACS, site software will need the ability to create two versions of a MAT30 record—one for transmission to a CA and one for transmission to TRACS (TRACMPROD or TRACMTEST). CA software will transmit only the traditional MAT30 to TRACS and the enhanced version to O/A’s. This MAT30 detailed information will enable the CA to electronically reconcile the voucher which should really help expedite the voucher reconciliation process. This should also free up the CA to follow up on other issues