The Owner of Luther Towers II, Wilmington, DE, Did Not Manage Its HUD-Insured Project in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements

Submitted by system on
We audited Luther Towers II because it was a high-risk multifamily project that received low inspection and financial assessment scores on our multifamily risk assessment for projects within our region and we had never audited it.  Our audit objective was to determine whether the owner managed the project in accordance with its regulatory agreement and U.S.

The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, Columbus, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund Programs

Submitted by system on
We audited the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund programs based on an anonymous complaint to our hotline.  Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its programs in accordance with the U.S.

Towne Mortgage Company, Troy, MI, Generally Implemented Its Loss Mitigation Program in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements

Submitted by system on
We audited Towne Mortgage Company, a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) nonsupervised lender, as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2018 annual audit plan.  We selected Towne Mortgage based on our analysis of risk factors for single-family servicing lenders in Region 5’s jurisdiction.[1]  Our audit objective was to determine whether Towne Mortgage properly implemented its Loss Mitigation program for FHA-insured loans in accordance with the U.S.

The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland, OH, Generally Administered Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements

Submitted by system on
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on an anonymous complaint to our hotline.  Our objective was specific to the allegations in the complaint and was to determine whether the Authority (1) engaged in nepotism when hiring staff, (2) used program funds for inappropriate or unreasonable travel expenses, (3) failed to comply with the U.S.
Subscribe to Housing Assistance