type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF\n HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n April 18, 2013\n MEMORANDUM NO:\n 2013-LA-1802\n\n\nMemorandum\nTO: Charles S. Coulter\n Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing, HU\n\n Dane M. Narode\n Associate General Counsel for Program Enforcement, CACC\n\n\n\n\nFROM: Tanya E. Schulze\n Regional Inspector General for Audit, Los Angeles Region, 9DGA\n\nSUBJECT: Pulte Mortgage LLC, Englewood, CO, Allowed the Recording of Prohibited\n Restrictive Covenants\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\nThe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General\n(OIG), conducted a limited review of loans underwritten by Pulte Mortgage LLC. 1 We selected\nthe lender based on the results of an auditability survey, which determined that Pulte Mortgage\nallowed prohibited restrictive covenants to be filed against Federal Housing Administration\n(FHA)-insured properties. The objective of our review was to determine the extent to which\nPulte Mortgage failed to prevent the recording of prohibited restrictive covenants with potential\nliens in connection with FHA-insured loans closed between January 1, 2008, and December 31,\n2011.\n\nHUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, provides specific timeframes for management decisions on\nrecommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision,\nplease respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish\nus copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the review.\n\n\n\n\n1\n FHA identification number 05369\n\n Office of Audit (Region 9)\n 611 West Sixth Street, Suite 1160, Los Angeles, CA 90017\n Phone (213) 894-8016, Fax (213) 894-8115\n Visit the Office of Inspector General Web site at www.hudoig.gov.\n\x0cThe Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8L, requires that OIG post its\npublicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at\nhttp://www.hudoig.gov.\n\n METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE\n\nWe reviewed 332 2 loans underwritten by Pulte Mortgage with closing dates between January 1,\n2008, and December 31, 2011. We conducted the audit work from the HUD OIG Phoenix, AZ,\nOffice of Audit between June 2012 and January 2013. To accomplish our objective, we\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed prior HUD OIG audit reports with findings that included lenders allowing\n prohibited restrictive covenants; 3\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed relevant FHA requirements set forth in 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)\n Part 203 and HUD Handbooks 4000.2 and 4155.2;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed a HUD OIG legal opinion pertaining to restrictive covenants;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed a HUD management decision discussing prohibited restrictive covenants;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed prior reviews conducted by the HUD Quality Assurance Division;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Discussed the prohibited restrictive covenants with Pulte Mortgage officials; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Obtained and reviewed FHA loan data downloaded from HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Single Family Data\n Warehouse 4 and Neighborhood Watch systems. 5\n\nWe analyzed the Single Family Data Warehouse data as of May 31, 2012, and separated the data\ninto two categories: (1) loans that had gone into claim status and (2) loans that were still active.\nWe selected a 100 percent review of the claim loans, 260 loans total, and elected to review a\nhighly stratified attribute statistical sample of the 9,730 active loans. The stratified sample of the\n72 loan samples was randomly selected and weighted by means of a computer program in SAS\xc2\xae\nusing a seed value of 7. To meet the audit objective, we also\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Requested and received copies of the lender\xe2\x80\x99s FHA lender files for the loans selected for\n review;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Attempted to contact some borrowers for loans on which HUD paid a claim and\n interviewed a borrower;\n\n2\n 260 claim loans and 72 statistically selected active loans\n3\n Audit report numbers 2009-LA-1018, 2010-LA-1009, and 2011-LA-1017\n4\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Single Family Data Warehouse is a collection of database tables structured to provide HUD users easy and\nefficient access to single-family housing case-level data on properties and associated loans, insurance, claims,\ndefaults, and demographics.\n5\n Neighborhood Watch is a Web-based software application that displays loan performance data for lenders and\nappraisers by loan types and geographic areas, using FHA-insured single-family loan information.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 Conducted Internet research, identified and queried applicable county recorder offices,\n and searched Accurint 6 to obtain and review recorded documents related to the sampled\n FHA-insured mortgages; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Compiled and summarized the loan data with corresponding prohibited restrictive\n covenants.\n\nFor the audit sample, the percentage and number of loans with unallowable restrictive covenants\nwere computed based on the weighted sampling results and extended to the population using the\n\xe2\x80\x9csurveyfreq\xe2\x80\x9d procedure provided by SAS\xc2\xae. We used a 15-strata sample design to control for\npotential bias that might arise from varying rates of price escalation and varying resale demand\nbased on population density. Of the selected samples, 11 had disallowed covenants, which\nprojects to 15.78 percent, or 1,535 loans. To account for the statistical margin of error, we\nsubtracted the standard error (3.754) times a t-score of 1.67. As a result, we can be 95 percent\nconfident that at least 925 of the 9,730 loans had similar problems with unallowable restrictive\ncovenants.\n\nWe relied in part on and used HUD computer-processed data to select the claim and active loans\nreviewed for prohibited restrictive covenants. Although we did not perform a detailed\nassessment of the reliability of data, we performed a minimal level of testing and determined that\nthe data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.\n\nWe conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards,\nexcept that we did not consider the internal controls or information systems controls of Pulte\nMortgage. We did not follow standards in these areas because our objective was to identify the\nextent to which Pulte Mortgage allowed prohibited restrictive covenants and how that affected\nthe FHA single-family insurance program risk. To meet our objective, it was not necessary to\nfully comply with the standards, nor did our approach negatively affect our review results.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\nPulte Mortgage is a nonsupervised direct endorsement lender 7 headquartered in Englewood, CO.\nIt received this FHA mortgage insurance program status in 1983. Its affiliated builders, Pulte\nHomes and Del Webb, were sellers of the properties discussed in this review memorandum.\n\nFHA, created by Congress in 1934, is the largest mortgage insurer in the world aimed at helping\nlow- and moderate-income families become homeowners by lowering some of the costs of their\nmortgage loans. It is also the only government agency that operates entirely from its self-\ngenerated income from mortgage insurance paid by homeowners and costs the taxpayers\n\n6\n Accurint LE Plus accesses databases built from public records, commercial data sets, and data provided by various\ngovernment agencies.\n7\n A nonsupervised lender is a HUD-FHA-approved lending institution that has as its principal activity the lending or\ninvestment of funds in real estate mortgages and is not a supervised lender, a loan correspondent, a governmental\ninstitution, a government-sponsored enterprise, or a public or State housing agency and has not applied for approval\nfor the limited purpose of being an investment lender.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cnothing. FHA mortgage insurance encourages lenders to approve mortgages for otherwise\ncreditworthy borrowers that might not be able to meet conventional underwriting requirements\nby protecting the lender against default. However, according to HUD-FHA requirements, the\nlender has the responsibility at loan closing to ensure that any conditions of title to the property\nare acceptable to FHA and that the mortgaged property will be free and clear of all liens other\nthan the mortgage. Lenders are responsible for complying with all applicable HUD regulations\nand in turn are protected against default by FHA\xe2\x80\x99s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which is\nsustained by borrower premiums.\n\nIn the event of homeowner default, the FHA fund pays claims to participating lenders. To this\nend, lenders have a responsibility to ensure that the FHA fund is protected by approving only\nthose loans that meet all eligibility requirements. The FHA fund capital reserve ratio has a\ncongressional mandate of 2 percent. However, based on the 2012 annual report to Congress on\nthe FHA fund, 8 its capital reserve ratio had fallen below zero to a negative 1.44 percent. A U.S.\nGovernment Accountability Office report on the FHA fund stated, \xe2\x80\x9cIf the [capital] reserve\naccount were to be depleted, FHA would need to draw on permanent and indefinite budget\nauthority to cover additional increases in estimated credit subsidy costs.\xe2\x80\x9d 9 Therefore, the FHA\nfund would no longer run on only self-generated income.\n\nWe reviewed a legal opinion 10 from OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Legal Counsel regarding the seller\xe2\x80\x99s\nrestriction on conveyance of FHA properties. Counsel opined that the recorded agreements\nbetween the seller and borrowers would constitute a violation of HUD statutes, regulations, or\nhandbook requirements. In its opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel specifically stated that 24\nCFR 203.41(b), pertaining to consent by a third party, appears to violate HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations. In\nthis case, the seller is considered a third party.\n\nAdditionally, we obtained a HUD management decision on the recommendations of a prior OIG\naudit 11 not related to Pulte Mortgage. In the decision, HUD agreed that the execution of\nprohibited restrictive covenants is a violation of Federal regulations and FHA requirements and\nconsidered the violation a serious deficiency, stating that loans with prohibited restrictive\ncovenants are ineligible for FHA insurance.\n\n RESULTS OF REVIEW\n\nPulte Mortgage did not follow HUD requirements regarding free assumability and liens when it\nunderwrote loans that had executed and recorded agreements between Pulte Homes and the FHA\nborrower, containing prohibited restrictive covenants and liens in connection with FHA-insured\nproperties. This noncompliance occurred because Pulte Mortgage did not exercise due diligence\nand was unaware that the restrictive covenants recorded between the sellers and the borrowers\nviolated HUD-FHA requirements. As a result, we found 1,106 FHA-insured loans (181 claim\n\n8\n Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2012 Financial Status, FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund\n9\n U.S. Government Accountability Office testimony, GAO-12-578T, Mortgage Financing, FHA and Ginnie Mae\nFace Risk-Management Challenges, issued March 29, 2012\n10\n The legal opinion was previously obtained during the review of a separate lender (2011-LA-1017) for a similar\nrestriction contained in the FHA purchase agreement.\n11\n Audit report 2011-LA-1017\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cloans and 925 active loans) with a corresponding prohibited restrictive covenant with a potential\nlien recorded with the applicable county recording office, and Pulte Mortgage placed the FHA\nfund at unnecessary risk for potential losses.\n\nClaim Loan Review Results\n\nWe identified and reviewed all 260 claim loans underwritten by Pulte Mortgage, 12 limited to\nloans closed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2011. In our review of the applicable\ncounty recorders\xe2\x80\x99 documents, we identified unallowable restrictive covenants corresponding to\n181 of the 260 claim loans with properties in Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada. Of the\n181 loans, 82 resulted in actual losses 13 to HUD totaling more than $9.9 million (see appendix C,\ntable 1), and 99 resulted in claims paid totaling more than $11.8 million, but the properties had\nnot been sold by HUD (see appendix C, table 2).\n\nActive Loan Sample Results\n\nAdditionally, we completed a random attribute statistical sample and selected 72 of 9,730 active\nloans within our audit period. In our review of the applicable county recorders\xe2\x80\x99 documents of\nthe sampled active FHA loans, we identified an unallowable restrictive covenant corresponding\nto 11 of the 72 sampled active loans with properties in Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada.\nThe 11 loans were active with an unpaid principal balance of more than $2.3 million (see\nappendix C, table 3).\n\nBased on a highly stratified sample, designed to minimize error and accommodate varying rates\nof price escalation and varying demand based on population density, 15.78 percent of the 72\nweighted loan samples contained restrictive covenants, which are not allowed by HUD\nrules. Therefore, we can be 95 percent confident that at least 925 of the 9,730 active loans in our\naudit period had similar problems with unallowable restrictive covenants (see Scope and\nMethodology).\n\nRestriction on Conveyance\n\nFor each FHA loan, the lender certifies on the Direct Endorsement Approval for HUD/FHA-\nInsured Mortgage (form HUD-92900-A) that the mortgage was eligible for HUD mortgage\ninsurance under the direct endorsement program (see lender certification excerpts below).\n\n\n\n\n12\n Based on HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Single Family Data Warehouse as of May 31, 2012\n13\n The actual loss is the calculated amount of loss resulting from the sale of a HUD property. The loss is calculated\nbased on the sales price - [acquisition cost + capital income/expense (rent, repair costs, taxes, sales expenses, and\nother expenses)].\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cThe FHA insurance requirements, set forth in 24 CFR 203.41(b), state that to be eligible for\ninsurance, the property must not be subject to legal restrictions on conveyance. Further, 24 CFR\n203.41(a)(3) defines legal restrictions on conveyance as \xe2\x80\x9cany provision in any legal instrument,\nlaw or regulation applicable to the mortgagor or the mortgaged property, including but not\nlimited to a lease, deed, sales contract, declaration of covenants, declaration of condominium,\noption, right of first refusal, will, or trust agreement, that attempts to cause a conveyance\n(including a lease) made by the mortgagor to:\n\n(i) Be void or voidable by a third party;\n(ii) Be the basis of contractual liability of the mortgagor for breach of an agreement not to\n convey, including rights of first refusal, pre-emptive rights or options related to\n mortgagor efforts to convey;\n(iii) Terminate or subject to termination all or a part of the interest held by the mortgagor in\n the mortgaged property if a conveyance is attempted;\n(iv) Be subject to the consent of a third party;\n(v) Be subject to limits on the amount of sales proceeds retainable by the seller; or\n(vi) Be grounds for acceleration of the insured mortgage or increase in the interest rate.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nAdditionally, 24 CFR 203.32 states that a \xe2\x80\x9cmortgagor must establish that, after the mortgage\noffered for insurance has been recorded, the mortgaged property will be free and clear of all liens\nother than such mortgage, and that there will not be outstanding any other unpaid obligations\ncontracted in connection with the mortgage transaction or the purchase of the mortgaged\nproperty, except obligations that are secured by property or collateral owned by the mortgagor\nindependently of the mortgaged property.\xe2\x80\x9d 14\n\nFinally and of most significance, HUD Handbooks 4000.2, paragraph 5-1(B), and 4155.2,\nparagraph 6.A.1.h, both state that it is the lender\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility at loan closing to ensure that\nany conditions of title to the property are acceptable to FHA. In essence, it is the duty of the\nlender to ensure that FHA loans approved for mortgage insurance are eligible and acceptable\naccording to FHA rules and regulations. The restrictive covenants identified placed a prohibited\nrestriction on the conveyance by a third party of the FHA properties, conflicting with the lender\xe2\x80\x99s\ncertification that the loans met HUD-FHA insurance requirements defined in 24 CFR\n203.41(a)(3).\n\nIt is also noteworthy that HUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 4.B.2.b, states, \xe2\x80\x9cFHA security\ninstruments require a borrower to establish bona fide occupancy in a home as the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s\nprincipal residence within 60 days of signing the security instrument, with continued occupancy\nfor at least one year.\xe2\x80\x9d However, these security instruments would be between the lender and\nborrower, not a third party like the seller. Extra emphasis must be placed on the fact that the\nconveyance of the property during the occupancy period was limited by the seller, which\n\n14\n The CFR includes exceptions; however, the exceptions do not apply in this case.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cviolated HUD-FHA requirements 24 CFR 203.41(b) defined at 24 CFR 203.41(a)(3)(ii) and\n203.41(a)(3)(iv). The following are excerpts from multiple versions of the recorded restrictive\ncovenants found between the seller, a third party to the FHA loans, and borrowers.\n\n Version 1\n\n\n\n\n Version 2\n\n\n\n\n Version 3\n\n\n\n\n Version 4\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c Version 5\n\n\n\n\n Version 6\n\n\n\n\nThe above examples illustrate the language contained in the restrictive covenants identified;\nspecifically, that the property cannot be conveyed without limitations imposed by the seller until\nthe occupancy period is over, which is contrary to the HUD-FHA free assumability requirements\ndefined in 24 CFR 203.41(a)(3)(ii) and 203.41(a)(3)(iv), respectively. A distinction to be made\nis that the restrictive covenants, while ineligible, do not necessarily prevent FHA from obtaining\nclear title in the event of foreclosure and conveyance. This distinction does not, however, alter\nthe material fact that the loans should not have reached the point of foreclosure and conveyance\nas they were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance.\n\nWe also identified potential lien language, which stipulated monetary damages to the seller in the\nevent of a breach in the agreement (see versions 1-3 above). A breach of the contract would\ninclude the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s conveying or transferring the property during the specified occupancy\nperiod, which is contrary to 24 CFR 203.32.\n\nPulte Mortgage officials stated the prohibited restrictive covenants were allowed because they\nbelieved that the documents with the restrictive covenants, which contain an owner occupancy\nrequirement, were consistent with FHA requirements. Therefore, they allowed the use of sellers\xe2\x80\x99\nrestrictive covenants on FHA properties. Based on this information, we concluded that Pulte\nMortgage did not exercise due diligence, demonstrated by its failure to ensure that language in\nthe recorded property agreements was appropriate and followed HUD rules and regulations.\n\nMateriality\n\nConsistent with prior HUD findings, we determined the existence of unallowable restrictive\ncovenants to be a significant, material deficiency. In prior reviews, HUD identified unallowable\nrestrictive covenants as a violation of Federal regulations and FHA requirements, considering the\nviolations a material serious deficiency, stating that loans with prohibited restrictive covenants\nwere ineligible for FHA insurance. For the active loans reviewed, HUD determined that\nindemnification was appropriate if the lender could not provide adequate support indicating a\ntermination of any restrictive language. Our recommendations are made in the same regard.\n\nThe FHA loans identified in this memorandum were determined to be ineligible for FHA\ninsurance; therefore, any loss or claim tied to the loans identified represents an unnecessary loss\nto HUD\xe2\x80\x99s FHA insurance fund. As with any underwriting review, deficiencies identified, such\nas overstated income and understated liabilities, do not have to be the reason an FHA loan went\ninto default or claim for HUD to seek indemnification. Rather, the deficiencies are used as\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cevidence that the loan should not have been FHA-insured. In the same regard, the audit\nmemorandum identifies a significant material deficiency that deemed the identified loans\nineligible for FHA insurance, thereby warranting recommendations for indemnification of the\nloans identified.\n\nAccording to the FHA Emergency Fiscal Solvency Act of 2013, 15 indemnification should be an\nappropriate remedy when HUD has suffered a loss tied to a loan that was not originated or\nunderwritten appropriately. It states that if the HUD Secretary determines that the mortgagee\nknew, or should have known, of a serious or material violation of the requirements established\nby the Secretary, such that the mortgage loan should not have been approved and endorsed for\ninsurance, and HUD pays an insurance claim with respect to the mortgage, the Secretary may\nrequire the mortgagee to indemnify HUD for the loss, irrespective of whether the violation\ncaused the mortgage default. This pending legislation illustrates Congress\xe2\x80\x99 specific intent to\nprotect the FHA mortgage insurance fund and ensure its solvency by providing HUD with the\nappropriate tools and remedies.\n\nImpact and Risk for Losses\n\nWe identified 1,106 loans (181 claim loans and 925 active loans) within our audit period that had\nunallowable restrictive covenants on the FHA-insured properties. The third-party agreements,\nwhich contained the prohibited restrictive covenants preventing free assumability of the property\nand potential liens between the seller and borrowers, violated HUD-FHA requirements defined\nin 24 CFR 203.41(a)(3) and 203.32, respectively, thereby materially impacting the insurability of\nthe questioned loans, making the loans ineligible for FHA insurance. Additionally, the\nborrowers in the restrictive covenant agreements were restricted in their ability to rent, lease,\nsell, or otherwise convey the FHA properties. By allowing the restrictive conveyance\nagreements on FHA properties that at minimum appeared to hinder free assumability, Pulte\nMortgage may have forced borrowers with decreasing financial capability to remain in their\nproperty longer than they would have otherwise.\n\nAs a result, Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s failure to exercise due diligence placed the FHA fund at\nunnecessary risk for potential losses by approving ineligible properties for FHA insurance and\nrestricting borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 ability to rent, lease, sell, or otherwise convey the FHA properties and\nincluded language for remedies if the contract was breached. Of most significance, insuring\nproperties that are not eligible for mortgage insurance increases the risk to an FHA fund that is\nalready facing dangerously low levels of funding. For the 192 loans identified, HUD would not\notherwise see a loss on the uninsurable FHA loans, as they would not have been approved for\nFHA insurance and would not be the responsibility of the FHA fund. For the 82 claim loans\nidentified as ineligible for FHA insurance, HUD suffered a loss it should not have otherwise\nsuffered.\n\n\n\n\n15\n Pending legislation, House Resolution 1145, sponsored by Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Congressman\nMichael E. Capuano on March 13, 2013. It was reintroduced under the 113th Congress after the 112th Congress\nreferred it to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cConclusion\n\nPulte Mortgage did not follow HUD requirements regarding free assumability and liens when it\nunderwrote loans that had executed and recorded agreements between sellers and the FHA\nborrower, containing prohibited restrictive covenants and liens in connection with FHA-insured\nproperties. We identified 1,106 loans (181 claim loans and 925 active loans) within our audit\nperiod that did not meet the requirements for FHA insurance, thereby rendering them ineligible\nfor FHA insurance. Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s failure to exercise due diligence allowed prohibited\nrestrictive covenants with the potential for liens on the FHA-insured properties, which rendered\nthe loans uninsurable. These uninsurable loans placed the FHA fund at unnecessary risk for\npotential losses because HUD would not otherwise see a loss on loans not insured by the FHA\nfund. Of the 192 (181 claim loans and 11 sampled active loans) loans reviewed where a\nprohibited restrictive covenant was found, 82 resulted in an actual loss to HUD of more than $9.9\nmillion. Another 99 of these loans had claims paid totaling more than $11.8 million. The\nremaining 11 loans found with prohibited restrictive covenants had a total unpaid mortgage\nbalance of more than $2.3 million with an estimated loss to HUD of more than $1.3 million (see\nappendix C).\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Associate General Counsel for Program Enforcement\n\n1A. Determine legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient, pursue civil remedies (31 U.S.C.\n (United States Code) Sections 3801-3812, 3729, or both), civil money penalties (24 CFR\n 30.35), or other administrative action against Pulte Mortgage, its principals, or both for\n incorrectly certifying to the integrity of the data or that due diligence was exercised\n during the origination of FHA-insured mortgages.\n\nWe recommend that HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing require Pulte\nMortgage, after completing recommendation 1A, to\n\n1B. Reimburse the FHA fund for the $9,909,292 in actual losses resulting from the amount of\n claims and associated expenses paid on 82 loans that contained prohibited restrictive\n covenants and liens (see appendix C, table 1).\n\n1C. Support the eligibility of $11,865,597 in claims paid or execute an indemnification\n agreement requiring any unsupported amounts to be repaid for claims paid on 99 loans\n for which HUD has paid claims but has not sold the properties (see appendix C, table 2).\n\n1D. Analyze all FHA loans originated, including the 11 active loans identified in this\n memorandum, or underwritten beginning January 1, 2008, and nullify all active\n restrictive covenants or execute indemnification agreements that prohibit it from\n submitting claims on those loans identified. The 11 active loans with prohibited\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c restrictive covenants had a total unpaid mortgage balance of $2,385,747, which carries a\n potential loss of $1,359,876 16 that could be put to better use (see appendix C, table 3).\n\n1E. Follow 24 CFR 203.32 and 203.41 by excluding restrictive language and prohibited liens\n for all new FHA-insured loan originations and ensure that policies and procedures reflect\n FHA requirements.\n\n\n\n\n16\n The potential loss was estimated based on HUD\xe2\x80\x99s 57 percent loss severity rate, multiplied by the unpaid mortgage\nbalance. The 57 percent loss rate was the average loss on FHA-insured foreclosed-upon properties based on HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\nSingle Family Acquired Asset Management System\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9ccase management profit and loss by acquisition\xe2\x80\x9d as of\nDecember 2012.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n\n\n Recommendation Funds to be put\n Ineligible 1/ Unsupported 2/\n number to better use 3/\n 1B $9,909,292\n 1C $11,865,597\n 1D $1,359,876\n Total $9,909,292 $11,865,597 $1,359,876\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Unsupported costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program\n or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported\n costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to\n obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification\n of departmental policies and procedures.\n\n3/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be\n used more efficiently if an OIG recommendation is implemented. These amounts include\n reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds, withdrawal of interest, costs not incurred by\n implementing recommended improvements, avoidance of unnecessary expenditures\n noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings that are specifically identified. If HUD\n implements our recommendations to indemnify loans not originated in accordance with\n HUD-FHA requirements, it will reduce FHA\xe2\x80\x99s risk of loss to the fund. See appendix C\n for a breakdown, by FHA loan number, of the funds to be put to better use.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cAppendix B\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 2\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\nComment 1\nComment 4\nComment 1\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cComment 6\n\nComment 7\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\nComment 8\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cComment 3\n\n\nComment 9\n\nComment 3\n\n\nComment 6\n\n\nComment 7\n\n\n\nComment 10\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cComment 11\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cComment 12\n\nComment 13\nComment 12\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\nComment 14\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\nComment 15\n\nComment 1\n\nComment 16\n\nComment 17\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cComment 15\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\nComment 15\n\n\n\nComment 18\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cComment 17\n\n\n\n\nComment 18\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cComment 19\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 14\n\n\n\n\nComment 11\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cComment 20\n\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\nComment 21\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cComment 21\n\nComment 22\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\nComment 23\nComment 3\n\n\nComment 3\nComment 9\nComment 1\nComment 15\nComment 6\n\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cComment 15\n\nComment 1\n\nComment 6\nComment 24\nComment 1\nComment 9\nComment 20\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0cComment 9\n\n\nComment 1\n\nComment 19\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\nComment 18\n\n\n\n\nComment 24\n\nComment 1\n\nComment 15\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0cComment 11\nComment 9\n\nComment 18\n\n\n\nComment 3\nComment 1\n\nComment 3\nComment 6\nComment 5\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\nComment 6\n\nComment 11\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0cComment 11\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0cComment 25\n\n\nComment 9\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\nComment 3\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 We disagree with Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of the OIG review. Specifically,\n we disagree with Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s interpretation of FHA requirements. These\n assessments include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The prohibited restrictive covenants tracked FHA\xe2\x80\x99s own underwriting\n requirements by discouraging \xe2\x80\x9cflippers\xe2\x80\x9d from fraudulently\n misrepresenting their occupancy intentions and did so in a manner entirely\n consistent with FHA guidelines;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The prohibited restrictive covenants were consistent with and did not\n violate FHA regulations; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The restrictive covenant language contained in the agreements signed by\n the seller and borrower \xe2\x80\x9ctracks\xe2\x80\x9d the language in the \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage\n Form\xe2\x80\x9d 17 that would make it viewed as permissible or compliant with FHA\n regulations.\n\n To clarify, the audit memorandum findings do not take exception with the owner\n occupancy language. Pulte Mortgage, throughout its response, attempted to\n equate the prohibited owner occupancy language between the borrower and seller\n with FHA regulations. A violation would not have occurred had the cited\n agreements merely required a one year occupancy requirement. What Pulte\n Mortgage did not address is that the prohibited restrictive covenants identified go\n beyond merely requiring owner occupancy, and actually placed restrictions on the\n mortgage deed that violate FHA regulations. The audit memorandum discussed\n the agreement being between a third party to the mortgage, the seller, and the\n borrower as well as the agreement containing provisions for damages to the seller\n in the event of a breach, which violated 24 Code of Federal Regulation 204.41\n and 203.32 respectively. By Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s own admission, the seller \xe2\x80\x9cwould\n agree not to enforce the Provision\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d The fact that the buyer must get the seller\xe2\x80\x99s\n permission is a violation of 24 CFR 203.41(a)(3)(iv), the seller being considered a\n third party.\n\n Any reference in Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s response to tracking or adhering to FHA\n guidelines is incorrect. The regulations under 24 CFR 203.41(a)(3), for free\n assumability of the property, emphasize the prohibition of a restriction where the\n conveyance of a property be subject to the consent of a third party, in this case the\n seller, and that such a document cannot be the basis of contractual liability of the\n borrower for breach of an agreement not to convey. The findings and related\n examples illustrate the agreements in question are between the seller and\n borrower and include provisions for damages to the seller if the borrower conveys\n\n17\n The \xe2\x80\x9cSupplement B\xe2\x80\x9d contained in Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s response contained a poor copy of the \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d\nand therefore was omitted from inclusion in appendix B of this audit memorandum. However, relevant excerpts\nwere included below.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0cthe property during the occupancy period, which clearly violate HUD FHA\nrequirements. The violations make each identified loan ineligible for FHA\nmortgage insurance.\n\nA significant, material distinction exists; the \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d cited by\nPulte Mortgage is the mortgage note between the lender and borrower, whereas\nthe prohibited restrictive covenant discussed in the audit memorandum is between\nthe seller, a third party to the mortgage, and the borrower. Additionally, the\n\xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d cited does not contain language that creates a basis of\nadditional contractual liability of the borrower for breach of the agreement not to\nconvey, see excerpt of Section 5 below.\n Start of \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x93 Between Borrower and Lender\n\n\n\n\n Section 5 of \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0c We would like to clarify that the \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d section 9, \xe2\x80\x9cGrounds for\n Acceleration of Debt\xe2\x80\x9d paragraph (a) are limited by regulations issued by the\n Secretary and paragraph (b) is subject to applicable law and with prior approval of\n the Secretary. In both these instances the \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d discusses\n acceleration of debt at the approval of the Secretary rather than the creation of an\n additional liability to the seller that is found in the restrictive covenants recorded\n with applicable counties.\n Section 9(a) of \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n Section 9(b) of \xe2\x80\x9cFHA Mortgage Form\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\nComment 2 To clarify, the audit memorandum does not, at any point, state that prohibited\n restrictive covenants were put in place for \xe2\x80\x9cpernicious reasons.\xe2\x80\x9d Rather, the\n memorandum reports on OIG\xe2\x80\x99s findings, based on specific audit objectives, that\n violations did in fact occur.\n\nComment 3 We strongly disagree with Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s assertion that the OIG memorandum\n serves to threaten tens of millions of dollars in indemnity claims, solely because\n Pulte Mortgage provided mortgages to these homeowners. We also disagree with\n Pulte Mortgage that the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations to FHA for reimbursement and\n indemnification and a referral to HUD Office of Enforcement are completely\n without merit. The basis for indemnification is in the OIG determination,\n consistent with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s prior findings, that prohibited restrictive covenants are a\n material, statute violation. Losses tied to loans that should not have been FHA-\n insured should appropriately be reimbursed to the FHA mortgage insurance fund\n or indemnified. The OIG recommendations are addressed to HUD for appropriate\n action, fulfilling a public obligation to ensure HUD funds are safeguarded and\n spent appropriately. See also comment 1.\n\n\n\n 32\n\x0c The recorded prohibited restrictive covenants impacted the insurability of the\n reviewed loans. Pulte Mortgage had a duty to ensure loans it approved for FHA\n insurance were in accordance with all FHA rules and regulations. The FHA loans\n identified were determined to be ineligible for FHA insurance; therefore, any loss\n or claim tied to the loan presents an unnecessary loss to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s FHA insurance\n fund. As with any underwriting review, deficiencies identified, such as overstated\n income and understated liabilities, do not have to be the reason an FHA loan went\n into default or claim for HUD to seek indemnification. Rather, the deficiencies\n are used as evidence that the FHA loan should not have been FHA-insured. In the\n same regard, the audit memorandum identifies a significant material deficiency\n that deemed the identified loans ineligible for FHA insurance; thereby warranting\n recommendations for indemnification of the loans identified.\n\n As outlined in the audit memorandum, we specifically addressed the materiality\n of the findings. The OIG takes all potential and appropriate corrective actions\n into account when developing audit recommendations and those\n recommendations are addressed to HUD, not Pulte Mortgage, for corrective\n action. For clarification, recommendation 1A recommends HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Associate\n General Counsel for Program Enforcement to determine legal sufficiency for civil\n action. It is OIG\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to refer violations that may rise to the level that\n may warrant civil action to the HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Program Enforcement for its\n consideration. It is that office\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to evaluate the violations and\n determine what, if any, civil action is warranted. Treble damages are not stated\n anywhere in the recommendation or audit memorandum.\n\n Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s assertion that neither the homebuyers nor the FHA insurance\n fund was harmed is incorrect. The prohibited restrictive covenants all carried the\n potential to harm FHA buyers. The scope of our audit was narrow and specific, to\n identify the presence of unallowable restrictive covenants and to determine if\n those restrictions violated HUD rules and regulations. To that end, we concluded\n that there were prohibited restrictive covenants, which violated Federal statute\n and were not eligible for FHA insurance; therefore, any loss or claim tied to the\n loans identified represents an unnecessary loss to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s FHA insurance fund.\n\n Based on our conclusions, it was our duty and obligation to HUD and other\n stakeholders, including the American public, to recommend HUD take necessary,\n appropriate action. In HUD\xe2\x80\x99s prior actions, it also deemed the deficiency\n significant enough to warrant indemnification. We believe the recommendations\n contained in the audit memorandum are fair, consistent, and appropriate given the\n materiality of the OIG finding. Therefore, the recommendations remain\n unchanged.\n\nComment 4 Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s statement that the audit memorandum\xe2\x80\x99s interpretation of FHA\n regulations is so inappropriately aggressive that FHA\xe2\x80\x99s own documents would\n violate the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s reading of its terms, is incorrect and without merit. We\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\x0c identified a specific situation, compared the restrictive language found to FHA\n regulations, and determined the recorded agreements violated HUD FHA\n regulations. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Single Family Housing has made a similar\n determination in similar situations. See comments 1 and 15 for detailed\n explanations.\n\nComment 5 Pulte Mortgage is incorrect in assuming that restrictive covenant agreements were\n acceptable because FHA conducted post-endorsement reviews. Such assumptions\n are dangerous and should never be a substitute for reviewing and applying the\n actual FHA regulations. These reviews were not necessarily all inclusive in scope\n and may not have included methodology to search public records for documents\n recorded in conjunction with the FHA-insured loans.\n\nComment 6 To clarify, the audit memorandum does not state that Pulte Mortgage \xe2\x80\x9cacted\n knowingly or with reckless disregard resulting in a false, fraudulent, or fictitious\n claim to FHA\xe2\x80\x9d as implied by the Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s response. See also comment 2.\n\nComment 7 Pulte Mortgage stated that no further actions are needed because the provision\n term in the prohibited agreements has expired for these loans and is no longer\n offering loans with the prohibited restrictive covenants. We acknowledge Pulte\n Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to address the audit memorandum findings. HUD will review\n the adequacy of Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s corrective actions and analysis during the audit\n resolution process to determine if it was sufficient to satisfy the audit\n recommendations. The findings cited restrictive covenants with an occupancy\n period of twelve months; however, there is a possibility that longer occupancy\n periods related to other loans exist.\n\n Although the loans in question have an expired agreement, the presence of the\n restrictive covenant should have prevented them from reaching the point of\n receiving FHA mortgage insurance. Recommendations 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E of the\n audit memorandum first seek reimbursement for the ineligible loans with an\n actual known loss, support or indemnification for those with claims but no known\n loss, to nullify active loans with such restrictions or indemnify said loans, and\n finally to follow 24 CFR 203.32 and 203.41 by excluding restrictive language and\n prohibited liens for all new FHA-insured loan originations and ensure that\n policies and procedures reflect FHA requirements. See also comment 3.\n\nComment 8 To clarify we reviewed public records for 332 loans (260 claim loans and 72\n statistically sampled active loans) and found that, of these, 192 (181 claim loans\n and 11 statistically sampled active loans) had unallowable restrictive covenants.\n The 11 statistically sampled active loans were projected to the universe of active\n loans (see Methodology and Scope section of the audit memorandum), resulting\n in an estimated 925 active loans with similar issues. Therefore, we reported that\n there were 1,106 loans (181 claim loans and 925 active loans) with unallowable\n restrictive covenants.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\x0cComment 9 We disagree with Pulte Mortgage that it is unreasonable to expect that it would\n treat these as a violation of FHA requirements because of the unclear nature of the\n regulations in question and FHA\xe2\x80\x99s own documents. FHA regulations at 24 CFR\n 203.41 and 203.32 specifically prohibit restrictive covenants as identified in the\n audit memorandum. Additionally, HUD has previously determined that\n prohibited restrictive covenants were serious, material deficiencies that deemed\n FHA loans ineligible for mortgage insurance. Whether intentional or not, Pulte\n Mortgage, as the underwriter, is responsible for ensuring the loan and its title\n instruments meet all HUD rules and regulations. As stated in the audit\n memorandum, HUD Handbooks 4000.2, paragraph 5-1(B), and 4155.2, paragraph\n 6.A.1.h, both state that it is the lender\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility at loan closing to ensure\n that any conditions of title to the property are acceptable to FHA. In essence, it is\n the duty of the lender to ensure that FHA loans approved for mortgage insurance\n are eligible and acceptable according to FHA rules and regulations. We also\n disagree that the requirements were unclear and that the FHA documents were\n consistent with the agreements between the seller and borrower, see comment 1.\n\nComment 10 Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s conclusion that, because there is no evidence that the\n builder/seller actually exercised its right under the agreement, therefore, no\n remediation is necessary is not material to the issues identified in the audit\n memorandum because violating 24 CFR 203.41 and 302.32 rendered the loans\n ineligible for FHA insurance. To that end, the recommendations specifically\n address the deficiencies identified, utilizing appropriate remedial options\n available to HUD and OIG. See also comment 3.\n\nComment 11 OIG acknowledges Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s explanation of intent and history. However,\n this does not lift the burden from Pulte Mortgage to ensure all FHA loans\n approved for FHA mortgage insurance adhere to all FHA regulations. See also\n comment 1.\n\nComment 12 During the audit, the OIG auditors determined the restrictive covenants were in\n violation of HUD FHA regulations. The internal legal opinion cited by Pulte\n Mortgage was used only as additional support that restrictive covenants are\n unallowable and violate FHA rules and regulations. The legal opinion was\n obtained and reviewed after we conducted our own analysis and came to our own\n conclusion that HUD requirements were violated by the execution and recording\n of the restrictive covenants.\n\nComment 13 We agree with Pulte Mortgage; the audit memorandum has been revised to reflect\n the citation as 24 CFR 203.41(b).\n\nComment 14 We disagree with Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s statement that the cause included in the audit\n memorandum was quite a different assertion than that initially offered by the OIG\n in its draft finding outline. The cause included in the finding outline provided to\n Pulte Mortgage stated, \xe2\x80\x9cThis occurred because Pulte Mortgage officials believed\n that the documents with the restrictive covenants, which contain an owner\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\x0c occupancy requirement, were consistent with FHA requirements and would in-\n turn help protect FHA from fraud.\xe2\x80\x9d However, we simplified the cause in the audit\n memorandum to state, in part that Pulte Mortgage \xe2\x80\x9cwas unaware that the\n restrictive covenants recorded between the sellers and the borrowers violated\n FHA requirements.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Additionally, Pulte Mortgage commented in its response that our statement that\n Pulte Mortgage was \xe2\x80\x9cunaware\xe2\x80\x9d that the restrictive covenants were a violation was\n a mischaracterization. A Pulte Mortgage official clarified that in its opinion it\n was reasonable to believe that the provisions were permissible under 24 CFR\n 203.41 and it offered the loans for insurance in good faith. As a result, we have\n revised the audit memorandum \xe2\x80\x9cRestriction on Conveyance\xe2\x80\x9d section to\n incorporate more of the original language from the finding outline and the\n clarification provided by a Pulte Mortgage official.\n\n Pulte Mortgage was notified that the finding outline was a working document and\n the draft form was presented as a courtesy to enhance open communication and\n keep Pulte Mortgage informed of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s progress and tentative conclusions in\n advance of the draft audit memorandum. The \xe2\x80\x9cSupplement A\xe2\x80\x9d contained in Pulte\n Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s response contained a copy of a working document that was not\n intended for an external audience and therefore has been omitted from inclusion\n in appendix B of this audit memorandum.\n\nComment 15 Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s logic is flawed and does not appear to understand or make the\n distinction that the prohibited agreements in question are between the borrower\n and seller, a third party, and not between the borrower and lender. It is incorrect\n and inappropriate for Pulte Mortgage to compare two clearly different\n agreements. See also comment 1.\n\nComment 16 Pulte Mortgage did not appropriately apply the FHA regulations. The exceptions\n at 24 CFR 203.512, as discussed in its response, do not apply.\n\nComment 17 Pulte Mortgage presented hypothetical scenarios that are not relevant to the facts\n of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s findings. The audit memorandum presented specific instances that\n violated FHA regulations, as determined separately by HUD and OIG. See also\n comments 1 and 15.\n\n We disagree with the Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s statement that the restrictive covenants did\n not create an actual or potential lien. Examples of the prohibited restrictive\n language included in the agreements in question were included in the body of the\n audit memorandum. Merriam-Webster dictionary describes a lien as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cIn law, a charge or encumbrance on property for the satisfaction of a debt\n or other duty. Common law developed two kinds of possessory lien: the\n specific (a lien on the specific property involved in a transaction) and the\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\x0c general (a lien for the satisfaction of a balance due, not confined to a\n specific property involved in a transaction)\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Therefore, one could reasonably conclude from the prohibited restrictive covenant\n language of the buyer owing damages to the seller in the event of a breach or the\n seller\xe2\x80\x99s right to repurchase as a lien, which violated 24 CFR 203.32. We do not\n disagree with the Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s assertion that typically a lien gives the right to\n the creditor to foreclose and take possession of the property in question if the debt\n is not satisfied; however, by definition that it is not required. Therefore, the\n discussion of potential liens will remain in the audit memorandum.\n\nComment 19 The intention behind 24 CFR 203.41(b) is not in question. The audit scope\n focused solely on Pulte Mortgage and its practices and was not an internal review\n of HUD and its regulations and policy decisions. The prohibited restrictive\n covenants identified violated FHA regulations, thereby rendering them ineligible\n for FHA insurance. To that end, the intention behind the regulations do not\n change that what occurred did not meet the stated requirements for insurance. See\n also comments 1 and 3.\n\nComment 20 We acknowledge Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to take corrective actions and adhere to\n FHA rules and regulations. Any actions taken should be directed to HUD during\n the audit resolution process, including providing supporting documentation. See\n also comment 7.\n\nComment 21 We agree with Pulte Mortgage and acknowledge that the FHA Reform Act of\n 2010 was never finalized. However, this legislation has been updated and was\n reintroduced to the U.S. House of Representatives and is now known as the \xe2\x80\x9cFHA\n Emergency Fiscal Solvency Act of 2013.\xe2\x80\x9d This legislation clearly indicates the\n U.S. Congress\xe2\x80\x99 specific intent to protect and ensure the fiscal solvency of the\n FHA mortgage insurance fund. The audit memorandum has been updated\n accordingly and reflects the new, updated pending legislation. As a result, there\n was no need to include Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cSupplement C\xe2\x80\x9d in appendix B of the\n audit memorandum, which contained the progress of the FHA Reform Act of\n 2010.\n\nComment 22 We disagree with Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s statement that the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s position is that any\n technical breach may serve as a basis for indemnification. The OIG reviews each\n situation independently and makes determinations on specific facts and merits. In\n this specific circumstance, the conditions for free assumability of the loan, as well\n as no additional liens outside the mortgage (with some exceptions noted in the\n CFR), were required to be met for the loan to be eligible for FHA mortgage\n insurance. We disagree that indemnification should only be utilized for\n traditional underwriting deficiencies (overstated income, understated liabilities,\n etc.). This interpretation opens a wide door for violations other than your typical\n underwriting deficiencies and sets a bad precedent to violating lenders. Therefore,\n in OIG\xe2\x80\x99s assessment, indemnification is an appropriate remedy in these instances\n\n\n\n\n 37\n\x0c because it provides the remedy of alleviating any loss or potential loss on the\n loans from impacting the FHA mortgage insurance fund, as would be the case if\n the loans were not insured. Ultimately, the recommendations are directed to HUD\n for it to assessment and enter in to a management agreement during the audit\n resolution process with OIG on the appropriate course of action. See also\n comment 3.\n\nComment 23 We acknowledge Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s admission that had it known the loans in\n question were in violation of FHA regulations it would have taken corrective\n actions. Unfortunately, the violations have already occurred, and need to be\n remedied. See also comment 9.\n\nComment 24 We strongly disagree with Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s interpretation that the audit\n memorandum stated, \xe2\x80\x9cPulte Mortgage falsely certified that loans with recorded\n Provisions that it offered for insurance were in compliance with FHA\n regulations.\xe2\x80\x9d Rather the audit memorandum states, \xe2\x80\x9cFor each FHA loan, the\n lender certifies on the Direct Endorsement Approval for HUD/FHA-Insured\n Mortgage (form HUD-92900-A) that the mortgage was eligible for HUD\n mortgage insurance under the direct endorsement program.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nComment 25 We strongly disagree with Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s assertion that the audit memorandum\n demonstrates a failure to understand the purpose behind implementation of the\n prohibited agreements and the reasonability of the position that the prohibited\n agreements did not violate FHA regulations. Also, Pulte Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s response\n incorrectly attempts to explain HUD\xe2\x80\x99s policy on implementing regulations and\n incorrectly interprets FHA regulations. Additionally, Pulte Mortgage\n inappropriately attempted to compare different agreements between the borrower\n and lender and the borrower and seller. As previously stated, the purpose behind\n the implementation of the restrictive covenants between the seller and borrower\n are irrelevant in light of the fact that ultimately the agreements violated 24 CFR\n 203.41 and 203.32, which rendered the loans ineligible for FHA insurance. See\n also comments 1, 9, and 15.\n\n\n\n\n 38\n\x0cAppendix C\n SUMMARY OF FHA LOANS REVIEWED\n\n Table 1 - Actual loss to HUD\n Claim loan review results\n\n FHA loan Recommendation 1B \xe2\x80\x93\n number actual loss to HUD 18\n 022-1927689 $ 71,373\n 023-2603944 146,239\n 023-2611680 143,523\n 023-2619967 105,390\n 023-2619996 288,390\n 023-2655731 80,896\n 023-2669181 116,573\n 023-2673344 105,125\n 023-2685324 105,459\n 023-2707816 129,494\n 023-2713580 69,467\n 023-2716167 92,088\n 023-2731482 130,236\n 023-2754772 110,901\n 023-2764894 114,485\n 023-2772117 118,331\n 023-2776246 136,992\n 023-2779167 84,883\n 023-2784325 109,780\n 023-2786411 76,201\n 023-2788697 159,438\n 023-2793680 56,021\n 023-2795810 89,038\n 023-2799953 174,561\n 023-2804376 75,844\n 023-2818776 133,341\n 023-2819969 97,437\n\n\n18\n The actual loss to HUD was obtained from HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Single Family Data Warehouse in January 2013.\n\n\n\n\n 39\n\x0c FHA loan Recommendation 1B \xe2\x80\x93\n number actual loss to HUD 18\n023-2820025 92,392\n023-2821037 92,863\n023-2823878 46,585\n023-2823986 97,706\n023-2830153 123,671\n023-2830182 104,026\n023-2838213 91,107\n023-2848285 123,901\n023-2851827 134,619\n023-2855523 95,199\n023-2858904 81,223\n023-2879361 128,920\n023-2880461 90,803\n023-2884854 85,855\n023-2886080 102,730\n023-2908445 80,562\n023-2933479 91,916\n023-2943430 67,492\n023-2985345 116,858\n023-2996978 89,110\n023-3014540 124,576\n023-3018717 97,629\n023-3039168 115,536\n023-3047628 104,105\n023-3180064 82,738\n023-3311141 65,043\n023-3617752 50,135\n023-3814604 103,782\n042-8042434 248,649\n042-8084411 238,870\n042-8516684 120,177\n043-7466544 119,070\n043-7525324 200,059\n043-7573835 131,817\n043-7621188 158,705\n043-8056250 135,382\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\x0c FHA loan Recommendation 1B \xe2\x80\x93\n number actual loss to HUD 18\n044-4321995 79,870\n048-4640203 201,968\n048-4842458 152,501\n197-3761673 154,478\n197-4087743 154,321\n332-4483429 137,515\n332-4575855 128,866\n332-4616837 172,417\n332-4656194 141,132\n332-4656250 132,069\n332-4658869 135,518\n332-4661113 150,950\n332-4661868 139,676\n332-4664292 126,408\n332-4666337 175,968\n332-4676488 176,192\n332-4707171 223,858\n332-4751441 114,385\n332-4814978 55,883\n Total $ 9,909,292\n\n\n\n\n 41\n\x0c Table 2 - Claims paid, loss unknown\n Claim loan review results\n\n FHA loan Recommendation 1C \xe2\x80\x93 claims paid\n number but no actual loss known 19\n 022-1916640 $ 81,755\n 022-1931001 75,076\n 022-2211768 111,328\n 023-2622908 74,215\n 023-2640369 121,060\n 023-2644672 133,163\n 023-2644689 120,447\n 023-2645757 104,755\n 023-2648333 101,088\n 023-2648385 110,176\n 023-2648697 230,330\n 023-2655879 90,050\n 023-2661687 139,912\n 023-2665978 123,096\n 023-2669826 76,752\n 023-2689858 116,664\n 023-2696193 108,419\n 023-2714983 114,959\n 023-2715908 50,784\n 023-2722711 113,753\n 023-2734131 160,272\n 023-2741062 105,275\n 023-2760699 101,583\n 023-2774600 103,158\n 023-2782528 231,783\n 023-2791883 98,691\n 023-2791940 95,971\n 023-2814853 163,847\n 023-2815474 141,753\n 023-2823905 62,077\n 023-2827580 160,797\n 023-2838140 132,185\n\n19\n The claims paid values were obtained from HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system in January 2013.\n\n\n\n\n 42\n\x0c FHA loan Recommendation 1C \xe2\x80\x93 claims paid\n number but no actual loss known 19\n023-2838852 53,391\n023-2840150 80,894\n023-2845339 144,238\n023-2855779 112,981\n023-2863559 87,940\n023-2867176 159,626\n023-2883690 114,664\n023-2901742 135,712\n023-2908320 78,745\n023-2911870 94,981\n023-2921849 104,673\n023-2928252 53,339\n023-2929156 70,648\n023-2930472 87,070\n023-2948654 144,373\n023-2952108 127,160\n023-2954217 106,100\n023-2966402 83,424\n023-2986022 136,581\n023-3005512 108,400\n023-3016456 76,045\n023-3030123 106,730\n023-3053515 91,570\n023-3057631 81,538\n023-3073981 64,161\n023-3498004 95,981\n023-3503349 70,451\n023-3530032 98,071\n023-3617492 117,504\n023-3617979 93,973\n023-3774368 74,322\n042-8050561 180,298\n042-8079927 170,132\n042-8087657 233,413\n042-8091572 129,761\n042-8559877 93,586\n\n\n\n\n 43\n\x0c FHA loan Recommendation 1C \xe2\x80\x93 claims paid\n number but no actual loss known 19\n043-7447279 60,250\n043-7500295 250,193\n043-7523845 123,747\n043-7573076 119,162\n043-7577084 118,366\n043-7757408 91,139\n043-7805468 294,226\n043-7989028 25,408\n043-8084823 74,065\n044-4334708 139,718\n044-4346770 91,864\n044-4357665 91,231\n045-6707713 48,385\n048-4743554 156,706\n091-4315182 100,042\n091-4382164 239,308\n197-3785482 168,871\n197-3877861 121,956\n332-4529992 174,964\n332-4531582 111,524\n332-4550184 269,478\n332-4565671 131,040\n332-4586869 144,024\n332-4612208 106,993\n332-4641624 121,667\n332-4644955 339,753\n332-4666655 167,819\n332-4666684 142,314\n332-4708125 93,329\n332-4942724 43,821\n332-5008601 86,584\n Total $ 11,865,597\n\n\n\n\n 44\n\x0c Table 3 - Potential loss to HUD\n Active loan sample results\n\n Recommendation 1D \xe2\x80\x93\n FHA loan Unpaid mortgage\n potential loss on active\n number balance 20\n loans16\n 023-2612062 $ 245,959 $ 140,197\n 023-2848335 239,153 136,317\n 023-2971807 221,198 126,083\n 023-3439835 168,663 96,138\n 023-4056921 122,303 69,713\n 023-4113303 170,901 97,414\n 042-8555607 335,490 191,229\n 043-8367965 186,923 106,546\n 095-0847106 229,269 130,683\n 197-3785674 275,024 156,764\n 332-4950346 190,864 108,792\n Total $ 2,385,747 $ 1,359,876\n\n\n\n\n20\n The unpaid mortgage balance for each loan was obtained from HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Single Family Data Warehouse in January\n2013.\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 13.3.2010
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 63/24
 Odvolanie podané 7. decembra 2009: Portugalská republika proti rozsudku Súdu prvého stupňa Európskych spoločenstiev (siedma komora) z 23. septembra 2009 vo veci T-385/05, Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA/Komisia
 (Vec C-506/09 P)
 2010/C 63/39
 Jazyk konania: angličtina
 Účastníci konania
 Odvolateľka: Portugalská republika (v zastúpení: L. Fernandes, C. Guerra Santos, J. Gomes, P. Rocha, splnomocnení zástupcovia)
 Ďalší účastníci konania: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, Európska komisia
 Návrhy odvolateľky
 —
 vyhovieť návrhu portugalských orgánov, aby Súdny dvor prerušil konanie o tomto odvolaní až do rozhodnutia Všeobecného súdu, keďže v súvislosti s návrhom tretej osoby na zmenu rozhodnutia je potrebné prerokovať nie len právne, ale aj vecné otázky prípadu,
 —
 zrušiť rozsudok Súdu prvého stupňa Európskych spoločenstiev z 23. septembra 2009 vo veci T-385/05 Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA/Komisia, ktorým sa zrušilo rozhodnutie Komisie REM 05/2004 zo 6. júla 2005, ktorým sa spoločnosti Transnáutica zamietlo vrátenie a zníženie niektorých colných dlhov, a
 —
 zaviazať spoločnosť Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, na náhradu trov konania.
 Odvolacie dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Odvolateľka tvrdí, že Súd prvého stupňa sa dopustil nesprávneho posúdenia, keď dospel k záveru, že portugalské orgány sa dopustili nesprávneho posúdenia pri stanovení a kontrole globálnej záruky použitej pri dotknutých tranzitných transakciách.
 Odvolateľka tiež tvrdí, že je nemožné preukázať príčinnú súvislosť medzi údajnými nesprávnymi posúdeniami a následným odňatím tovaru spod colného dohľadu a domnieva sa, že Súd prvého stupňa tým, že rozhodol inak, porušil právo Európskej únie.


type: legislation

text:
 3.7.2015
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 174/8
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) 2015/1061
 z dnia 2 lipca 2015 r.
 dotyczące zezwolenia na stosowanie kwasu askorbinowego, soli sodowej fosforanu askorbylu, soli sodowo-wapniowej fosforanu askorbylu, askorbinianu sodu, askorbinianu wapnia i palmitynianu askorbylu jako dodatków paszowych dla wszystkich gatunków zwierząt
 (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1831/2003 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 22 września 2003 r. w sprawie dodatków stosowanych w żywieniu zwierząt (1), w szczególności jego art. 9 ust. 2,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W rozporządzeniu (WE) nr 1831/2003 przewidziano udzielanie zezwoleń na stosowanie dodatków w żywieniu zwierząt oraz określono sposób uzasadniania i procedury przyznawania takich zezwoleń. W art. 10 tego rozporządzenia przewidziano ponowną ocenę dodatków dopuszczonych na podstawie dyrektywy Rady 70/524/EWG (2).
 (2)
 Kwas askorbinowy, sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu, sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu askorbylu, askorbinian sodu, askorbinian wapnia i palmitynian askorbylu zostały dopuszczone bezterminowo zgodnie z dyrektywą 70/524/EWG jako dodatki paszowe dla wszystkich gatunków zwierząt. Produkty te zostały następnie wpisane do rejestru dodatków paszowych jako istniejące produkty zgodnie z art. 10 ust. 1 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003.
 (3)
 Zgodnie z art. 10 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003 w związku z jego art. 7 złożono dwa wnioski o ponowną ocenę kwasu askorbinowego, soli sodowej fosforanu askorbylu i soli sodowo-wapniowej fosforanu askorbylu jako dodatków paszowych dla wszystkich gatunków zwierząt, a także – zgodnie z art. 7 tego rozporządzenia – o zezwolenie na nowe zastosowanie w wodzie do pojenia w odniesieniu do kwasu askorbinowego. Wnioskodawcy wystąpili o zaklasyfikowanie tych dodatków w kategorii „dodatki dietetyczne”. Do wniosków dołączone zostały dane szczegółowe oraz dokumenty wymagane na mocy art. 7 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003.
 (4)
 Zgodnie z art. 10 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003 w związku z jego art. 7 złożono wniosek o ponowną ocenę kwasu askorbinowego, askorbinianu sodu, askorbinianu wapnia i palmitynianu askorbylu jako dodatków paszowych dla wszystkich gatunków zwierząt. Wnioskodawcy wystąpili o zaklasyfikowanie tych dodatków w kategorii „dodatki technologiczne”. Do wniosku dołączone zostały dane szczegółowe oraz dokumenty wymagane na mocy art. 7 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003.
 (5)
 W swoich opiniach z dnia 30 stycznia 2013 r. (3) Europejski Urząd ds. Bezpieczeństwa Żywności („Urząd”) stwierdził, że w proponowanych warunkach stosowania w paszy kwas askorbinowy, sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu, sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu askorbylu, askorbinian sodu, askorbinian wapnia i palmitynian askorbylu nie mają niekorzystnego wpływu na zdrowie zwierząt i ludzi ani na środowisko. Urząd stwierdził ponadto, że kwas askorbinowy, sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu i sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu askorbylu są uznawane za efektywne źródła witaminy C oraz że ponieważ kwas askorbinowy, askorbinian sodu, askorbinian wapnia i palmitynian askorbylu są dopuszczone do stosowania jako przeciwutleniacze w żywności, a ich funkcja w paszy jest zasadniczo taka sama jak w żywności, dalsze wykazanie ich skuteczności nie jest konieczne.
 (6)
 Urząd uznał także, że nie ma obaw o bezpieczeństwo użytkowników. Zdaniem Urzędu nie ma potrzeby wprowadzania szczegółowych wymogów dotyczących monitorowania po wprowadzeniu do obrotu. Urząd poddał również weryfikacji sprawozdanie dotyczące metody analizy dodatków paszowych w paszy i wodzie w odniesieniu do kwasu askorbinowego, przedłożone przez laboratorium referencyjne ustanowione rozporządzeniem (WE) nr 1831/2003.
 (7)
 Ocena kwasu askorbinowego, soli sodowej fosforanu askorbylu, soli sodowo-wapniowej fosforanu askorbylu, askorbinianu sodu, askorbinianu wapnia i palmitynianu askorbylu dowodzi, że warunki udzielenia zezwolenia przewidziane w art. 5 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003 są spełnione. W związku z tym należy zezwolić na stosowanie tych substancji, jak określono w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 (8)
 Ponieważ względy bezpieczeństwa nie wymagają natychmiastowego zastosowania zmian w warunkach zezwolenia, należy przewidzieć okres przejściowy, aby umożliwić zainteresowanym stronom przygotowanie się do spełnienia nowych wymogów wynikających z zezwolenia.
 (9)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Stałego Komitetu ds. Roślin, Zwierząt, Żywności i Pasz,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 1. Substancje wyszczególnione w załączniku, należące do kategorii „dodatki dietetyczne” i do grupy funkcjonalnej „witaminy, prowitaminy i chemicznie dobrze zdefiniowane substancje o podobnym działaniu”, zostają dopuszczone jako dodatki stosowane w żywieniu zwierząt zgodnie z warunkami określonymi w załączniku.
 2. Substancje wyszczególnione w załączniku, należące do kategorii „dodatki technologiczne” i do grupy funkcjonalnej „przeciwutleniacze”, zostają dopuszczone jako dodatki stosowane w żywieniu zwierząt zgodnie z warunkami określonymi w załączniku.
 Artykuł 2
 1. Substancje wyszczególnione w załączniku oraz premiksy zawierające te substancje, wyprodukowane i opatrzone etykietami przed dniem 23 stycznia 2016 r. zgodnie z przepisami obowiązującymi przed dniem 23 lipca 2015 r., mogą być nadal wprowadzane do obrotu i stosowane aż do wyczerpania zapasów.
 2. Mieszanki paszowe i materiały paszowe zawierające substancje wyszczególnione w załączniku, wyprodukowane i opatrzone etykietami przed dniem 23 lipca 2016 r. zgodnie z przepisami obowiązującymi przed dniem 23 lipca 2015 r., mogą być nadal wprowadzane do obrotu i stosowane aż do wyczerpania zapasów, jeżeli są przeznaczone dla zwierząt, od których lub z których pozyskuje się żywność.
 3. Mieszanki paszowe i materiały paszowe zawierające substancje wyszczególnione w załączniku, wyprodukowane i opatrzone etykietami przed dniem 23 lipca 2017 r. zgodnie z przepisami obowiązującymi przed dniem 23 lipca 2015 r., mogą być nadal wprowadzane do obrotu i stosowane aż do wyczerpania zapasów, jeżeli są przeznaczone dla zwierząt niewykorzystywanych do produkcji żywności.
 Artykuł 3
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 2 lipca 2015 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 268 z 18.10.2003, s. 29.
 (2) Dyrektywa Rady 70/524/EWG z dnia 23 listopada 1970 r. dotycząca dodatków paszowych (Dz.U. L 270 z 14.12.1970, s. 1).
 (3) Dziennik EFSA 2013; 11(2):3103 oraz Dziennik EFSA 2013; 11(2):3104.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Numer identyfikacyjny dodatku
 Nazwa posiadacza zezwolenia
 Dodatek
 Skład, wzór chemiczny, opis, metoda analityczna
 Gatunek lub kategoria zwierzęcia
 Maksymalny wiek
 Minimalna zawartość
 Maksymalna zawartość
 Inne przepisy
 Data ważności zezwolenia
 mg substancji czynnej/kg mieszanki paszowej pełnoporcjowej o wilgotności 12 % lub mg substancji czynnej/l wody
 Kategoria: dodatki dietetyczne. Grupa funkcjonalna: witaminy, pro-witaminy i chemicznie dobrze zdefiniowane substancje o podobnym działaniu
 3a300
 —
 „Kwas askorbinowy” lub „witamina C”
 Skład dodatku
 Kwas askorbinowy
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 Kwas L-askorbinowy
 C6H8O6
 Nr CAS: 50-81-7
 Kwas L-askorbinowy, w postaci stałej, wytwarzany w procesie syntezy chemicznej.
 Kryteria czystości: min. 99 %.
 Metody analityczne
 (1)
 Do oznaczenia kwasu L-askorbinowego w dodatku paszowym: miareczkowanie – Farmakopea Europejska, monografia (Ph.Eur. 01/2011:0253).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego kwasu L-askorbinowego w premiksach i paszach: miareczkowanie.
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego kwasu L-askorbinowego w wodzie:
 —
 miareczkowanie (AOAC 967.21), lub
 —
 wysokosprawna chromatografia cieczowa w połączeniu z detekcją UV na poziomie 265 nm (EN 14130:2003).
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Kwas askorbinowy może być wprowadzany do obrotu i stosowany jako dodatek stanowiący preparat.
 2.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku i premiksów należy podać warunki przechowywania i stabilności.
 3.
 Środki bezpieczeństwa: podczas kontaktu z produktem chronić drogi oddechowe oraz używać okularów i rękawic ochronnych.
 4.
 Dodatek może być stosowany w wodzie do pojenia.
 23 lipca 2025 r.
 Numer identyfikacyjny dodatku
 Nazwa posiadacza zezwolenia
 Dodatek
 Skład, wzór chemiczny, opis, metoda analityczna
 Gatunek lub kategoria zwierzęcia
 Maksymalny wiek
 Minimalna zawartość
 Maksymalna zawartość
 Inne przepisy
 Data ważności zezwolenia
 mg substancji czynnej/kg mieszanki paszowej pełnoporcjowej o wilgotności 12 %
 Kategoria: dodatki dietetyczne. Grupa funkcjonalna: witaminy, pro-witaminy i chemicznie dobrze zdefiniowane substancje o podobnym działaniu
 3a311
 „Sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu” lub „witamina C”
 Skład dodatku
 Sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 Sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu
 C6H6O9Na3P · 2H2O
 Nr CAS: 66170-10-3
 Sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu, w postaci stałej, wytwarzana w procesie syntezy chemicznej.
 Kryteria czystości: min. 95 % przy minimalnej zawartości kwasu askorbinowego wynoszącej 45 %.
 Metody analityczne
 (2)
 Do określenia czystości soli sodowej fosforanu askorbylu i ekwiwalentu kwasu askorbinowego w dodatku paszowym: wysokosprawna chromatografia cieczowa w połączeniu z detektorem z regulacją długości fali (VWD).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego całkowitego poziomu sodu w dodatku paszowym:
 —
 atomowa spektrometria absorpcyjna, AAS (EN ISO 6869:2000), lub
 —
 atomowa spektrometria emisyjna ze wzbudzeniem w plazmie indukcyjnie sprzężonej, ICP-AES (EN 15510:2007).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego monofosforanu askorbylu w premiksach i paszach: wysokosprawna chromatografia cieczowa w połączeniu z detekcją UV na poziomie 254 nm (HPLC-UV).
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Sól sodowa fosforanu askorbylu może być wprowadzana do obrotu i stosowana jako dodatek stanowiący preparat.
 2.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku i premiksów należy podać warunki przechowywania i stabilności.
 3.
 Środki bezpieczeństwa: podczas kontaktu z preparatem należy chronić drogi oddechowe.
 23 lipca 2025 r.
 3a312
 „Sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu askorbylu” lub „witamina C”
 Skład dodatku
 Sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu askorbylu
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 Sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu askorbylu
 C6H6O9P · CaNa
 Sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu L-askorbylu, w postaci stałej, wytwarzana w procesie syntezy chemicznej.
 Kryteria czystości: min. 95 % przy minimalnej zawartości kwasu askorbinowego wynoszącej 35 %.
 Metody analityczne
 (2)
 Do określenia czystości soli sodowo-wapniowej fosforanu askorbylu i ekwiwalentu kwasu askorbinowego w dodatku paszowym: wysokosprawna chromatografia cieczowa w połączeniu z detektorem z regulacją długości fali (VWD).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego całkowitego poziomu wapnia i całkowitego poziomu sodu w dodatku paszowym:
 —
 atomowa spektrometria absorpcyjna, AAS (EN ISO 6869:2000), lub
 —
 atomowa spektrometria emisyjna ze wzbudzeniem w plazmie indukcyjnie sprzężonej, ICP-AES (EN 15510:2007).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego monofosforanu askorbylu w premiksach i paszach: wysokosprawna chromatografia cieczowa w połączeniu z detekcją UV na poziomie 254 nm (HPLC-UV).
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 1.
 Sól sodowo-wapniowa fosforanu askorbylu może być wprowadzana do obrotu i stosowana jako dodatek stanowiący preparat.
 2.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku i premiksów należy podać warunki przechowywania i stabilności.
 3.
 Dla bezpieczeństwa użytkownika: podczas kontaktu z preparatem należy chronić drogi oddechowe.
 23 lipca 2025 r.
 Numer identyfikacyjny dodatku
 Nazwa posiadacza zezwolenia
 Dodatek
 Skład, wzór chemiczny, opis, metoda analityczna
 Gatunek lub kategoria zwierzęcia
 Maksymalny wiek
 Minimalna zawartość
 Maksymalna zawartość
 Inne przepisy
 Data ważności zezwolenia
 mg substancji czynnej/kg mieszanki paszowej pełnoporcjowej o wilgotności 12 %
 Kategoria: dodatki technologiczne. Grupa funkcjonalna: przeciwutleniacze
 3a300
 —
 Kwas askorbinowy
 Skład dodatku
 Kwas askorbinowy
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 Kwas L-askorbinowy
 C6H8O6
 Nr CAS: 50-81-7
 Kwas L-askorbinowy, w postaci stałej, wytwarzany w procesie syntezy chemicznej.
 Kryteria czystości: min. 99 %.
 Metody analityczne
 (3)
 Do oznaczenia kwasu L-askorbinowego w dodatku paszowym: miareczkowanie – Farmakopea Europejska, monografia (Ph.Eur. 01/2011:0253).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego kwasu L-askorbinowego w premiksach i paszach: miareczkowanie.
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Kwas askorbinowy może być wprowadzany do obrotu i stosowany jako dodatek stanowiący preparat.
 2.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku wskazać warunki stabilności i przechowywania, a w przypadku w premiksów warunki przechowywania.
 3.
 Środki bezpieczeństwa: podczas kontaktu z produktem chronić drogi oddechowe oraz używać okularów i rękawic ochronnych.
 23 lipca 2025 r.
 1b301
 Askorbinian sodu
 Skład dodatku
 Askorbinian sodu
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 L-askorbinian sodu
 C6H7O6Na
 Nr CAS: 134-03-2
 L-askorbinian sodu, w postaci stałej, wytwarzany w procesie syntezy chemicznej.
 Kryteria czystości: min. 99 %.
 Metody analityczne
 (3)
 Do oznaczenia L-askorbinianu sodu w dodatku paszowym: miareczkowanie – Farmakopea Europejska, monografia (Ph.Eur. 01/2011:1791).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego całkowitego poziomu sodu w dodatku paszowym:
 —
 atomowa spektrometria absorpcyjna, AAS (EN ISO 6869:2000), lub
 —
 atomowa spektrometria emisyjna ze wzbudzeniem w plazmie indukcyjnie sprzężonej, ICP-AES (EN 15510:2007).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego L-askorbinianu sodu w premiksach i paszach: miareczkowanie.
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku wskazać warunki stabilności i przechowywania, a w przypadku w premiksów warunki przechowywania.
 2.
 Środki bezpieczeństwa: podczas kontaktu z produktem chronić drogi oddechowe oraz używać okularów i rękawic ochronnych.
 23 lipca 2025 r.
 1b302
 Askorbinian wapnia
 Skład dodatku
 Askorbinian wapnia
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 Odwodniony L-(+)-askorbinian wapnia
 C12H14O12Ca · 2H2O
 Nr CAS: 5743-28-2
 Odwodniony L-(+)-askorbinian wapnia, w postaci stałej, wytwarzany w procesie syntezy chemicznej.
 Kryteria czystości: min. 99 %.
 Metody analityczne
 (3)
 Do oznaczenia L-askorbinianu wapnia w dodatku paszowym: miareczkowanie – Farmakopea Europejska, monografia (Ph.Eur. 01/2008:1182).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego całkowitego poziomu wapnia w dodatku paszowym:
 —
 atomowa spektrometria absorpcyjna, AAS (EN ISO 6869:2000), lub
 —
 atomowa spektrometria emisyjna ze wzbudzeniem w plazmie indukcyjnie sprzężonej, ICP-AES (EN 15510:2007).
 Do oznaczenia ilościowego L-askorbinianu wapnia w premiksach i paszach: miareczkowanie.
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku wskazać warunki stabilności i przechowywania, a w przypadku w premiksów warunki przechowywania.
 2.
 Środki bezpieczeństwa: podczas kontaktu z produktem chronić drogi oddechowe oraz używać okularów i rękawic ochronnych.
 23 lipca 2025 r.
 1b304
 Palmitynian askorbylu
 Skład dodatku
 Palmitynian askorbylu
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 L-askorbylo-6-palmitynian
 C22H38O7
 Nr CAS: 137-66-6
 L-askorbylo-6-palmitynian, w postaci stałej, wytwarzany w procesie syntezy chemicznej.
 Kryteria czystości: min. 98 %.
 Metoda analityczna
 (3)
 Do oznaczania L-askorbylo-6-palmitynianu w dodatku paszowym:
 —
 miareczkowanie – Farmakopea Europejska, monografia (Ph.Eur. 01/2008:0807).
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku wskazać warunki stabilności i przechowywania, a w przypadku w premiksów warunki przechowywania.
 2.
 Środki bezpieczeństwa: podczas kontaktu z produktem chronić drogi oddechowe oraz używać okularów i rękawic ochronnych.
 23 lipca 2025 r.
 (1) Szczegóły dotyczące metod analitycznych można uzyskać pod następującym adresem laboratorium referencyjnego Unii Europejskiej ds. dodatków paszowych: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports.
 (2) Szczegóły dotyczące metod analitycznych można uzyskać pod następującym adresem laboratorium referencyjnego Unii Europejskiej ds. dodatków paszowych: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports.
 (3) Szczegóły dotyczące metod analitycznych można uzyskać pod następującym adresem laboratorium referencyjnego Unii Europejskiej ds. dodatków paszowych: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports.


text:
Möte 2017-10-24 | MeetingPlus [sv]
 Möte 2017-10-24
 10:00 - 15:58 Festsalen, Rådhuset
 Förutsättningar för gemensam vikarieanskaffning i Gävle kommunkoncern
 Kommunstyrelsen har i uppdrag att under 2017 utreda om en gemensam vikarieanskaffning inom Gävle Kommun kan ske effektivare och med högre kvalitet, jämfört om det förläggs som nu i varje verksamhet. En kartläggning har gjorts hur vikarieanskaffning genomförs i nuläget. Kartläggningen omfattar Utbildning Gävle (UG), Omvårdnad och Näringsliv och arbetsmarknad. Kartläggningen visar att arbetssätt skiljer sig åt mellan förvaltningarna och att två olika system (Time Care Pool och Medvind) används för genomförande av bemanningsarbetet.
 Inom Utbildning Gävle är arbetet decentraliserat och inom Omvårdnad är det samordnat i en gemensam funktion, Personalförsörjningsenheten PFV. Förvaltningarna har olika upplevelse hur bemanningsarbetet fungerar, där UG anser att processen inte fungerar optimalt, medan Omvårdnad uttrycker mer nöjdhet med sitt arbetssätt med en gemensam enhet. Det framkommer vidare tendens att vikarier slutar under lågsäsong och att det är svårt att få överblick hur många vikarier som finns i kommunen att tillsätta, samt överblick på behov. Såväl UG som Omvårdnad beskriver en trend med svårigheter att rekrytera timvikarier och vikarier. Inom Omvårdnad är det ca 260 aktiva vikarier vintertid. Sommarmånaderna, tidsperiod under ca 6 månader, omfattar ca 800 vikarier. Samtal och träffar har även genomförts tillsammans med förvaltningschefer, där en vilja förtydligats att anta ett bredare perspektiv i frågan i form av en kompetensförsörjningsfunktion, där vikarieanskaffning ingår.
 Tjänsteskrivelse - Förutsättningar för gemensam vikarieanskaffning i Gävle kommunkoncern.pdf
 Extratjänster Gävle kommunkoncern
 På uppdrag av Personalutskottet 2017-08-08 har förutsättningar utretts för hur Gävle kommunkoncern kan möjliggöra 400 Extratjänster. Som en av länets största arbetsgivare har vi genom regeringens beslut om utökning av extratjänster en möjlighet att bidra till att minska arbetslösheten i Gävle och öka mångfalden i Gävle kommun. Genom vår medverkan kan vi bidra till att stärka övergången från arbetslöshet till meningsfull sysselsättning och på så sätt medverka till att stimulera individer till arbete, utbildning och egen försörjning.
 Tjänsteskrivelse - Extratjänster Gävle kommunkoncern.pdf
 Ny medlem i gemensam nämnd för företagshälsovård
 Kommunfullmäktige beslutade den 16 december 2013 att inrätta en gemensam nämnd för samverkan inom företagshälsovård mellan dåvarande Landstinget Gävleborg och Gävle kommun. Nuvarande parter är sedan tidigare överens om att erbjuda ytterligare kommuner i Gävleborgs län att ansluta sig till nämnden. Sandvikens kommun har nu intresse att delta i den gemensamma nämnden.
 Tjänsteskrivelse - Ny medlem i gemensam nämnd för företagshälsovård.pdf
 Bilaga - Gemensam Företagshälsovård Bastjänster.pdf
 64kb Ladda ner dokument
 Avtal om samverkan gemensam företagshälsa samt reviderat reglemente .pdf
 Pensionsförutsättningar - pensionsförstärkning PA-KL
 Det har framkommit att medarbetare i Gävle kommun som omfattas av pensionsavtalet PA-KL, födda 1938 och senare och som avgått efter 1998 med ålderspension enligt PA-KL eller på grund av beviljad sjukersättning på deltid, har fått en mycket sämre pensionsutveckling än vad PA-KL var avsett för. Det innebär att vissa av medarbetarna har fått ett garantibelopp på minst 100 kr. Från och med 2017-04-27 har det tecknats ett avtal mellan parterna SKL och fackliga parter om kompletteringspension, där garantinivån har höjts till 1 200 kr. Med anledning av den uppkomna situationen har frågan blivit aktuell för arbetsgivaren Gävle kommun om pensionsförstärkning för dessa medarbetare, så att de kommer upp i den pensionsnivå som PA-KL var avsett för. Arbetsgivaren föreslår en pensions-förstärkning för dessa medarbetare så att de kommer upp i den pensionsnivå som PA-KL var avsett för från föreslaget datum.
 Taxa vid utlämnande av kopior och avskrifter av allmänna handlingar
 Enligt offentlighetsprincipen ska kommunala myndigheter och kommunala bolag vid förfrågan lämna ut kopior på allmänna handlingar (OSL 2 kap § 3). Vid utlämnande av kopior får en kommun, om fullmäktige har fastställt en taxa, ta ut avgift för att täcka vissa delar av de kostnader som är förknippade med att ta fram handlingen. Kommunledningskontoret har utarbetat ett förslag på revidering av den taxa som kommunfullmäktige tidigare beslutat om (1995-12-18 § 239). Förslaget tydliggör vad som gäller vid utlämnande av handlingar digitalt och vad som gäller vid inskanning av papperskopior. Förslaget har lämnats på remiss och arbetats om i vissa delar inför kommunstyrelsens och kommunfullmäktiges behandling.
 Yttrande från Socialnämnden - Avgifter för kopior och utskrifter av allmänna handlingar.pdf
 Yttrande från Kultur- och fritidsnämnden - Avgifter för kopior och avskrifter av allmänna handlingar .pdf
 194kb Ladda ner dokument
 Protokollsutdrag från Samhällsbyggnadsnämnden - förslag till taxa för utlämnande av allmän handlingar.pdf
 330kb Ladda ner dokument
 Protokollsutdrag från Näringslivs- och arbetsmarknadsnämnden - Förslag till taxor för utlämnande av allmänna handlingar.pdf
 983kb Ladda ner dokument
 Protokollsutdrag från Utbildningsnämnden - förslag till taxa för utlämnande av kopior på allmänna handlingar.pdf
 683kb Ladda ner dokument
 Protokollsutdrag och handling från Omvårdnadsnämnden 2017-08-31 § 135.pdf
 1019kb Ladda ner dokument
 Yttrande från AB Gavlegårdarna - Taxa för utlämnande av kopior.pdf
 Priser vid försäljning av tomträtter för bostadsändamål under år 2018 och tills vidare
 Tjänsteskrivelse - Priser vid försäljning av tomträtter för bostadsändamål under år 2018 och tills vidare .pdf
 Bilaga A - Förslag till nya friköpspriser 2018.pdf
 13kb Ladda ner dokument
 Försäljning av tomträtt – Stigslund 43:6 - Brf Källbacken
 Brf Källbacken är innehavare till tomträtten till fastigheten Stigslund 43:6 i Gävle kommun. På tomträtten finns totalt 45 st bostadsrättslägenheter. Tomträttens belägenhet framgår av karta, se kartbilaga.
 Brf Källbacken har nu framfört önskemål att tomträtten till fastigheten Stigslund 43:6 skall dödas så att föreningen därefter kan köpa fastigheten Stigslund 43:6. Samhällsbyggnad Gävle har upprättat handlingar som innebär att kommunen först överenskommer med tomträttshavaren att tomträtten skall dödas och att Brf Källbacken därefter köper fastigheten Stigslund 43:6 för en köpeskilling om 4 450 000 kronor. Tomträtten kan dödas med stöd av Samhällsbyggnadsnämndens delegation. För försäljning av fastigheten krävs dock beslut av kommunstyrelsen.
 Tjänsteskrivelse - Försäljning av tomträtt - Stigslund 43:6 - Brf Källbacken.pdf
 Kartbilaga - Försäljning av tomträtt - Stigslund 43:6 - Brf Källbacken.pdf
 930kb Ladda ner dokument
 Utskick av Sociala hållbarhetsprogrammet på remiss
 I december 2015 beslutade Kommunstyrelsen att ta ett samlat grepp om arbetet med social hållbarhet. Detta för att utveckla och systematisera arbetet samt för att tydligare integrera säkerställandet av mänskliga rättigheter i arbetet.
 Under 2016 genomfördes workshops med politiker runt begreppet social hållbarhet och de fyra målområdena. Enheten Social Hållbarhet påbörjade även sin medverkan i SKLs satsning ”Mänskliga rättigheter i ledning och styrning”. I slutet av januari 2017 bjöd verksamheten in till workshops runt mål, begrepp och ordval med interna kritiska vänner där medarbetare från verksamheterna i förvaltningar och bolag deltog.
 Under den senare delen av våren 2017 utformades programmet som färdigställdes och presenterades för den politiska styrgruppen i juni 2017. Synpunkter samlades in och programmet reviderades. Kommunstyrlesen vill nu få in synpunkter från andra verksamheter genom en remittering av programmet.
 Socialt hållbarhetsprogram - remissversion.pdf
 850kb Ladda ner dokument
 Politisk Organisation i Gävle kommun POG
 Inför kommande mandatperiod är det lämpligt och brukligt att se över kommunens politiska organisation. I Gävle har dessa organisationsöversyner antagit namnet POG (Politisk Organisation Gävle). Översynen föreslås denna gång ske i form av fullmäktigeberedning. Bestämmelser om fullmäktigeberedningar finns i kommunallagen (3 kap § 7) och i fullmäktiges arbetsordning.
 Direktiv till utredning om politisk organisation i Gävle kommun POG.pdf
 Global kommun 2018
 Gävle kommun har av Sida fått erbjudande att bli Global kommun 2018. Globala kommunen är ett kommunikationsprojekt för att öka kunskap och engagemang för global utveckling och de globala hållbarhetsmålen och deras koppling till den lokala nivån. Sida söker genom samarbete med kommuner dra nytta av befintliga lokala aktiviteter och nätverk för att nå ut med information om global utveckling och dess samband med lokal nivå till så många som möjligt. För Gävle är det en möjlighet att sätta det lokala hållbarhetsarbetet i ett sammanhang och visa hur det bidrar till den globala utvecklingen samtidigt som vi hittar former för samverkan – internt och externt. Konkret innebär det att under 2018 inkludera det globala perspektivet i befintliga/ planerade aktiviteter i form av Hållbarhetsveckan (inkl Miljögalan och Det Goda Livet i Gävle 2030), Europaveckan, Sociala frukostar och En kommun fri från våld. Sida bidrar med en budget för ny/tillkommande kommun om 500 000 kr (kommuner som deltagit tidigare och vill fortsätta 2018, erbjuds 100 000 kr). Det finns idag 7 Globala kommuner: Malmö, Norrköping, Linköping, Sundsvall, Umeå/Västerbotten, Borås, Karlstad och inför 2018 bjuds ytterligare en kommun in – Gävle.
 Tjänsteskrivelse - Global kommun 2018.pdf
 Sida - Globala Kommunen 2018.pdf
 Avsiktsförklaring medfinansiering av ny sträckning av väg 76
 Vid föregående sammanträde beslutade kommunstyrlesen att ge kommundirektören i uppdrag att verka för en överenskommelse mellan regionen och Gävle kommun om samfinansiering av ny väg 76. Gävle Kommun, företrädd av kommundirektör Göran Arnell och Regionen Gävleborg förväntas vara överens om en avsiktsförklaring enligt huvuddragen i bifogat utkast inom kort. Vissa mindre justeringar kan dock komma att ske. För att snabba upp processen föreslås att kommundirektören ges i uppdrag att slutföra och underteckna avsiktsförklaringen.
 §164 KS Samfinansiering väg 76.pdf
 Ekonomiska månadsrapporter år 2017 för Kommunstyrelsen
 Månadsuppföljning exploateringsverksamhet reavinster och förluster september 2017.pdf
 Månadsuppföljning investeringar Kommunstyrelsen januari-september 2017.pdf
 Resultaträkning Kommunstyrelsen januari-september 2017.pdf
 Ekonomiska månadsrapporter år 2017 för kommunen och de kommunala bolagen
 Kommunledningskontoret har sammanställt månadsrapporter per september 2017 för nämnder i bilaga 1 och 2 samt för bolag i stadshuskoncernen i bilaga 3.
 Bilaga 1 Månadsrapporter 2017 per september nämnder.pdf
 168kb Ladda ner dokument
 Bilaga 2 Ekonomisk sammanställning nämnder 2017 per september.pdf
 37kb Ladda ner dokument
 Bilaga 3 Månadsrapport Gävle stadshus bolagen per september 2017.pdf
 340kb Ladda ner dokument
 Protokoll och handlingar från Gästrike Vatten AB 2017-09-28.pdf
 Delegationsbeslut - Detaljplaner oktober 2017.pdf
 295kb Ladda ner dokument
 Kommunala Tillgänglighetsrådet protokoll 2017-10-02 .pdf
 Kommunstyrelsens Personalutskott - Protokoll 2017-09-26.pdf
 Gävle Vatten AB - Protokoll och handlingar 2017-09-22.pdf
 125kb Ladda ner dokument
 Protokoll Gemensam nämnd för verksamhetsstöd 2017-09-22 samt bilagor.pdf
 Kommunala Pensionärsrådet - Protokoll 2017-10-03.pdf
 Kommungaranti Skandinavien Försäkrings AB KSFAB - Protokoll 2017-08-31.pdf
 Region Gävleborg - Minnesanteckningar Länspresidieträff 2017-10-05.pdf
 Kommunstyrelsens Personalutskott - sammanträdesprotokoll 2017-10-09.pdf
 916kb Ladda ner dokument
 Protokoll Centrala Samverkansgruppen CSG 2017-09-07.pdf
 Protokoll Centrala Samverkansgruppen CSG 2017-09-28.pdf
 Protokoll Centrala Samverkansgruppen CSG 2017-08-17.pdf
 Protokoll från Gästrike Räddningstjänst 2017-09-22.pdf
 Rättelseblad delårsrapport 2 år 2017 med årsprognos för Kommunen och de kommunala bolagen, s.29, s.38-39..pdf
 721kb Ladda ner dokument
 Information/uppföljning
 Ordförande Inger KällgrenSawela (M) informerar om ett antal pågående frågor:
 Förhandlingar pågår med Region Gävleborg och berörda bolag för att möjliggöra en fortsättning av de fria resorna för pensionärer under vissa tider.
 Ett ägarsamråd för kommunalförbundet Gästrike Räddningstjänst kommer ske den 17 november i samband med Gästrikerådets sammanträde.
 Gin Akgül Hajo (V) har vid beredningen inför dagens sammanträde lyft frågan om möjligheten att lämna Nordea Bank. Ordföranden vidareförmedlar den information som ekonomidirektören har lämnat i frågan: Gävle Kommun har nyligen skrivet ett nytt avtal med Nordea om betalningsförmedling som gäller fram till 2021-03-30. Avtalet är upphandlat enligt LOU och leverantören uppfyller de krav som ställdes vid upphandlingen. Vart bolaget har sitt säte är inte en tillåten avgränsning enligt LOU.
 Therese Metz (MP) har vid beredningen inför dagens sammanträde lyft frågan om boendelösning för ensamkommande ungdomar som fyllt 18 år och väntar på ett asylbeslut. Migrationsverket har bjudits in till ett kommande sammanträde med kommunstyrelsen i frågan.
 Richard Carlsson (SD) lyfter vid sammanträdet frågan om den senaste tidens händelser i Sätra. Kommunalrådet Jan Mylés (KD) informerar om de kontakter som finns med föreningsliv och polis och den manifestation som kommer att genomföras i området. Frågan kommer att aktualiseras igen.
 Under den senare delen av våren 2017 utformades programmet som färdigställdes och presenterades för den politiska styrgruppen i juni 2017. Synpunkter samlades in och programmet reviderades. Kommunstyrelsen vill nu få in synpunkter från andra verksamheter genom en remittering av programmet.
 Inför kommande mandatperiod är det lämpligt och brukligt att se över kommunens politiska organisation. I Gävle har dessa organisationsöversyner antagit namnet POG (Politisk Organisation Gävle). POG utredningens uppdrag är ytterst att göra en översyn av om den politiska styrningen behöver förändras vad gäller fördelningen av ansvarsområden och struktur mellan nämnder och mellan nämnder och bolag. Översynen föreslås denna gång ske i form av fullmäktigeberedning. Bestämmelser om fullmäktigeberedningar finns i kommunallagen (3 kap § 7) och i fullmäktiges arbetsordning.
 Vid föregående sammanträde beslutade kommunstyrelsen att ge kommundirektören i uppdrag att verka för en överenskommelse mellan regionen och Gävle kommun om samfinansiering av ny väg 76. Gävle Kommun, företrädd av kommundirektör Göran Arnell och Regionen Gävleborg förväntas vara överens om en avsiktsförklaring enligt huvuddragen i bifogat utkast inom kort. Vissa mindre justeringar kan dock komma att ske. För att snabba upp processen föreslås att kommundirektören ges i uppdrag att slutföra och underteckna avsiktsförklaringen..


text:
Saiba o tempo considerado razoável, bem como os limites e o direito à indenização
 Infelizmente os bancos são bem pouco ou quase nada fiscalizados, o que os deixa mais livre e mais propensos a cometer essas pequenas infrações. Por conta de todo o poder econômico que os bancos possuem e por causa da ausência de "atitude", digamos assim, dos consumidores, a prática de deixar o cliente esperando mais do que o tempo permitido por lei está mais do que comum entre todas as instituições bancárias.
 A Lei no 4225 de 25 de março de 2002 assim nos diz:
 Artigo 1o - Ficam as agências bancárias, no âmbito do Município, obrigadas a colocar à disposição dos usuários pessoal suficiente, no setor de caixas, para que o atendimento seja efetivado em tempo razoável. Artigo 2o - Para os efeitos desta lei, entende-se como tempo razoável para atendimento, até 25 minutos. (grifo nosso) Artigo 3o - As agências bancárias deverão fixar, nas áreas de espera e junto aos caixas, cartazes alusivos aos direitos estabelecidos na presente lei e seu regulamento, legíveis a uma distância de 1,50 m (um metro e cinqüenta centímetros), contendo no mínimo: o tempo máximo para atendimento ao cliente, conforme o artigo 2o desta lei e o endereço e telefone do Órgão de Defesa do Consumidor - PROCON de Botucatu, encarregado de zelar pelo cumprimento desta lei. Artigo 4o - Para comprovação do horário de permanência do cliente na agência bancária, utilizar-se-á sistema eletrônico de senha, cujo comprovante deverá conter data e horário de retirada pelo cliente. Artigo 5o - O caixa ou funcionamento do banco responsável pelo atendimento do cliente, deverá inserir no comprovante a data, e principalmente, o horário de atendimento, através de autenticação mecânica, ou, na impossibilidade desta, à mão, com respectiva rúbrica. Artigo 6o - As agências bancárias têm o prazo de 90 (noventa) dias, a contar da data desta lei, para adaptarem-se às suas disposições. Artigo 7o - O não cumprimento das disposições desta lei sujeitará o infrator às seguintes punições: advertência; multa de 500 UFIRs (Unidades Fiscais de Referência), no caso de reincidência e multa de 5000 UFIRs no caso de segunda reincidência e suspensão do alvará de funcionamento na terceira reincidência. Artigo 8o - As denúncias, devidamente comprovadas, deverão ser encaminhadas ao Órgão de Defesa do Consumidor - PROCON de Botucatu, encarregado de zelar pelo cumprimento da lei.
 Note que as senhas, obrigatoriamente, devem contem a data e o horário, para que lhe seja possível controlar o tempo de espera. Esse documento lhe servirá como documento para ingressar com demanda administrativa ou judicial. Diante do descumprimento desse dispositivo legal, o consumidor deverá denunciar a instituição financeira ao próprio SAC e ao PROCON, além, claro que poder recorrer ao judiciário para a busca de indenização, dependendo de cada caso concreto. Recentemente tivemos julgados favoráveis visando a indenização por dano moral de cliente que esperou 1 hr e 40 minutos para ser atendido. A sentença condenou a instituição financeira a pagar 10 (dez) salários mínimos ao consumidor lesado. Faço esse artigo para alertar os consumidores de seus direitos, bem como que eles devem ir atrás dos mesmos, não aceitando tudo o que lhe são impostos. Procurem seus direitos, fale com seu advogado, as instituições bancárias precisam respeitar os seus clientes e fornecer tratamento digno a eles.
 Veja mais em: http://ericaavallone.blogspot.com.br/2015/05/espera-em-fila-de-bancos-gera.html
 No 120608 - enviada por Álvaro Pozzetti de Oliveira - Bauru/