TRUTH ABOUT SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY (?)

THE TRUTH ABOUT SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY In a bold move, to consolidate even more power, over its population, the Springfield (Illinois) Housing Authority would make a bold move, which few, before this, would have considered making. In March, 2011, when a tenant was facing an upcoming court date, over a question, of rent payment, the Accounts Receivable Clerk, of S.H.A. would choose, of their own, free, will, to turn away an April 2011 rent payment, made via money order. The Accounts Receivable clerk would rationalize this action by saying that, "In my personal belief, the tenant was due to be evicted, in the upcoming court case". As a result, the Accounts Receivable clerk chose NOT to POST a rent payment, to Accounts Receivable. Six months later, when the tenant was facing another court date, for "refusal to pay rent", a Sangamon County judge would review the evidence, of the case, including money order receipts, then announce: "I dont care how many receipts the defendant has. I refuse to rule against management". In the two-plus years, since the tenants eviction, what S.H.A. has never even tried to explain is the reason why the Accounts Receivable clerk halted/stopped al collections actions, against the evicted tenant, for monies allegedly due the agency, after just two collections attempts. One out-of-state collections attempt One local, collections, attempt What was even more suspicious, about this case, is how no one, in positions of authority, wants to get involved, with this issue, especially once the authorities realize that the former tenant retains proof of attempted payment (money order receipts). This includes federal, state, and local branches of government. Once the existance, of receipts, is proven, no one wants to come near the case. What makes one wonder, about this case, is why Springfield Housing Authority has not pursued collections, as is their right, under law. WHY did the Accounts Receivable clerk stop all collections actions, after just two attempts? WHY wasn't the former tenant been pursued, for the alleged debt? WHY does the agency just let this "debt" lie, dormant? If the tenant was so "terrible", then WHY did management allow the tenant to maintain a unit on agency property, for over ten years? Especially when most "trouble" tenants are lucky to stay, on a property, for three, to six months. What is the truth about the agencies newest policy, which the Accounts Receivable clerk states is the following: "Delivery, of rent payments, in any form, do NOT matter. All that matters is whether or not I CHOOSE to POST the payments, to Accounts Receivable. If I choose NOT to POST a payment, then the tenant goes into late rent status, regardless of when original payment was delivered" The agency also, now, uses this new "guideline", to place tenants onto the BARRED list, as a result of management declining to POST rent payments. If S.H.A. chooses not to POST a persons rent payment, then the person is legally prohibited from approaching agency property. Truth? Depends upon ones point of view, doesn't it?