Denied tenancy because of previous eviction!! (deposit, inspection, house, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have a little thing called discovery that can bring these facts to light real quick.
I guess the first thing we need to do is separate fact from my hypothetical internet situation. As I recall, (it was over 10 years ago, after all, when my wife and I moved and rented out our house instead of selling) it is true that I had 14 applicants, most of them were qualified. It is true that I basically just picked at random, at that point. And being the first time I did it, I didn't take deposits or ran credit/background checks. So I assume your concern is my hypothetical.
The hypothetical: if you're saying that random selection of qualified candidates is not sufficient denial reason to tell 13 unsuccessful applicants, I'll hear your concern (see question below). But it's my opinion that this "extreme level of transparency" into an individual's selection process amongst many tenants is taking things a little far. Should Price Waterhouse audit every individual landlord's selection every time to ensure compliance? Validate the coin toss? That's all I'm saying.
So you're advocating lying to sidestep the law?
I'm quite confident I followed all laws in the property's location - over 10 years ago. I've conceded in an earlier post that if you have only one applicant, you darn well better be on solid ground, so no advocating for sidestepping there. In my EXAMPLE where I extracted my 14-applicant experience to another situation, I don't think it's sidestepping the law to say 'competition.' I'm on record in the questioned previous post that I'm fine with the law.
I'm answering your questions, please answer one for me: what do you suggest? A personalized detailed reason for each denied applicant? For example: applicant 7 = denied due to number of applicants plus lower credit score than average applicant plus xyz. applicant 10 = denied due to number of applicants plus grand theft conviction plus etc, etc. You're saying, citing 'competition' which is the TRUE primary factor, in this case is not reason enough in the eyes of the law?
If yes, while my property has been under a property management company for many years now, if this is what will someday be required and attempted to enforce everywhere, I'm guessing one thing you and I can agree on for sure is that it is time for me to sell.
Do you advocate tenants to lie to sidestep the laws or their rental agreements?
Nope. Quite the opposite. See my recent post of an offer to help a tenant with legal strategies to "keep their landlord honest." What I advocate are mutually respectful relationships between landlords and tenants. And I'm advocating that if 14 people apply for a rental, I feel 'competition' is reason enough for those denied, and not having to find something wrong with their report when there is nothing wrong.
Wanna bet? See the above point about discovery.
Uh, it was hypothetical. I am seriously interested, however, of seeing any case where a landlord was taken to task for how they managed (or mis-managed) an extreme-high-demand rental. Seriously.
You know what else is discoverable? Posts on forums like this. I've seen it done before. I see worse public comments on Facebook every day. What do you think would happen to your credibility if you ever have to have this matter litigated and have to disclose which forums you post on along with your username, and it turns up posts like these where you flagrantly admit you will lie?
If I ever had this matter litigated?! IT WAS A FRIGGEN HYPOTHETICAL INTERNET SITUATION!!!!
Ha ha, my 14-applicant situation was over 10 years ago and not subject to the law you cited. I followed the law in my state. There is nothing to worry about. I've filled three vacancies personally, the last over 7 years ago. There is no matter to litigate. FACT: I once had 14 applicants. HYPOTHETICAL: I extracted that to an example and said I wouldn't cite more of a reason than competition. FACT: You corrected me about a law. But I'm STILL not convinced the law REQUIRES landlords to cite a specific credit report reason on an individual-by-individual basis in a many-applicant situation. But I'll listen.
Jeez. You've really singled out my opinion. There are many other people in this thread and all over this board openly admitting they would use eviction proceeding as a criteria. I'd say 99%. An awful lot of anger directed at someone who know longer "landlords" and is just spitballin' on a quiet Friday afternoon! My comments here are generally pretty moderate and fair towards tenants except for a comment on a hypothetical situation that you are pushing.
And I take issue with the general concept that a tenant could be punished for defending themselves in a court of law. Attitudes like yours and Bentlebee's would basically leave a tenant with no option other than rolling over and taking whatever the landlord demanded.
Once upon a time, I was driving and I was hit. It was not my fault. My car insurance still went up. So I don't like the concept either. Even to this day, an insurance company asks if you've had accidents the last three years. They don't ask if it was your fault. I don't like it. But there is precedent. Life isn't always fair.
That's not even remotely acceptable, and thankfully the law is starting to catch up and correct this injustice.
There is a reason I've had multiple tenants stay 5+ years. My wife and I treat people well. And we make sure our management company does the same.
This guy I worked with a long time ago told me about when his LL was trying to evict him. He lived in a trailer house on a lot, the LL wanted to terminate the lease early because the LL wanted to renovate the entire trailer and put it on the market (this was during the property boom years). Of course my co-worker did not want to terminate the lease early, so the LL started doing all kinds of weird accusations against him in trying to craft that my co-worker was breaking the lease agreement, thus conditions for removal. The most extreme measures was the LL stated there was an unauthorized cat there (no pets were allowed), and one time even dropped a dog over the fence and claimed that my co-worker had a dog.
Little did the LL know, the people across the street had two cameras facing the LL's property, so every little thing was filmed, and the two people living across the street were natural nosy people, and did not personally even like the LL, so they provided great testimony for my co-worker.
I do not know all the specifics, but the LL did try to evict him, and it did not work at all. The LL eventually offered some lump sum amount to early terminate and my co-worker took the offer.
I guess the first thing we need to do is separate fact from my hypothetical internet situation.
So you only advocate breaking the law hypothetically, not literally?
Ok. That seems like a weird basis for a conversation but, whatever.
Quote:
I'm answering your questions, please answer one for me: what do you suggest? A personalized detailed reason for each denied applicant? For example: applicant 7 = denied due to number of applicants plus lower credit score than average applicant plus xyz. applicant 10 = denied due to number of applicants plus grand theft conviction plus etc, etc. You're saying, citing 'competition' which is the TRUE primary factor, in this case is not reason enough in the eyes of the law?
My question is, how would you even get yourself in this situation to begin with? The solution (which is S.O.P for every landlord I've ever known) is this:
- Have your written criteria for tenant approval.
- Run the background/credit/whatever of the first person who applied.
- If applicant #1 fails, send them the required notice(s) along with reason for denial.
- Repeat process with applicant #2, and progress on down the line as needed.
- Everyone who is behind the first acceptable candidate on the list gets a letter stating as such and a refund of their application fees.
Completely fair, ethical and legal. If you're following this process, you shouldn't have to deal with your issue, ever.
Quote:
Once upon a time, I was driving and I was hit. It was not my fault. My car insurance still went up. So I don't like the concept either. Even to this day, an insurance company asks if you've had accidents the last three years. They don't ask if it was your fault. I don't like it. But there is precedent. Life isn't always fair.
So you agree that a tenant being punished for winning a court case is unfair? Excellent. So then what is your objection to the laws which prevent it?
So you only advocate breaking the law hypothetically, not literally?
Ok. That seems like a weird basis for a conversation but, whatever.
My question is, how would you even get yourself in this situation to begin with? The solution (which is S.O.P for every landlord I've ever known) is this:
- Have your written criteria for tenant approval.
- Run the background/credit/whatever of the first person who applied.
- If applicant #1 fails, send them the required notice(s) along with reason for denial.
- Repeat process with applicant #2, and progress on down the line as needed.
- Everyone who is behind the first acceptable candidate on the list gets a letter stating as such and a refund of their application fees.
Completely fair, ethical and legal. If you're following this process, you shouldn't have to deal with your issue, ever.
So you agree that a tenant being punished for winning a court case is unfair? Excellent. So then what is your objection to the laws which prevent it?
The way you get into the situation, is you hold an open house and let people fill out applications on the spot. You can have several people standing around filling out applications, so you don't track first person that applied, second person, etc....you go through them all later. If there is a law that says you gotta go first come, first serve, I guess landlords have to start doing that. And this happens more than you think, especially for private landlords. Here in Austin (where my properties are NOT located) it is well known that occupancy rates are at all time highs, over 97%; tenants know to show up with their info. My guess is that a lot of private landlords, in a good and competitive market, simply go the "open house" route and don't schedule endless appointments.
So, that's how I've seen 5+ applicant situations.
I've gone on record saying I'm fine with the law. I just don't/didn't interpret the law to mean that a landlord can't take 10 applications at an open house and (going all the way back to my original post) tell the nine denied folks THE TRUTH that "I selected from many qualified candidates." If you convince me that this TRUE reason is now (in some areas) LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT to tell the other nine applicants, and someone could take a landlord to court for not providing more explicit detail for each, then I am wrong.
And if I'm wrong and private landlords lose too much control of not just who they can rent to but the extent of personalized rejection they must provide, I've noted that it will be time for me to get out of the business (though I'm barely involved any longer). You buyin'?
He doesn't want to be in a situation where he's trying to evict you unsuccessfully, since he knows this has already happened to you before. In some sense, it might be easier if you were successfully evicted because now he may be worried that he might have good cause to evict you and not be able to.
Note that I am not saying he has the legal right to do this... it just seems clear to me what his concerns are.
You need to hire a lawyer and get that case removed from the record. Although the landlord probably has no legal right to refuse you as a tenant on these grounds, this problem may follow you around.
The way you get into the situation, is you hold an open house and let people fill out applications on the spot. You can have several people standing around filling out applications, so you don't track first person that applied, second person, etc....you go through them all later. If there is a law that says you gotta go first come, first serve, I guess landlords have to start doing that. And this happens more than you think, especially for private landlords. Here in Austin (where my properties are NOT located) it is well known that occupancy rates are at all time highs, over 97%; tenants know to show up with their info. My guess is that a lot of private landlords, in a good and competitive market, simply go the "open house" route and don't schedule endless appointments.
So, that's how I've seen 5+ applicant situations.
Even if you don't process the applications chronologically, you shouldn't be in that situation. Pick one, run it. Approve or deny. Move on to the next.
So simple.
Quote:
I've gone on record saying I'm fine with the law. I just don't/didn't interpret the law to mean that a landlord can't take 10 applications at an open house and (going all the way back to my original post) tell the nine denied folks THE TRUTH that "I selected from many qualified candidates." If you convince me that this TRUE reason is now (in some areas) LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT to tell the other nine applicants, and someone could take a landlord to court for not providing more explicit detail for each, then I am wrong.
Quote:
Perhaps it was nothing in their report (or nothing that I'd admit to).
You can't reconcile these two points. They are in direct contradiction.
Even if you don't process the applications chronologically, you shouldn't be in that situation. Pick one, run it. Approve or deny. Move on to the next.
So simple.
.
Wonderful. We agree on the simple process. Landlords can avoid being in that situation if the first one they run is approved. I would've thought, it was MORE fair to give consideration to all 14 applicants that took the time to fill out the paperwork and gave the landlord their personal info such as SSN, but I stand corrected. But you still might have to tell the other 13 something. Does this work?: "You were not evaluated because there were 14 applications and the first one landlord randomly checked was approved."
Now, if one of the 14 applicants put on their application they are willing to pay an extra $100 per month, can the landlord run that application first? Because, based on what I read, people offer extra $$$$ all the time in Austin and competitive markets everywhere. In fact, many websites (including legal site Nolo), suggest that in competitive markets prospective tenants offer to sweeten the pot and offer higher and/or prepaid rent. I personally know a guy who landed a highly-desirable place after offering to buy a new fridge.
In the end, I still suspect 90% of private landlords in high-demand situations wouldn't give any reason for denials at all - they may not know any better, and think the job is done once they took deposit. Or, may not be obligated by law depending on whether they do background checks.
Wonderful. We agree on the simple process. Landlords can avoid being in that situation if the first one they run is approved. I would've thought, it was MORE fair to give consideration to all 14 applicants that took the time to fill out the paperwork and gave the landlord their personal info such as SSN, but I stand corrected. But you still might have to tell the other 13 something. Does this work?: "You were not evaluated because there were 14 applications and the first one landlord randomly checked was approved."
It does not work like that, and hope someone nails you or anyone who does do that. Taking numerous applicants is a little shady business among some LL's, no better way to collect a quick buck than collect about 20 applicants and "evaluate" all of them.
Now, if you are not talking about actually taking their fees, I see nothing wrong with it. Some places can have 14 applicants in two days, before you even have time to get to it. But I disagree with taking a fee from all of them in some absurd notion of "fairness".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitiesThatStartWithA
Now, if one of the 14 applicants put on their application they are willing to pay an extra $100 per month, can the landlord run that application first? Because, based on what I read, people offer extra $$$$ all the time in Austin and competitive markets everywhere. In fact, many websites (including legal site Nolo), suggest that in competitive markets prospective tenants offer to sweeten the pot and offer higher and/or prepaid rent. I personally know a guy who landed a highly-desirable place after offering to buy a new fridge.
It is fine to take bids, however, you cannot take application fees and not offer everyone an equal chance to input a bid. You cannot say "I like the guy offering $100 more and will take him", but go on ahead and take everyone's applications fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitiesThatStartWithA
In the end, I still suspect 90% of private landlords in high-demand situations wouldn't give any reason for denials at all - they may not know any better, and think the job is done once they took deposit. Or, may not be obligated by law depending on whether they do background checks.
The only denials I ever known people getting were explained and had to do with the income requirement, all were resolved in the tenants favor when they provided more evidence.
It does not work like that, and hope someone nails you or anyone who does do that. Taking numerous applicants is a little shady business among some LL's, no better way to collect a quick buck than collect about 20 applicants and "evaluate" all of them.
Now, if you are not talking about actually taking their fees, I see nothing wrong with it. Some places can have 14 applicants in two days, before you even have time to get to it. But I disagree with taking a fee from all of them in some absurd notion of "fairness".
It is fine to take bids, however, you cannot take application fees and not offer everyone an equal chance to input a bid. You cannot say "I like the guy offering $100 more and will take him", but go on ahead and take everyone's applications fees.
The only denials I ever known people getting were explained and had to do with the income requirement, all were resolved in the tenants favor when they provided more evidence.
Oh, we definitely agree on point one. While I haven't been involved in renting places for over 7 years, I've gone on record earlier in this thread that when I did, I NEVER kept an application fee, NOT EVEN from the successful applicant (applied it to their security). Totally agree it's sleazy.
Same for the second comment. Not a fan of landlords playing games with application fees.
Point 3, agree and your point is taken. The point I had a hard time getting clarity is the best / legal way to turn down multiple applicants in a multiple applicant situation because I've seen it; just wondering what level of transparency and explanation is required these days. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about it.
Thank you. This thread has slowly been hijacked, and I'm exceeding my self-imposed 15 post per year limit so y'all probably won't hear much more from me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
