There is a recent discussion on-going in the Multifamily Insiders Group regarding obtaining rental verifications in a timely manner. I posted a response that included what an attorney said regarding verifying a past resident:
Share I once took a class on this very topic where the attorney leading the class asked us why we were afraid of being sued for giving our opinion and/or answering a question factually. For example, the question, "Would you rent to this person again?" is really an opinion-related question. If YOU wouldn't rent to this person again, then say so, he said. After all, you are entitled to your opinion. Frankly, I agreed. Another example is the question, "Did the person pay rent on time?" Easy - either yes, they did, or no, they did not. There is no need to embelish in any other way. The problem is that people will sue or thresten to sue over the littlest things, and yes, my management company does not provide verifications other than the dates of occupancy for that reason for the conventional properties. However, for the Section 8 properties, Applicants can't be approved until the verifications have been received from prior landlord(s). But I still smile when I remember that attorney looking at us and asking us if we were not entitled to our opinions
Someone posted this response:
For my community, the "would you rent again" question is easy and does not involve my opinion. If they meet our criteria, we would, and should, rent to them.
Personal opinion is not part of our qualification criteria.
All of the information is taken straight from their file. If they have more than four non-compliance notices of the same type, we would not rent to them again. If they have more than four late payments, we would not re-rent. If they have a pet snake or pet spider and the manager is afraid of it and thus doesn't like them, tough. It is our job as community managers to be professional and leave our personal opinions out of the office.
Even if a prospect doesn't meet our criteria, we still treat them the same way we would anyone else. That's the law, and it's not subjective.
I was taken aback a bit at the terseness of the response. Of course, personal opinion is not part of ANYONE'S qualification process. That wasn't the point of the story. Additionally, I feel it is interesting that this responder states "If they have more than four non-compliance notices of the same type, we would not rent to them again." Really? You allow someone to intefere with their neighbors' rights to peaceful and quiet enjoyment at least FOUR TIMES before you actually do something to prevent them from continuing their behavior? I don't get it. I know exactly what this means, as this is not "my first rodeo." For those who haven't thought about this before - this means the management of this property allows someone to become a problem on at least four occasions for all complaining activities. This could be noise complaints, not cleaning up after their pet(s), not complying with housekeeping standards, not paying rent on time, causing property damage, parking in towaway zones, not complying with community rules in the Common areas (pool, workout facility, playgrounds, grill areas, tennis courts ... you get the idea.) For these 7 activities of non-compliance, this management office will issue up to 4 letters of non-compliance, which, to me, means the neighbors may be subjected to 28 times of being annoyed, inconvenienced, or treated un-neighborly.
Think about that - 28 instances of being unhappy. Of course, I am not implying that this person has allowed this at her community. However, to all Lessees out there, this is actually what could occur. In my opinion, the first time someone is non-compliant gives me pause to consider whether or not I would re-rent to them, even if they could qualify on credit and criminal background checks. This, as the attorney in my story said, is the reason that as a Lessor, you have the right to say you would not rent to someone again. I absolutely understand that company policy may restrict what information is provided for verification purposes and I respect those instructions.
I also find it interesting that since this particular person is not afraid of snakes, then management companies should allow this type of exoctic animal to reside in a multifamily community. If the manager is scared, then tough, she writes. I feel I can be professional and still have an opinion on a topic, and that opinion should be respected. I disagree strongly that managers must not have a personal opinion. I feel strongly that all topics should be reviewed thoroughly and all points of view considered before policy is interjected and arbitrarily approved. Some cities may prohibit exoctic pets and therefore an apartment community may not accept them whether or not your opinion differs.
How ridiculous of the above person to presume that Prospective Renters are not treated the same as anyone else? Just because one person may have a contrary opinion should not imply he will not comply with company policy and procedure. How many times have you received a verification form with the answer to the question: "Would you rent to this peson again?" filled out "If qualified ...." I understand what that means - it means, "Hell, No. You should see what's in their file ...."
To me, the response, "If qualified" means there are stories to tell. And I, for one, want to hear them. At least, that's my opinion.
