New Haven, CT · Member since 2013 · 222 posts · 134 votes
Ok so I was having this debate with a local landlord and I’d like to hear your opinion…. You charge $25 for your application fee. You show the house to a nice couple and they want to apply but they don’t speak, read or write English. They have an interpreter there to help them fill out the application and the interpreter would also be there to help them understand and sign your lease agreement if they’re granted the rental. And of course you don’t speak their language. Would you automatically disqualify them? If so, would you still take their $25 application fee knowing that they’re not going to get the rental? Let’s keep in mind that we’re all ETHICAL investors AND we don’t want to be sued for DISCRIMINATION.
Okay, a deaf person would be considered disabled. But you still can't discriminate against someone because they don't speak English if they have an interpreter.
Here is a case from the HUD website from 2013 for a Virginia company that had to pay a $82,500 settlement because they refused to rent to a Hispanic woman who didn't speak English.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the rental of housing on the basis of national origin.
“Denying housing because a person does not speak English well violates the Fair Housing Act,” said John Trasviña, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “This settlement reaffirms HUD’s commitment to combating discrimination against a person because of their national origin or the language they speak.”
I knew when I posted about an official language it had the potential to take this off track, but thought that it was relevant because of the impact foreign languages have on business in regard to costs, etc. But, let's reel it in and not start chasing religion, sexual orientation, etc. down the rabbit hole, and take official language out of the conversation too. Thanks!
So, the OP's topic/question was would you disqualify a tenant because they did not speak English. Here it would be illegal to do that and, based on what Dawn and KMP dug up, it may be in your country as well. Legality aside, it makes good business sense to stretch a little to support your customers, specially when the cost to you is marginal.
The element of official languages is relevant to many of us here on BP and plays a role in the response to the OP's question. In our particular context, if the tenant applicant did not speak English, but they spoke French, they have the right to choose to be served in French, because it is an official language of the Province. In that case, we would provide them the standard form lease and our schedules in French.
We are not obligated to provide an applicant with materials translated in any language other than one of the two official languages, however that does not provide us with the right to refuse their applications based solely on the fact they speak neither English or French.
Does having to operate in two languages cost us more? Here we use a standard lease, so the Office of the Rentalsman supplies that form in both official languages. We did have to translate our schedules to that lease, however we drafted both copies internally and then bartered with a friend who is a translator to have them reviewed. So the cost would have been a few hundred dollars. The payback came the first time we executed a lease in each language.
@Roy N. The question wasn't whether or not someone should disqualify a tenant because of their language. The question was whether or not it's considered legal discrimination. In most instances it is. In a few instances there's exemptions.
In America we don't have the luxury of having an "official language"or 5 or 10, and I can see where it could be a real hardship for some people to deal with. (and that's my opinion, not the law) This will be my last post on this subject, I think it's run its course.
As an American that only speaks English and has lived in other countries and experienced language barriers, of course I would still consider renting to them. As long as there is still SOME method of communication then it shouldn't make a difference.
HUD says the ways this was handled was discriminatory. Many here are saying they won't rent to people won can't communicate at least partly in English. How could this have been resolved without discrimination? How can you keep yourself from getting sued?
HUD says the ways this was handled was discriminatory. Many here are saying they won't rent to people won can't communicate at least partly in English. How could this have been resolved without discrimination? How can you keep yourself from getting sued?
David: I'm going to start a new thread with the above link. This is a good example of possible discrimination based on national origin that is confusing to many.
HUD says the ways this was handled was discriminatory. Many here are saying they won't rent to people won can't communicate at least partly in English. How could this have been resolved without discrimination? How can you keep yourself from getting sued?
The problem was that the landlord said they had to pay $500 for a translation service to translate the contract and get paid by the word. Supposedly he was charging this fee because he said he needed to be sure they completely understood what they were signing.
HUD said he couldn't charge them a fee that he didn't charge other applicants. Treating them differently, and requiring that $500 fee was discriminatory.
If you read further down, it says the son has a real estate agent license. Therefore, he would have spoken English and understood contracts and could explain and translate.
The guy was a jerk. This isn't about landlords being required to pay for $500 translation services. It's about a landlord saying they couldn't rent from him unless they paid a $500 translation fee to translate the contract into their language.