My husband and I are in the process of finding tenants for our first true investment property (second rental). I’ve had two inquiries but only one who has responded to my prescreening questions so far. In my ad I am clear about my requirements (3x rent, no pets, no smoking, credit score 650 or above...). In her response she said that she has an ESA and her roommate has a dog. She also said that since they are young they meet the income requirements but may not meet the credit criteria and asked if we accept co-signers. We have never done a co-signer before, so I’m torn if that would be a good idea or not. If we do I would want to verify income, and do a credit check but I’m not sure what income level we would look for. Wondering if we should pass since they technically don’t meet two of the criteria (I know can’t deny due to ESA). Or I’m wondering if the co-signer seems reliable if we should be flexible on the dog part and require a non-refundable pet deposit and pet rent. Or wondering if we should do twice the security deposit if not meeting credit criteria? Thanks everyone for any advice you have!!

What I have read in your post is that you have screening standards but are prepared to completely ignore those standards and accept a applicant that does not even come close to qualifying. If that is the case you are off to a very bad start in this business if you go down that road.

If you have screening standards why would you be considering accepting any applicant that does not qualify.

If you compromise your standards you are opening the door to failure. Don't ever try to find ways to make a clearly unqualified applicant fit. Co-signers do not provide you with any more security.

You need to add a new screening standard...we do not accept co-signers.

Why are you wasting time on this applicant, are you a despirate landlord ????.  Pass please. 

@Thomas S. That is what I keep going back to in my head. The thing is while I would prefer no pets, we have wondered if we will limit ourselves too much because the majority of people in the area the house is in have pets. So we have considered allowing pets anyways because of the area, which could be good if they truely are responsible and we could get more monthly rent with a pet fee. I really am just curious what their credit check looks like, and what their current and previous landloards say about them.

@Thomas S. is correct: set standards and hold to them. There are times to deviate, but they should be rare and for good reason. These tenants have multiple red flags:

1. ESA is an indication she doesn't mind cheating the system (most likely scenario) or that she has mental issues that can affect other areas of her life. You can't discriminate against her or the animal, but it's a red flag to watch for.

2.  They are young which means they are unproven.

3. They have no credit or bad credit which means they are unproven.

4. They are roommates which means they are pooling resources to afford something they normally couldn't. There's a good chance the relationship will fail, one of them will leave, and the remaining tenant won't be able to afford the place.

5. I'm sure they know pet-friendly rentals are difficult to come by yet they both have animals. This inability to delay personal gratification for the purpose of securing affordable housing demonstrates immaturity. I see it all the time in every age group but young people are especially bad.

Sorry, but I would give this a hard pass.

I love pets. I think most pet owners are responsible. With over 300 rentals under management, I honestly can't remember the last time a pet caused damage that wasn't covered by the tenant and/or their deposit. I encourage owners to allow them because they can typically make more money and tenants tend to stay longer.

You have to establish standards that mitigate your risk and then stick to them.

Totally agree with @Thomas S. and @Nathan G. There are too many renters out there looking for a nice place. At least in our area, we have so many qualified people looking, I would never settle for less than my requirements. Like Nathan said, they are unproven people (financially speaking). Why would you take that risk?