Investor · Washington, Washington D.C. · Member since 2012 · 240 posts · 168 votes
The applicant, a single woman, has 4 kids. My rental in Baltimore city has two legal bedrooms plus a 3rd "bonus room" upstairs that has no exterior window or closet, so we advertise it as a 2-bedroom. Occupancy guidelines call for 2 occupants per bedroom plus one. So they are at the limit. I am not allowed, of course, to turn her down based solely on her familial status, especially if they meet the occupancy guidelines.
She has held a steady job since 2002 and is generating more than 3x the rental amount. On the other hand she is supporting four kids. I don't know if her first priority will/can be paying the rent.
If her financial/criminal/previous landlord records check out I'm inclined to accept her with a bigger security deposit, so that she has a stake in keeping up the house, as her money will pay for repairs beyond normal wear and tear. I'm also thinking about offering incentives for good upkeep.
I'd be interested in your thoughts about this. FWIW, I own the house outright. I want very much to rent it but don't have to settle for just anyone.
There will likely be different opinions on this, but if she falls within the occupancy guidelines for your city and she has had a steady job for over TEN years and makes more than the required 3x minimum...I wouldn't have a problem accepting her as long as everything else checks out. And I would think that housing for her four kids would be a priority for her. Afterall, if shelter for her children isn't a priority, what would be?
There will likely be different opinions on this, but if she falls within the occupancy guidelines for your city and she has had a steady job for over TEN years and makes more than the required 3x minimum...I wouldn't have a problem accepting her as long as everything else checks out. And I would think that housing for her four kids would be a priority for her. Afterall, if shelter for her children isn't a priority, what would be?
But my biggest concern would be, how big was the place they are moving from and why are they moving. This would/could go a long way in helping me assess the situation. Also, how old/big are the kids? Does she get child support? Are there an even number of boys and/or girls so that they can be seperated two per room without mixing boys and girls?
Also, do they plan on having pets? If so, that would put it over the edge for me and I could not accept that. Do you have an opportunity to drop in with a surprise visit to her existing place? Maybe you could bring a form by? Do you have any other applicants? How good are your prospects for getting a better applicant?
Many thanks for all your comments. Here is some new information, and Brian, this speaks directly to your questions. She left some information off her application so my property manager called her and learned she was moving b/c she had been evicted. She would not tell him why, and she would not provide contact information for the landlord. I have stopped work on the application.
Still, some questions remain for the next time, and I'm hoping the forum can help me understand a few things. I can't reject anyone based solely on his/her familial status, so is it even legal to ask questions about kids' ages, genders, sleeping arrangements? I wondered exactly the same things Brian asked about, because it seemed like it would be such a tight fit. But I was afraid to ask.
Also, when judging the applicant's capability to pay rent, am I allowed to consider the size of the family? Technically, at her salary of 28K she could afford 795 in rent--but with 4 kids, I don't think so.
My guess is that is how she ran into trouble in her prior residence, which she said she rented at 800/mo. Why would she do any better in my property?
The applicant, a single woman, has 4 kids. My rental in Baltimore city has two legal bedrooms plus a 3rd "bonus room" upstairs that has no exterior window or closet, so we advertise it as a 2-bedroom. Occupancy guidelines call for 2 occupants per bedroom plus one. So they are at the limit. I am not allowed, of course, to turn her down based solely on her familial status, especially if they meet the occupancy guidelines.
She has held a steady job since 2002 and is generating more than 3x the rental amount. On the other hand she is supporting four kids. I don't know if her first priority will/can be paying the rent.
If her financial/criminal/previous landlord records check out I'm inclined to accept her with a bigger security deposit, ...
If this applicant is acceptable, you should not be discriminating in any way - but it sure sounds like you intend to discriminate. Requiring a "bigger security deposit" IS being discriminatory against this applicant.
You can decline an applicant based on a gut feeling if you want. You can decline applicants for not completely filling out applications. There are so many ways to reject applicants that you need not worry about discrimination issues.
There is a book called Landlording on Autopilote, I believe was written by a retired police detective turned landlord, that goes in depth on the application issue and discusses all the different application denial techniques there are to get out from these types of situations. But for one, I would make a rule that no more than 4 people can live in the house. That can be your policy regardless of the city code and be based soley on what makes you feel comfortable and not have anything to do with discrimination.
As far as I'm aware, you can't "parent" for someone so deciding if a boy child shares a room with a girl child is not up to you. To do so would be discriminatory. So would charging someone a greater security deposit. You have to apply the same rules to everyone.
Of course I can't parent for anyone else. Good heavens, I have enough with my own kids! But I can wonder about it. I didn't act on it, obviously.
Not sure guidance on security deposit is on track. In recent experience a greater security deposit was recommended by My Smart Move for an applicant who had credit issues springing from a period of unemployment. He rating came up as "conditional". So the guidance was that he could be accepted as long as he was willing to put up a bigger deposit. In the case of the larger family, my concern would be that she had obvious claims on her income that could jeopardize her ability to pay the rent. Isn't a larger sec. deposit justified in that case?
I wonder why wear and tear concerns couldn't be a reason to charge a greater sec. deposit. I know when a tenant brings in a pet there is often a surcharge to the sec. deposit. Is that discrimination?
Finally: Isn't it discrimination to limit the occupancy to below the national guideline?
These are moot points in this case, as we stopped the application process. But I'm interested in discussion that would fully flush out these issues.
"Credit issues" leading to higher security deposit is not discriminating because that was a candidate who did not qualify otherwise, based on numbers (and not family status). It is still an "adverse outcome", and you have to put a letter in writing (according to the FCRA) explaining that adverse outcome, and offering that the applicant can dispute the credit report and get a free copy of the report.
If you look at debt, and require a certain debt-to-income ratio, then that would not be discriminatory (as long as all applicants have to meet that same required DTI).
But now you state that "she had obvious claims on her income that could jeopardize her ability to pay the rent" - is the evidence for that taken from the credit report, or is that based on counting bodies listed on the application?
You have to be treating everybody in the same manner, with the same criteria and requirements.
Occupancy limits can be based on zoning or based on space available for sleeping. No discrimination there either. You only have two true bedrooms there, and you were OK with 5 occupants, so that is not an issue IMO.
Policies on Animals are not discriminatory unless you are talking legitimate service animals.
Again, your original post indicated an intent to discriminate based on family status by charging a higher security deposit for that reason.
Of course I can't parent for anyone else. Good heavens, I have enough with my own kids! But I can wonder about it. I didn't act on it, obviously.
Not sure guidance on security deposit is on track. In recent experience a greater security deposit was recommended by My Smart Move for an applicant who had credit issues springing from a period of unemployment. He rating came up as "conditional". So the guidance was that he could be accepted as long as he was willing to put up a bigger deposit. In the case of the larger family, my concern would be that she had obvious claims on her income that could jeopardize her ability to pay the rent. Isn't a larger sec. deposit justified in that case?
I wonder why wear and tear concerns couldn't be a reason to charge a greater sec. deposit. I know when a tenant brings in a pet there is often a surcharge to the sec. deposit. Is that discrimination?
Finally: Isn't it discrimination to limit the occupancy to below the national guideline?
These are moot points in this case, as we stopped the application process. But I'm interested in discussion that would fully flush out these issues.
Many thanks.
Familial status is a protected class. You can not discriminate based on that. Just because there are more people, it doesn't mean there will be more damage. I've met people with eight kids and a clean house and other people with no kids and they live like pigs.
Pets are not protected. Neither are people with credit problems, job problems, criminal records, etc. In most states, gays are not a protected class either.
I won't rent to a lawyer. Lawyers are not a protected class. Some landlords won't rent to a cop. I disagree with this. I have a cop tenant and he's great.
I agree with Steve Babiak and Rob K. You're saying that Smart Move recommended an increased security deposit based on credit issues, but you're telling us that you want to charge an increased security deposit because of the size of her family (which you pointed out doesn't exceed occupancy limits in your area). That is a form of discrimination based on familial status, which is illegal.
. . . . I won't rent to a lawyer. Lawyers are not a protected class. Some landlords won't rent to a cop. I disagree with this. I have a cop tenant and he's great.
I would be more concerned about the fact she was evicted rather then the fact she has 4 kids.
Once you have over two kids they really do not cost that much more to maintain, seriously I never understood while child support awards are so high. It isn't that expensive to raise children.
I really would have a FIRM strict criteria to NO EVICTIONS!
Still, some questions remain for the next time, and I'm hoping the forum can help me understand a few things. I can't reject anyone based solely on his/her familial status, so is it even legal to ask questions about kids' ages, genders, sleeping arrangements? I wondered exactly the same things Brian asked about, because it seemed like it would be such a tight fit. But I was afraid to ask.
Also, when judging the applicant's capability to pay rent, am I allowed to consider the size of the family? Technically, at her salary of 28K she could afford 795 in rent--but with 4 kids, I don't think so.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you own a single family home and are renting it out yourself, not using an agent to rent it, then while you must not advertise with any discriminatory language, wouldn't you be exempt from the other fair housing laws? Has this changed, or am I misinformed?
Having multiple kids can be a great stability factor, because a mom with 4 kids will probably do anything she can to not have to move. It's a two-sided coin. The question I would want to have answered before making a decision if this family is the best match for your house is how they maintained their current/previous house. These kids could all be excellent house-keepers, or they could be breaking everything they touch. Quantity of kids is less important than the quality of their care for the house.
I have to be conscientious in complying with the Fair Housing regs in order to keep my RE license. I've heard of an agent who was fined, like, $90K for telling a rental prospect that they did not accept Section 8 tenants. He managed to reduce it by half in court, but that is still pretty heavy!
In DC I don't think you can ever legally discriminate in renting on basis of race, religion, familial status, or any of the other protected classes, etc., unless you actually live in the same house (for example, renting rooms to female students only). The law also offers some leniency if you own four or fewer rental units and are not an agent; I believe RE pros are held to a higher standard.
Honestly, if I could determine that the prior eviction was unwarranted, I would probably not hold it against the prospect. But the law does allow economic discrimination, and because she did not allow me to find out If she would or could pay the rent at her previous residence, I had legal grounds for rejecting her.