Can I favor applicants over this ?
Member since 2025 · 126 posts · 45 votes
If I have criteria of income must be 3x rent and the following applicants apply:
A) applicants and 2 other roomates combined income is 3x/ rent
B) applicant and their partner meet and exceed 3x rent.
can I say I prioritize applicant B because less occupants, income is higher?
also can I choose not to tour for applicant A?
what kind of explanation would you give? ( would you say we are considering other applicants at this time)
Or not give any so nothing can be held against you?
You are starting to cross the line regarding Fair Housing laws. Note: I am not a lawyer.
One of the protected classes is Familial Status. This class is not defined as just a traditional family. Discriminating based on the number of people of the group wanting to rent, means you would have discriminated based on Familial Status. Now, if they are violating occupancy laws, then you can refuse them that unit. HUD typically allows 2 heartbeats per bedroom, so if it was a 1BR unit, you could prevent three people from renting it. If it is a 2BR, you should take applications and the first applicants that qualify and have put down a deposit, get to move in.
You are starting to cross the line regarding Fair Housing laws. Note: I am not a lawyer.
One of the protected classes is Familial Status. This class is not defined as just a traditional family. Discriminating based on the number of people of the group wanting to rent, means you would have discriminated based on Familial Status. Now, if they are violating occupancy laws, then you can refuse them that unit. HUD typically allows 2 heartbeats per bedroom, so if it was a 1BR unit, you could prevent three people from renting it. If it is a 2BR, you should take applications and the first applicants that qualify and have put down a deposit, get to move in.
@Greg Scott sure but I have been in situation of 3 roomates and one leaves and that compromises the whole income situation. Because none of these roomates can individually meet the 3x / rent income threshhold
additionally more wear and tear from 3 people vs 2 people.
Familiar status is not even part of the conversation
@Greg Scott sure but I have been in situation of 3 roomates and one leaves and that compromises the whole income situation. Because none of these roomates can individually meet the 3x / rent income threshhold
additionally more wear and tear from 3 people vs 2 people.
Familiar status is not even part of the conversation
You are starting to cross the line regarding Fair Housing laws. Note: I am not a lawyer.
One of the protected classes is Familial Status. This class is not defined as just a traditional family. Discriminating based on the number of people of the group wanting to rent, means you would have discriminated based on Familial Status. Now, if they are violating occupancy laws, then you can refuse them that unit. HUD typically allows 2 heartbeats per bedroom, so if it was a 1BR unit, you could prevent three people from renting it. If it is a 2BR, you should take applications and the first applicants that qualify and have put down a deposit, get to move in.
Keep in mind what "familial status" means. It ONLY means CHILDREN and pregnant women. For example, a couple with an adult child is not a protected class under "familial status".
So, with 3 roomates who are likely all adults versus an applicant with a partner again all adults there is NOBODY in this situation who falls under the protected class of "familial status".
I don't see an issue with proceeding with applicant B. They have a stronger application based on your screening criteria. I would say "we are proceeding with another application."
It's similar to how companies reject job applications. "We regret to inform you we are proceeding with another candidate."
@Paul De Luca thanks! Should I not tour them at all then ? Cuz they are basically harassing calling me multiple times a day to ask for a tour
@Maya Jones
If both applicants qualify then you have to determine why you chose one over the other. I would not reject them from viewing it. You are still analyzing applicants. I use a scoring system to qualify applicants. The highest score becomes the tenant. As previously stated, if the unit is approved for the number of applicants then that is not a reason to reject them. You are not allowed to use common sense. It’s all based on your criteria. Just make sure it doesn’t fall under discriminatory aspects. Below are the federal requirements to avoid as discriminatory. Your state may have expanded the list.
Race
Color
Religion
Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity in some interpretations)
National Origin
Familial Status (children under 18, pregnant women, people securing custody)
Disability (physical or mental impairment)
@Maya Jones
If both applicants qualify then you have to determine why you chose one over the other. I would not reject them from viewing it. You are still analyzing applicants. I use a scoring system to qualify applicants. The highest score becomes the tenant. As previously stated, if the unit is approved for the number of applicants then that is not a reason to reject them. You are not allowed to use common sense. It’s all based on your criteria. Just make sure it doesn’t fall under discriminatory aspects. Below are the federal requirements to avoid as discriminatory. Your state may have expanded the list.
Race
Color
Religion
Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity in some interpretations)
National Origin
Familial Status (children under 18, pregnant women, people securing custody)
Disability (physical or mental impairment)
Kenneth, would you mind sharing your scoring system for tenants? I am in Chicaog
My LTRs were always in high demand based on neighborhood and school district so this wasn't difficult. First application received after viewing with appropriate income, credit, references was approved and given 24h to return lease with deposit and 1st month's rent. There were times when I would have preferred a later applicant but figured it was just easier to be consistent and fair.
I want to point out jurisdictions can have additional protected classes. Jurisdictions may even dictate the selection criterion. Jurisdictions can also prohibit consideration on source of funds. You must abide by all rules in a jurisdiction.
By the way favoring 2 versus 3 is too questionable on the familiar status protection, so just use the income to differentiate the tenants.
Good luck
@Dan H. So if I have one applicant with higher income than other applicant but both meet minimum income threshhold. Is it fair to pick the one with higher income because they have more income which makes them less likely to miss a rent payment if some other financial burden falls on them?
@Dan H. So if I have one applicant with higher income than other applicant but both meet minimum income threshhold. Is it fair to pick the one with higher income because they have more income which makes them less likely to miss a rent payment if some other financial burden falls on them?
I want to start by stating jurisdictions add local rules. For example in my market I cannot consider source of funds which implies you cannot prohibit section 8 (there are other legal ways to make it difficult on section 8 in my jurisdiction). CA also has additional protected classes above the federal protected classes.
By fed laws you can choose which tenant to choose based on criteria such as income, credit score, LL reference. Etc. this implies you get two tenants that meet all your qualifications but one has a ok 650 credit score and the other has 700 credit score (all other items similar), you can give priority to the 700 score.
However, I do not do this. I have two criteria for order I process applications 1) closest move-in to availability date. This maximizes my rent collected. It also provides challenges for section 8 tenants. 2) order that we receive complete applications.
Why do I not look at the applications and pick the best looking one to process first? It is because doing so can have the appearance of being against a protected class. For example a black couple meets all qualifications and can move into the unit the day it is ready but a Caucasian couple with 50 point higher credit score can also move in the day unit becomes available. The Caucasian couple could be selected for the 50 point higher score but someone could believe the reason was race based and make that claim. I would show that the applications were similar except the credit score but it could be a hassle. I attempt to remove anything that can even give the impression of an illegal bias. I have had many Hispanic tenants, gay tenants, one trans tenant that I am aware of, old tenants, young tenants, tenants with a lot of children. Almost every type of tenant.
During Covid I had a fake tenant come to an open house. I am not sure who sponsored them. They were a mixed race couple (black and Caucasian). They seemed to have a lot of questions about the application process. I explained our process to them. I showed them the unit. I offered them an application and truly hoped that they would apply. After wasting some of my time (we do open houses so not nearly as much time as it would have been if this was an individual showing) they gave some vague info about them checking on illegal LL behavior (without stating it out right).
I use contractors at the open houses now. The contractors I use are young and unbiased on the protected classes but I discuss with them to avoid anything that can give the appearance of illegal bias. They know our tenant processing algorithm. If they have questions they can call us. We had an open house yesterday. 7 potential tenants. I have the sign in sheet but in general I will not know anything not on the application about any applicant. I will process any applications by closest move in to ready date (Feb 1) and order of received complete applications.
Good luck
Yes you can prioritize applicant B, but not because there are "fewer occupants." That can be interpreted as discrimination based on Parental or Marital Status, which are protected in Chicago. You can prioritize based on financial strength (e.g., a higher credit score or significantly higher income-to-rent ratio), provided you apply this standard consistently to all applicants.
No, you should not skip the tour for applicant A. Refusing to tour a qualified group while touring another is a major legal risk. It is a common trigger for "fair housing stings." Always offer the tour to avoid the appearance of "steering" or pre-screening based on household composition.
When responding to applicant A, keep it strictly professional and data-driven. Once you have a signed lease with your preferred tenant, send a neutral notice to others.