Eagle_Arm t1_iurdw9r wrote
Reply to comment by VTgrizz85 in "‘I want my money back’: Rental application fees rampant despite Vermont’s prohibition" by CalicoFlannel
Great intent, but not allowing the background check fee will just increase rent of the actual units. Landlord loses $1K in fees to rent to new tenant, rent just went up $85 per month.
We need to fix the system as a whole and not just an issue in the system.
Just like you can bring an outside loan to a car dealership or a mortgage pre-approval letter for buying a house, bring an outside credit/background check to renting. Third party gives credit/background check, it's on file and good for however long makes sense. 30, 60, 90 days? I don't know, but credit and background shouldn't tank in that time. All landlords receive a way to verify the details, renters only get charged once, more fees avoided.
VTgrizz85 t1_iust74h wrote
Also if you are a landlord that is doing $1k worth of background checks to rent a unit, you’re doing something wrong. Even the most expensive check I could find from Transunion’s SmartMove Service is $42. You’d be running roughly 24 checks to spend that $1,000.
VTgrizz85 t1_iusrym4 wrote
The intent of the law as stated by its authors is that all fees were included under the statute. Given that the statute is current law, background and credit check fees are already illegal. The point of this petition is not to change the law, but merely to remove the ambiguity in the current language.
Eagle_Arm t1_iussnmi wrote
Okay, so reread my first paragraph. Landlord has upfront cost of background/credit check. That is the included in future rent costs.
It doesn't save renters any money, it moves the issue to another issue rather than solving the problem. Congrat, won the meaningless victory of changing a law that doesn't accomplish anything. It's a win! But the win doesn't solve the problem.
VTgrizz85 t1_iusui7v wrote
As a landlord, I get your point. We eat the cost of the background/credit check every time we turn over a unit. That’s why we do showings first, take applications, and call references before running those checks.
Eagle_Arm t1_iusvfem wrote
The cost isn't eaten. It's passed onto the renter at some point. Not $1K per unit, that hyperbole, but the money is passed on.
For your other comment, you can do all the leg work of references and calls beforehand or you can slap the easy dequal button and have people submit checks and then disqualify based on that data before calling references.
VTgrizz85 t1_iuti57h wrote
Which is exactly the point behind the law. It incentivizes the landlord to do the legwork before running the check.
Eagle_Arm t1_iutjcth wrote
It isn't an incentive though, there isn't something for the landlord to gain. It's a restriction. Don't get me wrong, I agree with app fees being bullshit, but if the referrals are good, but there is shit credit or bad background check, in a market like Burlington, the landlord will move onto the next applicant who for the most part is identical.
The result is just lost time. Not a big deal, but those hours or even a day to clear someone adds up.
That's why I'm saying find a new system like a mortgage pre-approval. It might not be the best idea, but just me shooting from the hip.
A renter gets a background/credit check and it generates a code tied to their license or ID number. That is good for however many days makes sense. I don't know how long someone usually looks for an apartment. Say 1-3 months. The landlord then logs takes that code and verifies it via the same system.
It's a one time charge to the renter for a duration of apartment hunting. Everyone has instant feedback without multiple reports, checks, or charges.
In theory, it should speed up the process because the process is occurring, but only occuring once for the duration of an apartment hunt.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments