Tenant accepted- then not (by Not [OR]) Jul 1, 2009 12:47 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Mac [NC]) Jul 1, 2009 1:24 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Wallace CPM [VA]) Jul 1, 2009 1:50 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Mark [OR]) Jul 1, 2009 1:54 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by IN [IN]) Jul 1, 2009 2:53 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by T.T. [MA]) Jul 1, 2009 3:20 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Theresa [TX]) Jul 1, 2009 4:03 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by James [MA]) Jul 1, 2009 6:58 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Nancy [IN]) Jul 1, 2009 7:06 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Mark [OR]) Jul 1, 2009 11:07 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Martin [MO]) Jul 2, 2009 2:02 AM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Virden [OH]) Jul 2, 2009 6:17 AM
Tenant accepted- then not (by billy [MA]) Jul 2, 2009 7:16 AM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Nancy [IN]) Jul 2, 2009 9:31 PM
Tenant accepted- then not (by Not [OR]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 12:47 PM Message:
As a landlord, I often get questions from my friends who rent about the landlord's point of view, and landlord tenant law. I got one of those today that I can't answer with certainty. A property management company verbally approved their application to rent an apartment. When they went to the office to give their holding deposit, the pm told them they changed their mind because they don't accept co-signers, which would be necessary in this situation. On one hand, I say it is any owner's or agent's right to change their mind at any time before the rental agreement is signed. On the other hand, is the pm setting a precedent for their criteria by accepting them with a co-signer, and then changing that criteria by subsequently not accepting them? That's where my dooubt comes from. Could it be seen as changing the criteria, and is that illegal? Thoughts?
--98.232.xxx.xxx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Mac [NC]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 1:24 PM Message:
I would guess that the PM accepted the applicant and then when the owner found that a co-signature was involved the owner told the PM no, reject them. --24.136.xxx.xx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Wallace CPM [VA]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 1:50 PM Message:
No - PM used the property owner's criteria. There is no DEAL until the monies are paid and the lease is signed.
As a property manager, I don't accept co-signors and if a property owner advised me to I say NO; however, if I were to be discussing applicants with property owner/clients (which I don't) then their desires would be a consideration but not the final say. --205.188.xxx.xx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Mark [OR]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 1:54 PM Message:
Thank you for the input. The question still remains: Since they were accepted and then rejected, could it be seen as changing your criteria in mid-stream? And is that illegal? Thanks --98.232.xxx.xxx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by IN [IN]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 2:53 PM Message:
I flipped one the other day, and she had paid a deposit and signed a lease.
She sent me an email wanted to remove the wall paper in one room, and also wanted to bring in a rottweiler.
Returned her check registered mail,
Till the money is deposited and I sign the lease, nothing is accepted and legally binding. --68.58.xx.xx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by T.T. [MA]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 3:20 PM Message:
Whenever I revise my criteria, I date the document, seal a copy in an envelope, mail it to myself, then stick it in my filing cabinet. If anyone ever tries to bring a suit against me for changing my criteria so I could specifically reject him/her, I have proof that the criteria was in place long before there was ever a vacancy.
The postmark on the sealed envelope will stand up in court as to showing that my criteria have been in effect as of at least that date. --71.126.xxx.xx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Theresa [TX]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 4:03 PM Message:
When we changed our policies which was usually done yearly, all we had to do was make sure it was dated and included in our information packets with a deliver a copy to all current tenants. And of course, a copy for our files and we were legal. --64.148.xxx.xxx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by James [MA]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 6:58 PM Message:
There is a legally binding contract once an offer is accepted, not when agreements are signed and money exchanged. Those people made decisions based on the verbal approval. The PM should never have said yes unless he was sure and is now responsible for any damages based on what was said. --70.22.xxx.xxx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Nancy [IN]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 7:06 PM Message:
Mark, are you the tenant? --65.55.xx.xxx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Mark [OR]) Posted on: Jul 1, 2009 11:07 PM Message:
No, I am not the applicant. As I said before, I am a landlord. I have been for 6 years and have only 7 units. I have several friends who rent and often ask my advice on landlord tenant law because of my experience. Admittedly, my experience is limited, but I would say that little experience amounts to more knowledge of landlord tenant law than 95% of renters have. Also, they like to hear a landlord's point of view on certain issues that come up. I don't like to give them answers about law unless I know I'm right, and this one is a little tricky. At the very least, it's very rude. As James said, preparations were made with the idea that they would have the unit. As of now, they are not homeless only because their current landlord allowed them to stay another couple of days.
Here's the update:
It turns out the PM was told by the owner at the last minute not to accept co-signers because he doesn't want students, which they are. Is this discrimination, based on age? If an ad for a rental says “in a neighborhood of mostly white folk,” they’re not actually saying we don’t want blacks or Mexicans, but it is heavily implied, and illegal. By saying “we don’t want students,” they’re not actually saying we don’t want young people (which would be illegal) but most students are young, so they would be eliminating more young people than other demographic groups by rejecting students, especially if they changed their criteria at the last minute to do so.
This doesn't seem black and white to me.
At the least, it's bad form. At most, it's age discrimination. I'm not sure where the line is drawn with this one.
I've actually referred them to the local tenacy advocacy group. Any group of landlords or landlord coalition would lean towards, "fair game until it's signed" as evidenced in this thread. I lean that way also. I've never heard of any law directly saying you can't change your criteria or discriminate against students.
Whatever recourse they would have, I question whether it would be worth the trouble for them anyway. --98.232.xxx.xxx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Martin [MO]) Posted on: Jul 2, 2009 2:02 AM Message:
OK so the PM didn't handle this case this very well, but there is no way this is worth pursuing by the applicants. Move on. --64.151.xx.xxx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Virden [OH]) Posted on: Jul 2, 2009 6:17 AM Message:
If the applicant can prove you changed on the same unit, they have a fair housing discrimination suit - prepare your defense accordingly - you must stick to a policy - period. is this an adult community, a no smoking section or unit, no pets? no whites or students seems like blatant case to me. --76.241.xxx.xx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by billy [MA]) Posted on: Jul 2, 2009 7:16 AM Message:
pm looks kind of dumb as the facts are presented.i dont think thery are changing the criteria. --208.58.x.xx |
Tenant accepted- then not (by Nancy [IN]) Posted on: Jul 2, 2009 9:31 PM Message:
I don't think this is tricky at all.
It is a "mistake" (yes, that's a legal term), plain and simple.
We don't have all the facts and that matters. But it looks like the PM gave a verbal agreement to accept an applicant and then discovered that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the rental. I don't take co-signers either.
It would all depend upon the actual facts and timing as to whether there was reliance or not.
I can't believe someone above referred them to a tenant advocacy group. They don't take co-signers. Move on. --65.55.xx.xxx |
Reply:
|
|