I’ve heard the term red flag used in articles about tenant screening. How does that affect my screening process?

Typically a landlord will conduct tenant screenings for information about an applicant’s employment, income, credit history, financial obligations, rental housing history, criminal background history or other consumer reports as allowed by applicable laws, and personally identifying information such as name, address, Social Security number, and driver’s license information.

Conducting an applicant interview can provide additional information, and/or clarification and confirmation of information shown on the application form and the tenant screening reports. Information obtained during an interview should be consistent with screening information. If the applicant’s answers do not match up with information on screening reports and the completed application form, it could be a red flag that indicates a problem or serious risk.

Red flags can pop up any time during the interview/application/screening process. Experienced landlords can usually recognize certain patterns of behaviors or types of evasive answers by prospects and applicants which could be warning signs of a problematic tenancy. Red flag responses could be hesitation on the prospect’s part to agree to customary tenant screenings or failure to fully comply with landlord requirements or requests for information.

A landlord should be prepared to handle inquiries from the prospect/applicant who wants the landlord to make a deal that deviates from standard business practices. This could be a red flag for potential issues with late or missed rents, insufficient security deposits, occupancy numbers, or other tenancy related issues. By holding to his stated business policies and practices a landlord can help to reduce claims of discrimination and help avoid potential risks.

All prospects/applicants/tenants must be treated in the same non-discriminatory manner. An indication of a potential red flag issue cannot be selectively investigated or selectively ignored.

Comments are closed.