Real estate professionals engaged in the renting and leasing of properties are confronted with some very real legal requirements. In today’s economic environment, it is not uncommon to receive multiple applications to rent. Based on recent experience and discussions with prospective tenants, it is not uncommon for the applying tenant to receive no response to the application, or if the application is denied, to not receive an adverse action notice.
In either case, it raises the question of compliance with the laws regarding the usage of consumer credit report information. The usage of this information is governed by both California State Law and Federal Law.
While credit reports can legitimately be used to screen tenants, the use of consumer credit reports brings into play specific legal duties which govern their use. Generally, whenever an “adverse action” is taken against a prospective tenant based in whole or in part on information contained in a consumer credit report, an adverse action notice must be given to the prospective tenant under both Federal and California State Law. Federal law permits such a notification to be other than in writing, California law requires a written statement. [15 United States Code (U.S.C.) §1681m; California Civil Code § 1785.20]
This raises the question of what constitutes an adverse action based on information contained in whole or in part in a consumer credit report.
Some notable examples of adverse action include:
- denying the application;
- requiring a co-signer on the lease;
- requiring a deposit that would not be required for another applicant;
- requiring a higher deposit than required for another applicants; and
- raising the rent to a higher amount than would be applied to another applicant.
If, for example, a higher deposit is requested because of poor references and not because of the information contained in the credit report and/or credit score, these circumstances would not trigger an adverse action notice because it is not based solely or partly on the prospective tenant’s credit report and/or score.
However, once the credit report becomes part of the decision making process, the adverse action notice is triggered. Although, examples such as this demonstrate exceptions to the need to send the required notice, one should keep in mind that relying on such an exception may require the ability to prove that the credit report did not play any part in the adverse action. This could be a difficult proposition to prove.
An adverse action notice must contain the following information.
- a statement that the decision was based in whole or in part on information contained a consumer credit report;
- the name, address and telephone number of the consumer credit reporting agency which furnished the report;
- a statement that the applicant has the right to obtain, within sixty days, a free copy of the applicant’s report from the credit reporting agency identified in the notice; and
- a statement that the applicant has the right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information contained within the report.
California law is silent on the method of delivery for an adverse action notice. Generally speaking, delivery of the notice in person or by first class mail with postage prepaid should be deemed acceptable. [15 U.S.C. § 1681m, Calif. CC§ 1785.20]
Credit reports can be ordered with or without the numerical score. If a report with a score is used, additional requirements are imposed. If a credit score is used in whole or in part, the adverse action notice must also contain:
- the numerical credit score used in making the credit decision;
- the range of possible scores under the model used;
- up to four key factors that adversely affected the consumer’s credit score (or up to five factors if the number of inquiries made with respect to that consumer report is a key factor);
- the date on which the credit score was created;
- the name of the person or entity that provided the credit score or the credit file upon which the credit score was created. [See 15 U.S.C. § 1681m and 15 U.S.C. § 1681g]
There are both federal and state penalties for a failure to comply with the notification requirements.
The extent of the penalty is based on the determination of whether or not the failure was willful. Under federal law, willful failure to comply with the requirements of the law the tenant may recover:
- any actual damages sustained by the prospective tenant; or
- punitive damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000.
If the tenant is successful in his or her actions, they may also recover legal costs and reasonable attorney fees.
If the failure to comply is based on negligence as opposed to a willful failure, the tenant’s recovery is limited to any actual damages sustained by the prospective tenant; and in the case of a successful action to enforce any liability, the costs of the action and reasonable attorney fees.
Liability will not be imposed for a violation of the applicable federal laws if, at the time of the alleged violation, it can be shown reasonable procedures to assure compliance with the law were maintained.
Under state law, if a landlord violates the law through negligence, the prospective tenant can recover:
- actual damages, including court costs;
- loss of wages;
- attorney fees;
- compensation for pain and suffering, if applicable.
If a landlord is held to have willfully violated the law, the prospective tenant can recover the same costs plus punitive damages of not less than $100 and not more than $5000 for each violation, and any other relief that the court deems proper.
Liability will not be imposed for failing to provide the notice if it is shown “by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the alleged violation he or she maintained reasonable procedures to assure compliance” with the notice requirements.
Finally, under California law, if an application screening fee has been paid and if the tenant requests it, a copy of the credit report must be provided to the prospective tenant.
Would you like to see yourself published as a guest writer on the first tuesday journal online? We welcome your submissions at editorial@firsttuesday.us. All submissions must adhere to the rules set forth in our guest writer guidelines.
All opinions expressed by guest writers are those of the authors alone, and do not constitute first tuesday’s endorsement of policies, stances or opinions contained therein.
Bookmarked! Im really learning a lot from this site. Thanks again!
GROWING BAD CREDIT
With an ever-increasing number of persons falling into the “bad” credit category due to foreclosures, unpaid debts, and credit card defaults, one would think this article is highly relevant at the current time,and we thank Attorney Garrett for it.
UNSCRUPULOUS BUILDING MANAGERS
We aware of one building manager in Los Angeles who took over 200 applications, at $30 apiece, from hopeful prospective tenants for a one-bedroom rental in a popular area and told each one the fee was non-refundable. The unscrupulous manager purposely held back from renting the apartment out for several months, despite having numerous applicants who “qualified,” thereby collecting quite a sum (unethically) for his own pocket before he finally rented it out. He never even bothered to run the credit reports. He simply did not call the applicants back, letting them think they were declined.
If Attorney Garrett is aware of any laws or regulations against such unscrupulous actions, we request he explicate in this forum.
STEALING WITH RENTAL APPLICATION CREDIT CHECK FEES
We know the rules governing the adverse action notification, as he has carefully explained them here to us, but we are wondering if any regulations prevent the NUMBER of applications taken being unseemly high.
After all, the average applicant either does not know the procedure outlined above for recourse, or would not have the time or the inclination to pursue such action for $15 to $30. And, the unscrupulous building managers know that, so they take full advantage, unfortunately for the unsuspecting prospective tenants. In a city such as Los Angeles, where one-third do not speak English as their native tongue, most would be clueless as to the above rules.
SKIMMING AND STEALING RENT MONEY
As a side note, we were made aware–by the new manager–of a previous building manager of a very large apartment complex with aquascaping and gardens in Koreatown (Los Angeles) who, one particular month, told all the tenants that the building was having cash flow problems and that all rents would be due in cash that month. Foreign born persons composed a sizable portion of the tenant population, and most did indeed pay in cash, following his instructions.
Shortly thereafter he disappeared with $150,000.00 in cash and was never seen again! We are sure many of you have stories about unscrupulous apartment managers who become wealthy skimming from the rents or by some other unethical means. It is commonplace.
CHECK THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING MANAGER
Sadly, the moral character of humanity has been on the decline in recent years. That is all the more reason for prospective tenants to be on guard and KNOW what they are getting into by taking the CHARACTER of the building manager into consideration when renting property. One of low character will only be concerned with COLLECTING money, NOT with providing service and will actually seek to USE tenants to line his own pockets in any way he (or she) can.
In another situation of which we are aware, an unscrupulous manager took a $500 bribe to let in a tenant with bad credit that would not have qualified. That tenant had a young roommate who then proceeded to rob the tenant vehicles parked in the underground garage and enter the apartments of elderly tenants, stealing jewelry and money.
That went on for 3 months. The tenant who paid the bribe to the manager NEVER paid any regular rent for the 3 months, but as it takes that long for eviction to complete, he was able to live in a penthouse suite for free. He and the crooked manager profited from their crimes (not really, as the Law of Karma will take care of that), and the poor tenants suffered the consequences.
When the briber moved out, the burglaries stopped.