Landlords

So what's wrong with that?

 

There is nothing wrong with anything, as long as you acknowledge that without renters, most property owners would be forced to live on their property, and this notion of "I own more than one house" would be virtually nonexistent for most. Only the true wealthy can afford to have properties all over the place while they remain empty most of the time. Thus, the renters are a very important portion of the economy in this country.

 

So does this mean they should rent to someone just because they show up? I don't think so. It doesn't matter if there is a mortgage on the property or if it is owned free clear, anyone has the right to protect their interest in their own personal property.

If someone doesn't wish to be subjected to a credit check, they are always free to rent somewhere else. Just my $.02

Gib

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a "renter". There is something wrong about being a "vandal". It doesn't matter how many properties a person owns, it is still their property and they have a right to do what they deem fit to protect their investments. If that means credit checks, what's it to you? A person who has a history of not paying debts is almost certainly going to be less empathetic to anothers property.

That isn't to say everyone with dings on their CR is going to be a bad tenant. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, but if they have judgements on there from previous landlords, I can certainly see the need for concern.

Gib

 

That's just the point. Who is going to determine when something bad has happened to a good person from a credit check? Not most landlords.

I actually agree that a landlord has the right to secure and protect his property, and even has the right to run a credit check if he's seriously considering someone as a tenant. As long as the process is reasonable, then it's fine. It's the abuses that I don't agree with.

Multiple credit checks, while charging the applicant, are ridiculous. While the landlord can certainly do what he chooses with his property, there are definite limitations of what he can do when he enters into a rental agreement with someone. That "lease" that landlords love to throw up in their tenant's face works both ways. Landlords deserve decent tenants, but tenants don't deserve to have every aspect of their private life overturned in order to rent. Those three months of deposit, before the tenant even gets a key, are more than sufficient to cover most tenant-landlord issues.

"Vandals" should be dealt with like all other criminals.

 

For every renter there is a loss of a home sale.

Loss of sales sure does help the economy doesn't it?

 

But there are a lot of renters who are wrong.

 

Are con the landlord tenants who move landord to landlord living rent free decent tenants?
How does a 3 month deposit cover a 6 month free ride on the landlord?

 

This could go on forever. For every bad tenant story you post, I (or someone else) can post a bad landlord story to match. This thread started with someone's justified concern that some landlords collect money to run "screenings," when in fact, no screenings are actually run.

Most landlords are good, decent landlords----period! However, to those landlords who request "citibank" type references and background checks from their tenant applicants, they should equally be prepared to offer "citibank" type customer service. You know, first class service to those good tenants who pay and who don't cause trouble!

With that said...........

 

THE END....