Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 8771760 times)

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8093
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8150 on: May 07, 2015, 05:37:43 PM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8151 on: May 07, 2015, 05:57:54 PM »
Where I live the background check fee was considered the deposit.  You fail, you are out, the LL keeps the fee.  You pass, it counts towards the security deposit. 

If your score is really good and no criminal history(me) then they completely waive the security deposit all together and the BC fee counts towards first month's rent.

I figure that is fair.

_____

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8152 on: May 07, 2015, 11:10:18 PM »
never had a credit check as part of renting

myhotrs

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 134
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8153 on: May 07, 2015, 11:55:19 PM »
Girl at work just bought am Audi q5 with the "black optics" package. Her husband drives a M3 and it's OK cuz he got 0%. Wouldn't be surprised if their car payments (including insurance and gas) are around $2k/month. They make good money, but not THAT good.

TheLazyMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 55
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8154 on: May 07, 2015, 11:58:46 PM »
No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Still I'd rather live in a neighborhood where all the landlords do checks than one where none of the landlords do.

Tallgirl1204

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8155 on: May 08, 2015, 12:09:31 AM »
[quote author=mm1970 link=topic=2540.msg654334#msg654334 date=143103450

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.
[/quote]

Everyone makes their deals.  I suppose if we lived in a tenant's market, we might pay for the credit check, or even not run one at all.  But we don't. 

Not willing to pay for the credit check?  No worries, and you can keep looking elsewhere for an apartment.  I dunno, the apartment seems like a benefit that the tenant is seeking,  but that's just my point of view.

And in a meta sort of way, I was telling people at work today about this argument, and they were laughing at work about the overheard at work thread... 



LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8156 on: May 08, 2015, 07:30:16 AM »
No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Still I'd rather live in a neighborhood where all the landlords do checks than one where none of the landlords do.
So if I read that right on the last pages, then landlords only rent to people with no criminal record?
So you get only neighborhoods without people who were in jail? Capital!
Now, I know that it is not the hobby of landlords to do the most important part of the criminal system - to reintegrate criminals - but I think that leaves a bit of a problem.
I mean, if nobody gices ex-criminals a job and noone gives them somewhere to live, it wont help them to reintegrate. Quite contrary it will increase the criminality rate, and I wont even mention that the US already has by far the highest inmate rate in the world. And an increased criminality rate will increase taxes, robberies, murders (of or from police it seems in the US) and not the last lower rental income as a product of this.


zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2781
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8157 on: May 08, 2015, 08:07:57 AM »
So if I read that right on the last pages, then landlords only rent to people with no criminal record?
So you get only neighborhoods without people who were in jail? Capital!
Now, I know that it is not the hobby of landlords to do the most important part of the criminal system - to reintegrate criminals - but I think that leaves a bit of a problem.
I mean, if nobody gices ex-criminals a job and noone gives them somewhere to live, it wont help them to reintegrate. Quite contrary it will increase the criminality rate, and I wont even mention that the US already has by far the highest inmate rate in the world. And an increased criminality rate will increase taxes, robberies, murders (of or from police it seems in the US) and not the last lower rental income as a product of this.
Some landlords are willing to do it.  You just gotta price the risk into the rent.  And for some/many/most landlords, the risks from renting to a ex-convict are too great to justify.

While we're foamy, I'll just add the following opinion:  the criminal has to be willing to reintegrate/reform first.  Otherwise you'll end up wasting a lot of resources.

midweststache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8158 on: May 08, 2015, 08:14:27 AM »
Girl at work just bought am Audi q5 with the "black optics" package. Her husband drives a M3 and it's OK cuz he got 0%. Wouldn't be surprised if their car payments (including insurance and gas) are around $2k/month. They make good money, but not THAT good.

Maybe she makes better money than you think 'cause SHE'S A SPY! "Black optics" makes me think she's a secret Sydney Bristow and her "international work trips" are all about wearing badass wigs and stealing data from Russians...

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8159 on: May 08, 2015, 08:22:59 AM »
While we're foamy, I'll just add the following opinion:  the criminal has to be willing to reintegrate/reform first.  Otherwise you'll end up wasting a lot of resources.
Yes, of course, but that depends a lot on their surroundings and the help they get. The same as in the school. Both is education.
The "first" part is the core of the problem, though. What is first? Before he got fired, lost his wife and home and got on drugs?
Its not that easy. Same with depression. if you are depressive, you dont have the power to be willing to get better, thats part of the description ;) And even if you have it is no guarantee that you will get better. Same with criminals.

So, in this sense, I stand before teh antimustachian wall of shame and comedy every politicio who wants to save 1000$ on youth projects and then wonders why the youth prision wants 10000$ more.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3356
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8160 on: May 08, 2015, 08:27:05 AM »
While we're foamy, I'll just add the following opinion:  the criminal has to be willing to reintegrate/reform first.  Otherwise you'll end up wasting a lot of resources.
Yes, of course, but that depends a lot on their surroundings and the help they get. The same as in the school. Both is education.
The "first" part is the core of the problem, though. What is first? Before he got fired, lost his wife and home and got on drugs?
Its not that easy. Same with depression. if you are depressive, you dont have the power to be willing to get better, thats part of the description ;) And even if you have it is no guarantee that you will get better. Same with criminals.

So, in this sense, I stand before teh antimustachian wall of shame and comedy every politicio who wants to save 1000$ on youth projects and then wonders why the youth prision wants 10000$ more.

Or, alternately, the system has to really WANT to reform the criminal

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

vitalmayhem

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8161 on: May 08, 2015, 08:30:45 AM »
A guy I work with was talking about how he's ready to win the lottery with our workplace pool ($50 million this week). He estimates that he would probably get $1 mil of the payout once it's been shared and he says he would be back to work in 1 month because the money is already spent and he's only 36 so he couldn't possibly retire on that.

He plans to pay off his $220k house, his $25k maxed credit line, his credit card(s), his ~$40k he owes his mom (on her credit line). He would then pay to build a custom house just outside the city and pay off his bro/sis (in-laws) consumer debts... but not their mortgages and take his siblings on a trip to Disney World.

A little back story on him. He has a wife and 2 daughters and currently lives in a 3 bed, 1 bath house that he borrowed money from his mom's credit for a down payment and to consolidate his consumer debts. They have lived there for about ~2.5 years, and has maxed out that $25k credit line, 2 cars (one purchased new last year) and has a smaller credit card debt of ~$1k. In order to afford his current lifestyle both him and his wife work full time and he works an additional 20-25hrs per week at a second minimum wage style job.
His wife is pushing him to upgrade their house and since "he's the numbers/money guy" he realized it would be a good idea. If they can sell their home for $250k they would profit ~$30k and can use that for a down payment and the rest can pay off the majority of his credit line. Though he says he definitely needs to keep the credit line open for at least $5k in case of emergencies (cause having a maxed out credit line is great help in emergencies???). He says the house MUST have at least 4 beds and 2 baths, cause they need spare rooms just in case.
While in the process of getting a pre-approval for the increase mortgage he was told they can't approve him because of a $27 delinquent debt from another bank. He says that he's never once been told by this bank that he owed that money and thought he paid off that credit card before he bought his house with his current bank. Even though he's paying off that $27 now, his current bank won't approve the mortgage for at least 90 days and he is so upset about it.

vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8162 on: May 08, 2015, 09:06:27 AM »
A guy I work with was talking about how he's ready to win the lottery with our workplace pool ($50 million this week). He estimates that he would probably get $1 mil of the payout once it's been shared and he says he would be back to work in 1 month because the money is already spent and he's only 36 so he couldn't possibly retire on that.

He plans to pay off his $220k house, his $25k maxed credit line, his credit card(s), his ~$40k he owes his mom (on her credit line). He would then pay to build a custom house just outside the city and pay off his bro/sis (in-laws) consumer debts... but not their mortgages and take his siblings on a trip to Disney World.

A little back story on him. He has a wife and 2 daughters and currently lives in a 3 bed, 1 bath house that he borrowed money from his mom's credit for a down payment and to consolidate his consumer debts. They have lived there for about ~2.5 years, and has maxed out that $25k credit line, 2 cars (one purchased new last year) and has a smaller credit card debt of ~$1k. In order to afford his current lifestyle both him and his wife work full time and he works an additional 20-25hrs per week at a second minimum wage style job.
His wife is pushing him to upgrade their house and since "he's the numbers/money guy" he realized it would be a good idea. If they can sell their home for $250k they would profit ~$30k and can use that for a down payment and the rest can pay off the majority of his credit line. Though he says he definitely needs to keep the credit line open for at least $5k in case of emergencies (cause having a maxed out credit line is great help in emergencies???). He says the house MUST have at least 4 beds and 2 baths, cause they need spare rooms just in case.
While in the process of getting a pre-approval for the increase mortgage he was told they can't approve him because of a $27 delinquent debt from another bank. He says that he's never once been told by this bank that he owed that money and thought he paid off that credit card before he bought his house with his current bank. Even though he's paying off that $27 now, his current bank won't approve the mortgage for at least 90 days and he is so upset about it.

i confused where the profit comes from. he gets ~$30k from the house sale( not really). then that is supposed to cover a $25k credit line, his moms $40k credit line and  a down payment. this guy owns nothing. between the cars, the house , and the debt for the down payment how does he get approved for anything?

vitalmayhem

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8163 on: May 08, 2015, 10:27:07 AM »
A guy I work with was talking about how he's ready to win the lottery with our workplace pool ($50 million this week). He estimates that he would probably get $1 mil of the payout once it's been shared and he says he would be back to work in 1 month because the money is already spent and he's only 36 so he couldn't possibly retire on that.

He plans to pay off his $220k house, his $25k maxed credit line, his credit card(s), his ~$40k he owes his mom (on her credit line). He would then pay to build a custom house just outside the city and pay off his bro/sis (in-laws) consumer debts... but not their mortgages and take his siblings on a trip to Disney World.

A little back story on him. He has a wife and 2 daughters and currently lives in a 3 bed, 1 bath house that he borrowed money from his mom's credit for a down payment and to consolidate his consumer debts. They have lived there for about ~2.5 years, and has maxed out that $25k credit line, 2 cars (one purchased new last year) and has a smaller credit card debt of ~$1k. In order to afford his current lifestyle both him and his wife work full time and he works an additional 20-25hrs per week at a second minimum wage style job.
His wife is pushing him to upgrade their house and since "he's the numbers/money guy" he realized it would be a good idea. If they can sell their home for $250k they would profit ~$30k and can use that for a down payment and the rest can pay off the majority of his credit line. Though he says he definitely needs to keep the credit line open for at least $5k in case of emergencies (cause having a maxed out credit line is great help in emergencies???). He says the house MUST have at least 4 beds and 2 baths, cause they need spare rooms just in case.
While in the process of getting a pre-approval for the increase mortgage he was told they can't approve him because of a $27 delinquent debt from another bank. He says that he's never once been told by this bank that he owed that money and thought he paid off that credit card before he bought his house with his current bank. Even though he's paying off that $27 now, his current bank won't approve the mortgage for at least 90 days and he is so upset about it.

i confused where the profit comes from. he gets ~$30k from the house sale( not really). then that is supposed to cover a $25k credit line, his moms $40k credit line and  a down payment. this guy owns nothing. between the cars, the house , and the debt for the down payment how does he get approved for anything?

Oh, I know that he doesn't get a profit and he's just ADDING to his debt but I was explaining the way he has been telling me and everyone else within earshot for the last 2 months. Most of us just smile and nod, because when he's got something in his mind like this there is no chance of changing it. Before he bought his house and his mom helped him out he says they were going to have to declare bankruptcy.

vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8164 on: May 08, 2015, 10:50:42 AM »
A guy I work with was talking about how he's ready to win the lottery with our workplace pool ($50 million this week). He estimates that he would probably get $1 mil of the payout once it's been shared and he says he would be back to work in 1 month because the money is already spent and he's only 36 so he couldn't possibly retire on that.

He plans to pay off his $220k house, his $25k maxed credit line, his credit card(s), his ~$40k he owes his mom (on her credit line). He would then pay to build a custom house just outside the city and pay off his bro/sis (in-laws) consumer debts... but not their mortgages and take his siblings on a trip to Disney World.

A little back story on him. He has a wife and 2 daughters and currently lives in a 3 bed, 1 bath house that he borrowed money from his mom's credit for a down payment and to consolidate his consumer debts. They have lived there for about ~2.5 years, and has maxed out that $25k credit line, 2 cars (one purchased new last year) and has a smaller credit card debt of ~$1k. In order to afford his current lifestyle both him and his wife work full time and he works an additional 20-25hrs per week at a second minimum wage style job.
His wife is pushing him to upgrade their house and since "he's the numbers/money guy" he realized it would be a good idea. If they can sell their home for $250k they would profit ~$30k and can use that for a down payment and the rest can pay off the majority of his credit line. Though he says he definitely needs to keep the credit line open for at least $5k in case of emergencies (cause having a maxed out credit line is great help in emergencies???). He says the house MUST have at least 4 beds and 2 baths, cause they need spare rooms just in case.
While in the process of getting a pre-approval for the increase mortgage he was told they can't approve him because of a $27 delinquent debt from another bank. He says that he's never once been told by this bank that he owed that money and thought he paid off that credit card before he bought his house with his current bank. Even though he's paying off that $27 now, his current bank won't approve the mortgage for at least 90 days and he is so upset about it.

i confused where the profit comes from. he gets ~$30k from the house sale( not really). then that is supposed to cover a $25k credit line, his moms $40k credit line and  a down payment. this guy owns nothing. between the cars, the house , and the debt for the down payment how does he get approved for anything?

Oh, I know that he doesn't get a profit and he's just ADDING to his debt but I was explaining the way he has been telling me and everyone else within earshot for the last 2 months. Most of us just smile and nod, because when he's got something in his mind like this there is no chance of changing it. Before he bought his house and his mom helped him out he says they were going to have to declare bankruptcy.

people like this confuse me. how do they keep getting allowed things?

fantabulous

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
    • My Crappy Little Blog
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8165 on: May 08, 2015, 12:27:06 PM »
It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

I imagine what's rubbing some people the wrong way about the application fee is that they live in areas where a landlord is likely to collect 40 application fees up front and not bother running credit/backgroun checks for 39-40 of the applicants.

seanc0x0

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
  • Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8166 on: May 08, 2015, 12:50:40 PM »

Oh, I know that he doesn't get a profit and he's just ADDING to his debt but I was explaining the way he has been telling me and everyone else within earshot for the last 2 months. Most of us just smile and nod, because when he's got something in his mind like this there is no chance of changing it. Before he bought his house and his mom helped him out he says they were going to have to declare bankruptcy.

people like this confuse me. how do they keep getting allowed things?

He's presumably making his payments (except the missed one, but it seems he'd be able to pay had he known about it), so he's a cash cow for lenders. He's their ideal client!

jinga nation

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Location: 'Murica's Wang
  • Left, Right, Peddlin' Shite
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8167 on: May 08, 2015, 12:55:51 PM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Of course it benefits you, the applicant. You need a place to stay. If you pass the credit check, then you get the place.
Of course he wants a solvent tenant. Why would he rent to someone who's going to stop paying rent in x<12 months and then go through courts for eviction.
Of course he wants the best for him to get the best return on his investments.

I've had applicants who want new flooring, countertops, walls in a certain paint color, etc. What for? The place is clean and with neutral colored walls. If you're so picky, go apply somewhere else. I've got a 5 person queue wanting to rent my condo in a gated community with nice amenities. And I won't waive application fees, security deposits, and won't pay for your utilities. You pay for water, power, cable, internet. You want, you pay. Or hit the highway!

Walk a mile in a landlord's shoes before you complain about his business practices.
 
And yes, there are PITA landlords just as there are a PITA tenants.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3633
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8168 on: May 08, 2015, 01:05:46 PM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Of course it benefits you, the applicant. You need a place to stay. If you pass the credit check, then you get the place.
Of course he wants a solvent tenant. Why would he rent to someone who's going to stop paying rent in x<12 months and then go through courts for eviction.
Of course he wants the best for him to get the best return on his investments.

I've had applicants who want new flooring, countertops, walls in a certain paint color, etc. What for? The place is clean and with neutral colored walls. If you're so picky, go apply somewhere else. I've got a 5 person queue wanting to rent my condo in a gated community with nice amenities. And I won't waive application fees, security deposits, and won't pay for your utilities. You pay for water, power, cable, internet. You want, you pay. Or hit the highway!

Walk a mile in a landlord's shoes before you complain about his business practices.
 
And yes, there are PITA landlords just as there are a PITA tenants.

I don't see any benefit in this conversation continuing, but this may be just me. Dragonstar has made his point and I doubt there is anything he can do to convince us that landlords should eat application fees, nor do I think that we can convince him as to why it is charged to applicants and why it should be continued to do so (with variations based on market conditions). I think it's best to agree to disagree.

Beaker

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8169 on: May 08, 2015, 03:46:39 PM »
I don't see any benefit in this conversation continuing, but this may be just me. Dragonstar has made his point and I doubt there is anything he can do to convince us that landlords should eat application fees, nor do I think that we can convince him as to why it is charged to applicants and why it should be continued to do so (with variations based on market conditions). I think it's best to agree to disagree.

I agree with you, but can't resist leaving this here...

Quote
...renting [in Trump Tower] requires a $750 move-in fee, another $750 move-in security deposit, a $900 lease processing fee, and mandatory renterís insurance. There is also of course a $750 move-out fee...
Source

So, it could be worse!

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8093
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8170 on: May 08, 2015, 03:48:38 PM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Of course it benefits you, the applicant. You need a place to stay. If you pass the credit check, then you get the place.
Of course he wants a solvent tenant. Why would he rent to someone who's going to stop paying rent in x<12 months and then go through courts for eviction.
Of course he wants the best for him to get the best return on his investments.

I've had applicants who want new flooring, countertops, walls in a certain paint color, etc. What for? The place is clean and with neutral colored walls. If you're so picky, go apply somewhere else. I've got a 5 person queue wanting to rent my condo in a gated community with nice amenities. And I won't waive application fees, security deposits, and won't pay for your utilities. You pay for water, power, cable, internet. You want, you pay. Or hit the highway!

Walk a mile in a landlord's shoes before you complain about his business practices.
 
And yes, there are PITA landlords just as there are a PITA tenants.

I don't see any benefit in this conversation continuing, but this may be just me. Dragonstar has made his point and I doubt there is anything he can do to convince us that landlords should eat application fees, nor do I think that we can convince him as to why it is charged to applicants and why it should be continued to do so (with variations based on market conditions). I think it's best to agree to disagree.

Bottom line is I think business owners should be responsible for the cost of running their business.  Vetting tenants is one of those costs, as well as maintenance and wear and tear when I move out.  If you repaint the walls after I've been there 5 years, you're not getting that from my deposit.  Yes, in a hot market you can get away with that.  In many places it's perfectly legal to draft a lease where the tenant is responsible for maintaining appliances, for example.  But it's not the norm.

And no, giving me a test to pass doesn't benefit me.  It makes it harder for me to get a place to live.  Consider two equal units in an apartment building, same rent, same lease.  Only difference is one charges $50 application fee.  Which one will I rent?  Hmm, tough call there.  Don't pretend the $50 somehow makes your place more desirable.

PS I like "dragonstar" and may use it in the future.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 03:51:38 PM by dragoncar »

jinga nation

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Location: 'Murica's Wang
  • Left, Right, Peddlin' Shite
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8171 on: May 08, 2015, 08:11:32 PM »
50 year old coworker.  New house.  Not smaller, the same size.   New 30 year mortgage, PLUS lots and lots of new plantation shutters added into the mortgage.

Keep us updated. I want to keep tabs on this potential disaster-waiting-to-happen.

greenmimama

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8172 on: May 09, 2015, 11:48:22 AM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Of course it benefits you, the applicant. You need a place to stay. If you pass the credit check, then you get the place.
Of course he wants a solvent tenant. Why would he rent to someone who's going to stop paying rent in x<12 months and then go through courts for eviction.
Of course he wants the best for him to get the best return on his investments.

I've had applicants who want new flooring, countertops, walls in a certain paint color, etc. What for? The place is clean and with neutral colored walls. If you're so picky, go apply somewhere else. I've got a 5 person queue wanting to rent my condo in a gated community with nice amenities. And I won't waive application fees, security deposits, and won't pay for your utilities. You pay for water, power, cable, internet. You want, you pay. Or hit the highway!

Walk a mile in a landlord's shoes before you complain about his business practices.
 
And yes, there are PITA landlords just as there are a PITA tenants.

I don't see any benefit in this conversation continuing, but this may be just me. Dragonstar has made his point and I doubt there is anything he can do to convince us that landlords should eat application fees, nor do I think that we can convince him as to why it is charged to applicants and why it should be continued to do so (with variations based on market conditions). I think it's best to agree to disagree.

Bottom line is I think business owners should be responsible for the cost of running their business.  Vetting tenants is one of those costs, as well as maintenance and wear and tear when I move out.  If you repaint the walls after I've been there 5 years, you're not getting that from my deposit.  Yes, in a hot market you can get away with that.  In many places it's perfectly legal to draft a lease where the tenant is responsible for maintaining appliances, for example.  But it's not the norm.

And no, giving me a test to pass doesn't benefit me.  It makes it harder for me to get a place to live.  Consider two equal units in an apartment building, same rent, same lease.  Only difference is one charges $50 application fee.  Which one will I rent?  Hmm, tough call there.  Don't pretend the $50 somehow makes your place more desirable.

PS I like "dragonstar" and may use it in the future.

All business owners pass along the costs, why do you think costs are always going up, because their costs are going up, so what you are saying is you would rather the landlord hid the fee in something else. 

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4348
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8173 on: May 09, 2015, 12:04:12 PM »
All business owners pass along the costs, why do you think costs are always going up, because their costs are going up, so what you are saying is you would rather the landlord hid the fee in something else.
Yup. The sense of unfairness stems from the fact that you may not even get the place after forking money. Imagine the uproar if employers started charging an application fee to prospective hires.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8093
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8174 on: May 09, 2015, 12:45:09 PM »
All business owners pass along the costs, why do you think costs are always going up, because their costs are going up, so what you are saying is you would rather the landlord hid the fee in something else.
Yup. The sense of unfairness stems from the fact that you may not even get the place after forking money. Imagine the uproar if employers started charging an application fee to prospective hires.

It's also not universally true that "all business owners pass along the costs..."  Rational landlords will always charge what the market will pay.  This price is set by the supply/demand curve, not expenses.  Thus, expenses can go up or down without changing the market price, in areas where landlording is highly profitable.  Only at the margin, where increased expenses drive the marginal landlord out of business (for example, if increased expenses drive the ROI below alternative investments), will the increased expenses drive up the market price by reducing supply.

Look at the $1 McDouble... McDonalds didn't start charging a "beef volatility fee" at checkout.  They kept the price steady for years, eating increased costs until they just couldn't do it anymore.  They certainly didn't reprice the McDouble everytime their costs changed.

firelight

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8175 on: May 10, 2015, 03:02:51 AM »
Back on topic.... My coworker was showing off his apple watch with steel band (costs $1000). He was super proud of it and said his wife and son were getting their watches soon too. Total cost would be easily half their monthly income. All this from a guy who was asking for overtime hours just a few days back. Sigh!

Tallgirl1204

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8176 on: May 10, 2015, 11:47:43 AM »
Back on topic.... My coworker was showing off his apple watch with steel band (costs $1000). He was super proud of it and said his wife and son were getting their watches soon too. Total cost would be easily half their monthly income. All this from a guy who was asking for overtime hours just a few days back. Sigh!

My coworker wAs complaining that her fancy watch flakes back and forth between time zones when she is up on the Arizona/Utah border.  I'm pretty sure this will be a problem for the apple watch too.  My $15 watch from Target?  Not so much.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8177 on: May 10, 2015, 02:50:10 PM »
Back on topic.... My coworker was showing off his apple watch with steel band (costs $1000). He was super proud of it and said his wife and son were getting their watches soon too. Total cost would be easily half their monthly income. All this from a guy who was asking for overtime hours just a few days back. Sigh!

My coworker wAs complaining that her fancy watch flakes back and forth between time zones when she is up on the Arizona/Utah border.  I'm pretty sure this will be a problem for the apple watch too.  My $15 watch from Target?  Not so much.

"I mean, I obviously have no knowledge of this, but I am going to make the assumption and say it out loud with confidence."

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3633
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8178 on: May 10, 2015, 04:15:09 PM »

PS I like "dragonstar" and may use it in the future.

Feel free too. Sorry for this mistake.

Tallgirl1204

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8179 on: May 10, 2015, 05:44:04 PM »
Back on topic.... My coworker was showing off his apple watch with steel band (costs $1000). He was super proud of it and said his wife and son were getting their watches soon too. Total cost would be easily half their monthly income. All this from a guy who was asking for overtime hours just a few days back. Sigh!

My coworker wAs complaining that her fancy watch flakes back and forth between time zones when she is up on the Arizona/Utah border.  I'm pretty sure this will be a problem for the apple watch too.  My $15 watch from Target?  Not so much.

"I mean, I obviously have no knowledge of this, but I am going to make the assumption and say it out loud with confidence."
1.  My friend's fancy watch flip flops between time zones on the state line (where we spend time, so yes it matters.)
2.  So does my I-phone.  Which is made by Apple, at least I assume so based on its advertising.  I failed to mention this in my previous post.  Please forgive me for not laying out every bread crumb.
3.   My $15 watch does not, as one actively has to reset it.

It's not a huge leap to an assumption about the apple watch.  At least, I would ask that particular question if I was buying it.  It's a very annoying feature of my phone, and it's an annoying feature of my friend's watch. 

Don't connect the dots, if you don't want to, but give me credit for thinking before posting.  Thanks so much.




Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8180 on: May 10, 2015, 06:10:15 PM »
It's trivial to turn off automatic time changes in iOS. Go to Settings -> General -> Date & Time and then adjust the "Set Automatically" option.

Tallgirl1204

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8181 on: May 10, 2015, 08:03:23 PM »
It's trivial to turn off automatic time changes in iOS. Go to Settings -> General -> Date & Time and then adjust the "Set Automatically" option.

Thanks-- that's actually quite useful.  I'll do it.  Don't know if my friend's watch has that option-- will check.  I still like my no-brainer cheap watch though!

theadvicist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8182 on: May 11, 2015, 02:54:50 AM »
No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.

Still I'd rather live in a neighborhood where all the landlords do checks than one where none of the landlords do.
So if I read that right on the last pages, then landlords only rent to people with no criminal record?
So you get only neighborhoods without people who were in jail? Capital!
Now, I know that it is not the hobby of landlords to do the most important part of the criminal system - to reintegrate criminals - but I think that leaves a bit of a problem.
I mean, if nobody gices ex-criminals a job and noone gives them somewhere to live, it wont help them to reintegrate. Quite contrary it will increase the criminality rate, and I wont even mention that the US already has by far the highest inmate rate in the world. And an increased criminality rate will increase taxes, robberies, murders (of or from police it seems in the US) and not the last lower rental income as a product of this.

Yeah, in the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you would not be allowed to take certain things into account, just as you aren't when someone is applying for a job. (Violent and sexual crimes are excluded, amongst others). The idea being that for minor misdemeanours, they have 'paid for' their crime and shouldn't continue to be punished, or denied jobs or housing, because that will leave people trapped in a cycle of petty crime.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3636
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8183 on: May 11, 2015, 08:32:49 AM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.
Landlords who don't properly vet tenants end up having much higher expenses, which puts upward pressure on rents.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3636
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8184 on: May 11, 2015, 08:42:51 AM »
CW refi'd his house last year, max cashout, and reduced CC debt to only 15k.

Trying to refi again because rates are down, can't qualify for the best rate because FICO score too low. Deduces with my help and CreditKarma that his primary card utilization is too high (present balance and limit not divulged, but over 80%). The brand-new $39K SUV from "Santa" (payment higher than my mortgage) can't have helped either.

Friday AM, in a casual workgroup meeting our supervisor and I happen to mention our upright electric grills (he paid $120, mine was a rental salvage) and how convenient they are for bad weather.

EDIT (apparently, he reversed course to blow the $$ on something else).

CW proudly announced he was getting one too.
Rationale: he had the money and if he didn't use it for that, it would just get frittered away on small things. Yesterday it turned out that he didn't get the grill, but spent even more on other things at the same store, some of which they've already figured out they don't need.

I think he's basically cool with the idea of working here for 30+ years, but I don't think he realizes how many of his choices guarantee that he will have to.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 06:48:00 AM by zephyr911 »

mlejw6

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Alexandria, VA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8185 on: May 11, 2015, 09:22:13 AM »

Yeah, in the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you would not be allowed to take certain things into account, just as you aren't when someone is applying for a job. (Violent and sexual crimes are excluded, amongst others). The idea being that for minor misdemeanours, they have 'paid for' their crime and shouldn't continue to be punished, or denied jobs or housing, because that will leave people trapped in a cycle of petty crime.

This makes so much sense. Why doesn't the U.S. do this? Oh, right. Our prisons are for-profit. Ah, freedom!

Tallgirl1204

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8186 on: May 11, 2015, 11:03:23 AM »

Yeah, in the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you would not be allowed to take certain things into account, just as you aren't when someone is applying for a job. (Violent and sexual crimes are excluded, amongst others). The idea being that for minor misdemeanours, they have 'paid for' their crime and shouldn't continue to be punished, or denied jobs or housing, because that will leave people trapped in a cycle of petty crime.

This makes so much sense. Why doesn't the U.S. do this? Oh, right. Our prisons are for-profit. Ah, freedom!

I don't know what the tenant law is here.  However, there is in the U.S. federal protection from "job discrimination" against felons who have served their time, IF the job duties are not related to the reason for the conviction.  So, if someone is applying for (say) a dishwashing job, you can't refuse to hire him based on a felony conviction for embezzlement.  However, you could refuse to hire him to run your cash register.  (I'm not a lawyer, this is just how I've worked out the meaning of the law in my mind.)  Hey-- this is something I learned at work-- I'm not totally foamy!   

Here's one reference if anyone is REALLY interested: 
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm


AvisJinx

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8187 on: May 11, 2015, 11:36:21 AM »
50 year old coworker.  New house.  Not smaller, the same size.   New 30 year mortgage, PLUS lots and lots of new plantation shutters added into the mortgage.

Keep us updated. I want to keep tabs on this potential disaster-waiting-to-happen.

I'd like to hear more, too. What do you think the cost of the house is and did they mention a down payment?

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5894
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8188 on: May 11, 2015, 12:56:42 PM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.
If you need a place to live and you want the place badly enough, you pay it.
If your alternative is getting kicked out and living in your car, you pay it.
If your alternative is an hour long commute, you pay it.
If your alternative is couch surfing, you pay it.
If you want the house, it is to your benefit.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5894
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8189 on: May 11, 2015, 01:01:59 PM »
It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

I imagine what's rubbing some people the wrong way about the application fee is that they live in areas where a landlord is likely to collect 40 application fees up front and not bother running credit/backgroun checks for 39-40 of the applicants.
Oh, around here I don't know anyone who has done that.  That's too much work.   You start with just a few.  Like reviewing resumes, some go directly into the trash bin, some go into the "phone interview pile" and some go into the "well if the phone interviews don't work out" pile.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8190 on: May 11, 2015, 01:24:22 PM »

Yeah, in the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you would not be allowed to take certain things into account, just as you aren't when someone is applying for a job. (Violent and sexual crimes are excluded, amongst others). The idea being that for minor misdemeanours, they have 'paid for' their crime and shouldn't continue to be punished, or denied jobs or housing, because that will leave people trapped in a cycle of petty crime.

This makes so much sense. Why doesn't the U.S. do this? Oh, right. Our prisons are for-profit. Ah, freedom!

A very small amount of our prisons and jails are for-profit. They shouldn't be, but let's not pretend that all of them are; that's not remotely close to true.

If you were renting a property, and you had to choose between two almost-identical applicants, but one is a convicted felon - are you saying you would ignore that? No, you would not. You'd go for lower risk, every time.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27147
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8191 on: May 11, 2015, 01:40:46 PM »

Yeah, in the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you would not be allowed to take certain things into account, just as you aren't when someone is applying for a job. (Violent and sexual crimes are excluded, amongst others). The idea being that for minor misdemeanours, they have 'paid for' their crime and shouldn't continue to be punished, or denied jobs or housing, because that will leave people trapped in a cycle of petty crime.

This makes so much sense. Why doesn't the U.S. do this? Oh, right. Our prisons are for-profit. Ah, freedom!

A very small amount of our prisons and jails are for-profit. They shouldn't be, but let's not pretend that all of them are; that's not remotely close to true.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison
Quote
The US Department of Justice statistics show that, as of 2013, there were 133,000 state and federal prisoners housed in privately owned prisons in the US, constituting 8.4% of the overall U.S. prison population. Broken down to prison type, 19.1% of the federal prison population in the United States is housed in private prisons and 6.8% of the U.S. state prison population is housed in private prisons.

I don't know if I'd call that "very small" or not, but might as well have the actual numbers.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

jinga nation

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Location: 'Murica's Wang
  • Left, Right, Peddlin' Shite
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8192 on: May 11, 2015, 02:56:05 PM »

It doesn't just benefit them alone though.

One house goes up for rent for $2500 a month.
40 families apply for it.
How do you choose the right family?  Through applications.  How do you ensure they are solvent?  You run a credit check.  You going to pay to run 40 credit checks?  Or 20?  No.

Around here, housing is so tight that if you want the house or apartment, you pay.  If you are going to be picky about it, you aren't going to have a place to live.

No, it's only benefiting the landlord.  I don't benefit from my LL running a credit check on me, the LL does.  He wants to "choose the right family."  He wants to make sure his tenant is solvent.  He wants he wants he wants.
If you need a place to live and you want the place badly enough, you pay it.
If your alternative is getting kicked out and living in your car, you pay it.
If your alternative is an hour long commute, you pay it.
If your alternative is couch surfing, you pay it.
If you want the house, it is to your benefit.

dragoncar probably lives in a renter's market. I, and possibly mm1970 and others, live in a landlord's market.

I'm finished arguing with the dragon that landlords should pay for costs of business. It is a cost that will be passed on regardless of how it is hidden.

On the internet I concede to him; can't be bothered to argue with someone who has made up his mind.
In the real world my bank account loves multiple monthly rent deposits.

theadvicist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8193 on: May 12, 2015, 03:05:37 AM »

Yeah, in the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you would not be allowed to take certain things into account, just as you aren't when someone is applying for a job. (Violent and sexual crimes are excluded, amongst others). The idea being that for minor misdemeanours, they have 'paid for' their crime and shouldn't continue to be punished, or denied jobs or housing, because that will leave people trapped in a cycle of petty crime.

This makes so much sense. Why doesn't the U.S. do this? Oh, right. Our prisons are for-profit. Ah, freedom!

A very small amount of our prisons and jails are for-profit. They shouldn't be, but let's not pretend that all of them are; that's not remotely close to true.

If you were renting a property, and you had to choose between two almost-identical applicants, but one is a convicted felon - are you saying you would ignore that? No, you would not. You'd go for lower risk, every time.

I don't even know how you'd be able to check someone's criminal history in the UK. Maybe a UK Landlord can fill me in on whether this is done. But I've certainly only ever had my -credit- checked when applying to rent a property.

I know that you can check the Sex Offenders Register when, for example, appointing someone to volunteer with children or vulnerable adults. But I don't know whether you would be able to make an application to check someone's criminal history just because you want to, if you know what I mean.

A new law has been introduced meaning that, if I were to get into a new relationship I could go to a police station and ask if the guy had any previous form for violence. But that makes me think it wasn't possible to check someone's criminal history before. In the US, do you guys have an 'experian' equivalent for criminal history? Can anyone check on anyone else for any reason?

Under certain circumstances here it would certainly happen (working for certain government departments, banking etc), but in 'civilian' life I don't even know how you would go about doing it.

I used to work in insurance, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was taken very seriously. You cannot treat someone differently because of a spent conviction (for most offences) here by law.

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Location: NZ
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8194 on: May 12, 2015, 03:12:23 AM »
You need the persons permission to check their criminal record. Well that's how it is in NZ.

theadvicist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8195 on: May 12, 2015, 04:53:11 AM »
You need the persons permission to check their criminal record. Well that's how it is in NZ.
Makes sense.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4593
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8196 on: May 12, 2015, 05:35:09 AM »

Yeah, in the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you would not be allowed to take certain things into account, just as you aren't when someone is applying for a job. (Violent and sexual crimes are excluded, amongst others). The idea being that for minor misdemeanours, they have 'paid for' their crime and shouldn't continue to be punished, or denied jobs or housing, because that will leave people trapped in a cycle of petty crime.

This makes so much sense. Why doesn't the U.S. do this? Oh, right. Our prisons are for-profit. Ah, freedom!

A very small amount of our prisons and jails are for-profit. They shouldn't be, but let's not pretend that all of them are; that's not remotely close to true.

If you were renting a property, and you had to choose between two almost-identical applicants, but one is a convicted felon - are you saying you would ignore that? No, you would not. You'd go for lower risk, every time.

I don't even know how you'd be able to check someone's criminal history in the UK. Maybe a UK Landlord can fill me in on whether this is done. But I've certainly only ever had my -credit- checked when applying to rent a property.

I know that you can check the Sex Offenders Register when, for example, appointing someone to volunteer with children or vulnerable adults. But I don't know whether you would be able to make an application to check someone's criminal history just because you want to, if you know what I mean.

A new law has been introduced meaning that, if I were to get into a new relationship I could go to a police station and ask if the guy had any previous form for violence. But that makes me think it wasn't possible to check someone's criminal history before. In the US, do you guys have an 'experian' equivalent for criminal history? Can anyone check on anyone else for any reason?

Under certain circumstances here it would certainly happen (working for certain government departments, banking etc), but in 'civilian' life I don't even know how you would go about doing it.

I used to work in insurance, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was taken very seriously. You cannot treat someone differently because of a spent conviction (for most offences) here by law.
My applications say I can do a background/credit check and I pay a company to do it.  It has come back with a felony on a perspective tenant and I refused to rent to them.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7170
  • Location: United States
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8197 on: May 12, 2015, 06:40:50 AM »


I imagine what's rubbing some people the wrong way about the application fee is that they live in areas where a landlord is likely to collect 40 application fees up front and not bother running credit/backgroun checks for 39-40 of the applicants.

Last time we got a new tenant we returned the checks for anyone we didn't run a background check on.

theadvicist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8198 on: May 12, 2015, 07:02:44 AM »

My applications say I can do a background/credit check and I pay a company to do it.  It has come back with a felony on a perspective tenant and I refused to rent to them.

Which is totally your prerogative in your jurisdiction. I was simply saying that in the UK, it would not be legal to do that - regardless of what might be written in the application. Even if you told them you were doing it, and they agreed to it, it is not legal here (that's my understanding anyway, if anyone knows differently do jump in).

I was just pointing out, 'Oh, that's not allowed here' as a matter of interest.

trobertson79

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #8199 on: May 12, 2015, 10:18:38 AM »
Co-worker and wife pull down probably around 100k combined.  Overheard him saying "When we moved in with my wifes parents to save up for a house, we saved money at a CRAZY rate, we stopped buying virtually everything because we wanted to get out of there and in to our own house so bad.  We saved like 12K in 10 months!".