- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 171
Another discrimination lawsuit this time in the States.
http://www.republican-eagle.com/event/article/id/67465/
http://www.republican-eagle.com/event/article/id/67465/
Refusing to rent to smoker in Ontario ok?
- Thread starter RArora
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,042
I have to echo the comments of both Bernie (Property Solutions) and Berubeland on this one. NicKStar is way off the mark on almost every point stated.
Berubeland I believe your participation on ontariolandlord is a major asset on a site that seems overwhelmed with a great deal of the most pessimistic side of this business. Do not be discouraged and please continue to contribute your personal expertise to add value to that forum. Forums such as this and Ontario landlord need the continued support of professionals such as yourself, Termi, Harry Fine, Thomas and many others to add a balance.
Berubeland I believe your participation on ontariolandlord is a major asset on a site that seems overwhelmed with a great deal of the most pessimistic side of this business. Do not be discouraged and please continue to contribute your personal expertise to add value to that forum. Forums such as this and Ontario landlord need the continued support of professionals such as yourself, Termi, Harry Fine, Thomas and many others to add a balance.
QUOTE (PropertySolution @ Jun 26 2010, 01:21 AM) I am not about to place a 21 year old heavy metal band member in a 4-plex with 3 homes filled with seniors, that`s just asking for headaches and complaints. Just as I would not place a Pastor and his wife in a 4-plex with 3 Heavy Metal band members. Its not discriminations rather its common sense.
That is in deed discrimination.
If this heavy metal band member passes the same checks as everyone else, such as credit check, reference check, criminal check, etc...why should he be denied housing?! His appearance, his hobbies/work should not be a factor in his acceptance. There are other laws that would protect others sharing the building with and around him from your prejudicial views of his actions. If they are in deed trouble makers, it would show up on reference checks. Criminal/Police checks would show charges of disturbing the peace, if this is what you are worried about.
Do you understand that you are conducting a business offered to the public? You have moral and legal obligations when offering products/services to the public.
How would you feel if all the lending institutions denied you access to funding because they didn`t like your haircut, or they had a "feel" about you, even though you were more than capable and creditworthy to be accepted. Let`s say you are more than qualified for a mortgage, and the lending institutions denied you without reason? Would you in any way think of discrimination towards you? Which percentage group would you be in? the one that accepts unfair denial and says/does nothing, or the smaller percentage that fully believes that they have rights, and will question whether these rights have been infringed upon?!!
Try turning the tables around, and see how your actions and decisions would sound if you were the applicant.
All that I am saying to ALL, is to UNDERSTAND what DISCRIMINATION is, and failure to protect yourself (not giving a legitimate reason for denying application), opens up the POSSIBILITY of a review by the Human Rights council. If you are willing to take this chance, and the chance of expensive legal council, that is your choice.
There may be no law that states that you "have" to give a reason.
There is also no law that states that they have to be part of the percentage that accepts unfair denial without further action.
That is in deed discrimination.
If this heavy metal band member passes the same checks as everyone else, such as credit check, reference check, criminal check, etc...why should he be denied housing?! His appearance, his hobbies/work should not be a factor in his acceptance. There are other laws that would protect others sharing the building with and around him from your prejudicial views of his actions. If they are in deed trouble makers, it would show up on reference checks. Criminal/Police checks would show charges of disturbing the peace, if this is what you are worried about.
Do you understand that you are conducting a business offered to the public? You have moral and legal obligations when offering products/services to the public.
How would you feel if all the lending institutions denied you access to funding because they didn`t like your haircut, or they had a "feel" about you, even though you were more than capable and creditworthy to be accepted. Let`s say you are more than qualified for a mortgage, and the lending institutions denied you without reason? Would you in any way think of discrimination towards you? Which percentage group would you be in? the one that accepts unfair denial and says/does nothing, or the smaller percentage that fully believes that they have rights, and will question whether these rights have been infringed upon?!!
Try turning the tables around, and see how your actions and decisions would sound if you were the applicant.
All that I am saying to ALL, is to UNDERSTAND what DISCRIMINATION is, and failure to protect yourself (not giving a legitimate reason for denying application), opens up the POSSIBILITY of a review by the Human Rights council. If you are willing to take this chance, and the chance of expensive legal council, that is your choice.
There may be no law that states that you "have" to give a reason.
There is also no law that states that they have to be part of the percentage that accepts unfair denial without further action.
QUOTE (Berubeland @ Jun 26 2010, 09:17 AM) Nickstar,
Feel free to take your dogma back to the ontariolandlord forum instead of trying to attack me here.
In Ontario there is no requirement to disclose a reason to turn down a rental application unlike certain States for example.
Berubeland,
I apologize if you feel that I have taken a personal attack at you. This is not my intention in the least.
As I said earlier, every comment on this board is valuable, as it offers more and different views to take into consideration. I encourage all to offer their opposing opinions as it stimulates thought and response = more informative and useful board.
As a near-future participant in this arena of property investment and management, I wish to attain all those views that are opposing to my own to increase my awareness and to open my mind to views I have failed to consider. I will not take these opposing views as personal attacks, I will learn from them, increasing my knowledge to become a better investor / manager.
I am a firm believer in:
"TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED."
This rule is known as "The Golden Rule." Some version of it is found in most religions, yet it establishes no particular religion; it leads to harmony among all people; it is the foundation of Democracy; and it leads to the political goal of "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number, With Basic Rights For All."
In applying this to posts on this board: I will disagree with the views and opinions of some of you, and I will offer a rebuttal. Please do the same for me. YES, I would like to know when I am wrong.
Once again, I would like to reiterate that I truly appreciate your post, and your experience, Berubeland. Please feel free to offer opposing comments to any of my comments, as many of us value your thoughts and opinions.
Feel free to take your dogma back to the ontariolandlord forum instead of trying to attack me here.
In Ontario there is no requirement to disclose a reason to turn down a rental application unlike certain States for example.
Berubeland,
I apologize if you feel that I have taken a personal attack at you. This is not my intention in the least.
As I said earlier, every comment on this board is valuable, as it offers more and different views to take into consideration. I encourage all to offer their opposing opinions as it stimulates thought and response = more informative and useful board.
As a near-future participant in this arena of property investment and management, I wish to attain all those views that are opposing to my own to increase my awareness and to open my mind to views I have failed to consider. I will not take these opposing views as personal attacks, I will learn from them, increasing my knowledge to become a better investor / manager.
I am a firm believer in:
"TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED."
This rule is known as "The Golden Rule." Some version of it is found in most religions, yet it establishes no particular religion; it leads to harmony among all people; it is the foundation of Democracy; and it leads to the political goal of "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number, With Basic Rights For All."
In applying this to posts on this board: I will disagree with the views and opinions of some of you, and I will offer a rebuttal. Please do the same for me. YES, I would like to know when I am wrong.
Once again, I would like to reiterate that I truly appreciate your post, and your experience, Berubeland. Please feel free to offer opposing comments to any of my comments, as many of us value your thoughts and opinions.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,042
[quote name=`NicKStaR` date=`Jun 26 2010, 11:26 AM` post=`88231`]
me a better investor / manager.
I am a firm believer in:
"TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED."
This rule is known as "The Golden Rule." Some version of it is found in most religions, yet it establishes no particular religion; it leads to harmony among all people; it is the foundation of Democracy; and it leads to the political goal of "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number, With Basic Rights For All."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The golden rule as you have referred only has a broad spectrum application in a "perfect" world. In business this is not a practical approach as a hard and fast rule of operation although may be attempted to be generally applied with prudent caution. It is also not the foundation of democracy in fact democracy operates on a principal as you have stated that places the good of the whole ahead of the individual.
The Foundation of democracies political goal of "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number, With Basic Rights For All" does however work in business and overrides the "golden rule" in recognising the fact that not all individuals warrant the same consideration. It recognises the fact that in making decisions regarding selection of applicants as tenants there are others to be considered ahead of the individuals. Such as the owner, other tenants the community at large etc.
Providing a LL is making smart business decisions based on the health of the business and not personal prejudices those decisions are generally the best for all. They may not always be the perfect politically correct decisions but I believe that "political correctness" is a greatly over played card that has lost much support/credibility since the 90s.
I personally would not reject a punk rocker because I believed he was a negative blight on society. I would reject him because the rest of my tenants would consider him a negative blight on society. Greater good sort of situation and at the same time allowing him the "basic right" of finding a place to live where he would better fit in and ultimately be happier.
me a better investor / manager.
I am a firm believer in:
"TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED."
This rule is known as "The Golden Rule." Some version of it is found in most religions, yet it establishes no particular religion; it leads to harmony among all people; it is the foundation of Democracy; and it leads to the political goal of "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number, With Basic Rights For All."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The golden rule as you have referred only has a broad spectrum application in a "perfect" world. In business this is not a practical approach as a hard and fast rule of operation although may be attempted to be generally applied with prudent caution. It is also not the foundation of democracy in fact democracy operates on a principal as you have stated that places the good of the whole ahead of the individual.
The Foundation of democracies political goal of "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number, With Basic Rights For All" does however work in business and overrides the "golden rule" in recognising the fact that not all individuals warrant the same consideration. It recognises the fact that in making decisions regarding selection of applicants as tenants there are others to be considered ahead of the individuals. Such as the owner, other tenants the community at large etc.
Providing a LL is making smart business decisions based on the health of the business and not personal prejudices those decisions are generally the best for all. They may not always be the perfect politically correct decisions but I believe that "political correctness" is a greatly over played card that has lost much support/credibility since the 90s.
I personally would not reject a punk rocker because I believed he was a negative blight on society. I would reject him because the rest of my tenants would consider him a negative blight on society. Greater good sort of situation and at the same time allowing him the "basic right" of finding a place to live where he would better fit in and ultimately be happier.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 171
Nickstar,
How the law is written and applied often differ greatly.
I will educate you on a basic tenet of law, specifically a law such as the Human Rights Code. Anyone can bring a case against another at any time. For instance I could file 20 cases at Small Claims for hurting my feelings claiming $25,000. My case has no actual merits but that is irrelevant because I have a right to bring forward a case. The same is true of the Landlord & Tenant Board or the Human Rights commission. For instance I could claim that I am being discriminated against because I am female. No error or omission is required on my part. I could be 100% innocent and still have a lawsuit brought against me. If I ignore the lawsuit and do not attend to defend myself I will lose. Believe it or not people frequently ignore such notices. There are also people who are very quick to bring suit against others for very slim cause.
Having said that assuming that you are a prudent human being and respond to the allegations a case without merit will quickly be dismissed. This is why I say over and over again do not give a reason for turning down the application.
I have absolutely no control over my clients and their wishes. You mentioned the case of my apartment in the home of the senior. Don`t you think I would much rather rent that apartment currently very narrowly advertised in places I believe will appeal to other seniors quickly and easily? A two bedroom in the Beaches is listed for $1000. This is an apartment that could easily be rented for $1500 if the criteria would open up.
On the other hand do I think my client a man who is extremely quiet should be subject to loud music or parties or endless visitors? No. My job is to protect that man to the best of my ability using every skill I have to provide him with a good rental experience.
With in reason I do not discriminate. I look at the application and base it on it`s merits.
I have also learned to trust my feelings. My scientific basis for trusting my feelings is based on studies that 60% of all communication is not verbal. There is also science to support the use of microexpression training something the FBI and Law Enforcement use. I would love to go to the Human Rights Commission and explain my belief and use of this kind of science in my work. I urge all landlords to do the same.
How the law is written and applied often differ greatly.
I will educate you on a basic tenet of law, specifically a law such as the Human Rights Code. Anyone can bring a case against another at any time. For instance I could file 20 cases at Small Claims for hurting my feelings claiming $25,000. My case has no actual merits but that is irrelevant because I have a right to bring forward a case. The same is true of the Landlord & Tenant Board or the Human Rights commission. For instance I could claim that I am being discriminated against because I am female. No error or omission is required on my part. I could be 100% innocent and still have a lawsuit brought against me. If I ignore the lawsuit and do not attend to defend myself I will lose. Believe it or not people frequently ignore such notices. There are also people who are very quick to bring suit against others for very slim cause.
Having said that assuming that you are a prudent human being and respond to the allegations a case without merit will quickly be dismissed. This is why I say over and over again do not give a reason for turning down the application.
I have absolutely no control over my clients and their wishes. You mentioned the case of my apartment in the home of the senior. Don`t you think I would much rather rent that apartment currently very narrowly advertised in places I believe will appeal to other seniors quickly and easily? A two bedroom in the Beaches is listed for $1000. This is an apartment that could easily be rented for $1500 if the criteria would open up.
On the other hand do I think my client a man who is extremely quiet should be subject to loud music or parties or endless visitors? No. My job is to protect that man to the best of my ability using every skill I have to provide him with a good rental experience.
With in reason I do not discriminate. I look at the application and base it on it`s merits.
I have also learned to trust my feelings. My scientific basis for trusting my feelings is based on studies that 60% of all communication is not verbal. There is also science to support the use of microexpression training something the FBI and Law Enforcement use. I would love to go to the Human Rights Commission and explain my belief and use of this kind of science in my work. I urge all landlords to do the same.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,733
Breubeland I don`t think you`ve looked into this enough. or your joking around. I suspect you wouldn`t say that if going there
Nickstar: What is your educational / employment background? You`re coming off like someone deep into his summer class in philosophy at local community college. Are you currently in school?
Nickstar: What is your educational / employment background? You`re coming off like someone deep into his summer class in philosophy at local community college. Are you currently in school?
First off, two great responses and views that I may have previously disregarded had I not insisted to "attack" previous responses, prompting an informative discussion and debate. An emphasis on compatibility between tenants is the main point taken.
Berubeland, going back to the elderly senior male situation:
QUOTE (Berubeland @ Jun 22 2010, 09:20 AM) For example I am currently renting out an apartment for a 88 year old senior. He wants no pets, no smoking, a senior, a woman and he wants the relationship to be
The wishes of the owner is obviously discriminatory, objectionable to both sex and age. After screening applicants to your clients` specifications, who is ultimately responsible for the approval/denial of the application? Who would be held liable IF a suit were to be pursued? Is it not the property management`s responsibility to be informed of applicable laws (ie. human rights)?
If this (fictitious) heavy metal rocker applicant were to pass the same checks as other applicants (minus discriminatory conditions), he should be approved. If there is obvious possible compatibility issues, I would think that this should be brought up in an applicant interview process. The issue of tenant compatibility is for the benefit of both the senior and the rocker dude. The senior does not want to be disturbed, nor does the rocker want constant complaints filed against him, both having obstacles of enjoying their "spaces". After simple explanation during this interview, one may find that the rocker dude, simply agrees that it is inappropriate for him and his lifestyle to be living next to a quiet senior. On the other hand, the rocker dude may prove to be the ideal tenant, where he fully respects those around him. He may explain that he and his band rent out an abandoned barn out in nowhere land to practice their headache-inducing noise. And furthermore, is hardly ever at home, because he is a heavy party-goer, partying and staying over at other people`s places.
Now, should this individual be declined because he is not an old lady? Who wouldn`t want someone who is never there, yet pays your mortgage every month, as a tenant? I for one would welcome this young rocker as a tenant in any property I owned, and encourage him to PARTY ON DUDE!!!
Now, let`s say this rocker takes you to court because you denied him housing for no apparent reason. And his references testify that he is indeed the "ideal tenant", does he have just cause in his case? Can you defend your position that he is not "compatible" with other residents in the building? Can you defend your position that you "felt" something about him that just didn`t feel right? Did he ever get a chance to dispute a "compatibility" issue?
OK, I AM stretching the realms of possibilities here, however, I am attempting to expand upon a point I made earlier. That point being that due diligence in finding an appropriate tenant can be done without prejudice and discrimination. And providing a legitimate reason for denying an application can not hurt, but only serve to protect... the keyword here being "legitimate".
Berubeland, going back to the elderly senior male situation:
QUOTE (Berubeland @ Jun 22 2010, 09:20 AM) For example I am currently renting out an apartment for a 88 year old senior. He wants no pets, no smoking, a senior, a woman and he wants the relationship to be
The wishes of the owner is obviously discriminatory, objectionable to both sex and age. After screening applicants to your clients` specifications, who is ultimately responsible for the approval/denial of the application? Who would be held liable IF a suit were to be pursued? Is it not the property management`s responsibility to be informed of applicable laws (ie. human rights)?
If this (fictitious) heavy metal rocker applicant were to pass the same checks as other applicants (minus discriminatory conditions), he should be approved. If there is obvious possible compatibility issues, I would think that this should be brought up in an applicant interview process. The issue of tenant compatibility is for the benefit of both the senior and the rocker dude. The senior does not want to be disturbed, nor does the rocker want constant complaints filed against him, both having obstacles of enjoying their "spaces". After simple explanation during this interview, one may find that the rocker dude, simply agrees that it is inappropriate for him and his lifestyle to be living next to a quiet senior. On the other hand, the rocker dude may prove to be the ideal tenant, where he fully respects those around him. He may explain that he and his band rent out an abandoned barn out in nowhere land to practice their headache-inducing noise. And furthermore, is hardly ever at home, because he is a heavy party-goer, partying and staying over at other people`s places.
Now, should this individual be declined because he is not an old lady? Who wouldn`t want someone who is never there, yet pays your mortgage every month, as a tenant? I for one would welcome this young rocker as a tenant in any property I owned, and encourage him to PARTY ON DUDE!!!
Now, let`s say this rocker takes you to court because you denied him housing for no apparent reason. And his references testify that he is indeed the "ideal tenant", does he have just cause in his case? Can you defend your position that he is not "compatible" with other residents in the building? Can you defend your position that you "felt" something about him that just didn`t feel right? Did he ever get a chance to dispute a "compatibility" issue?
OK, I AM stretching the realms of possibilities here, however, I am attempting to expand upon a point I made earlier. That point being that due diligence in finding an appropriate tenant can be done without prejudice and discrimination. And providing a legitimate reason for denying an application can not hurt, but only serve to protect... the keyword here being "legitimate".
QUOTE (housingrental @ Jun 26 2010, 03:30 PM) Nickstar: What is your educational / employment background? You`re coming off like someone deep into his summer class in philosophy at local community college. Are you currently in school?
I`m unsure whether to take this as a compliment or a "personal attack"
For either sake, no, I am not currently in school, nor have I been for at least 15 years.
As for a little about my background... I love to debate, I love to ask "why?", and I love to push others to defend their position and views to reveal their intellect. Even if I agree with one`s view/opinion, I will still strive to push them and myself to exhaustive measures.
In short, I love to increase my knowledge, and these traits of mine are a fun way of gaining knowledge. This is the reason I emphasize not to take my responses as personal attacks, as I truly do wish to gain knowledge from varying views and discussion.
I`m unsure whether to take this as a compliment or a "personal attack"
For either sake, no, I am not currently in school, nor have I been for at least 15 years.
As for a little about my background... I love to debate, I love to ask "why?", and I love to push others to defend their position and views to reveal their intellect. Even if I agree with one`s view/opinion, I will still strive to push them and myself to exhaustive measures.
In short, I love to increase my knowledge, and these traits of mine are a fun way of gaining knowledge. This is the reason I emphasize not to take my responses as personal attacks, as I truly do wish to gain knowledge from varying views and discussion.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,733
Hi NickStar no not an attack. It was intended to be light heated. I should appreciate more reading can leave context in question. Sorry.
Thanks for your thoughts. Here`s something for you to think about though:
The tenant that is going to dedicate time to launch a human rights case against you for your applicant procedures are the tenants you`d prefer to have not rejected and have as tenants?
(btw - i believe in and follow non-discriminatory policies for applicants and I`d be more inclined to turn down the job that Breubland is referencing)
Thanks for your thoughts. Here`s something for you to think about though:
The tenant that is going to dedicate time to launch a human rights case against you for your applicant procedures are the tenants you`d prefer to have not rejected and have as tenants?
(btw - i believe in and follow non-discriminatory policies for applicants and I`d be more inclined to turn down the job that Breubland is referencing)
QUOTE (housingrental @ Jun 26 2010, 05:19 PM)
The tenant that is going to dedicate time to launch a human rights case against you for your applicant procedures are the tenants you'd prefer to have not rejected and have as tenants?
For sure!
Human Rights is a very touchy subject, more so for some than others. In this scenario, infringement upon one's Human Rights, is like sleeping with your best friend's wife. They would never seek to harm you in any way, ever, had you not crossed that invisible line. Once you make someone feel extremely violated, you best be ready to defend yourself. If you practise non-discriminatory processes, you will NEVER have to worry about a human rights case, EVER!!
Although, there are those unavoidable few that try to make a case out of everything, they will quickly find that they have NO GROUNDS to base their suit. Giving a legitimate reason for denial is for your protection! If you can not provide a legitimate reason, there must be some form of discrimination in the decision, PERIOD! Otherwise, what are you afraid of?
If they did not pass any of the checks, why not inform them of such. If it is a credit issue, why not tell them so? Let them know that they need to seek resolution with the credit bureau, and invite them to re-apply once their reason for denial has been appropriately been dealt with. Whatever the reason may be, just let them know. I for one, would pursue a reason, had one not been provided. If you can not provide me with that much respect, why should I have any respect for you or your decision?
There is no doubt that Property Management can become a headache with everything that needs to be taken into consideration. That is why many investors leave this task to "experts" and gladly pay sometimes obscene percentages of their rental income to deal with these tenant issues.
Even those who discriminate, can not guarantee tenant compatibility, nor can they guarantee ease of management of the tenant. Can an elderly woman not develop delusion, and claim false accusations of the elderly gentleman? How much better is this than the rocker-dude that is never home?
Just leave out discrimination out of the equation, and that is one less hassle you have to deal with. And it could be one big hassle once it does happen.
It very well may seem that the law greatly favors the tenant in attaining housing. However, there are many laws that the tenants must abide by to 'keep' that housing.
Tenant due diligence should be the same for every applicant, for example:
1. Households must meet income limits.
2. Households must provide verifiable landlord references.
3. Banking and credit references are required.
4. Applicants must provide a valid Social Insurance Number card.
5. Applicants must be able to pre-pay required rents prior to move-in, including first month's rent and security.
6. Applicants must be willing and able to enter into a lease agreement.
7. Applicant households cannot contain anyone who has been convicted of a felony or repeated misdemeanors within the last five years.
8. Personal interviews with an entire resident household present may be required.
If they pass this, why shouldn't they be approved?! Equally important, what possible reasons are left to deny such application without reason? Any compatibility issues should be brought up during the interview.
Those who feel that no reason for denial is necessary, are those who wish to empower themselves with powers they have no right to use... mainly those who practise some form of discrimination.
The tenant that is going to dedicate time to launch a human rights case against you for your applicant procedures are the tenants you'd prefer to have not rejected and have as tenants?
For sure!
Human Rights is a very touchy subject, more so for some than others. In this scenario, infringement upon one's Human Rights, is like sleeping with your best friend's wife. They would never seek to harm you in any way, ever, had you not crossed that invisible line. Once you make someone feel extremely violated, you best be ready to defend yourself. If you practise non-discriminatory processes, you will NEVER have to worry about a human rights case, EVER!!
Although, there are those unavoidable few that try to make a case out of everything, they will quickly find that they have NO GROUNDS to base their suit. Giving a legitimate reason for denial is for your protection! If you can not provide a legitimate reason, there must be some form of discrimination in the decision, PERIOD! Otherwise, what are you afraid of?
If they did not pass any of the checks, why not inform them of such. If it is a credit issue, why not tell them so? Let them know that they need to seek resolution with the credit bureau, and invite them to re-apply once their reason for denial has been appropriately been dealt with. Whatever the reason may be, just let them know. I for one, would pursue a reason, had one not been provided. If you can not provide me with that much respect, why should I have any respect for you or your decision?
There is no doubt that Property Management can become a headache with everything that needs to be taken into consideration. That is why many investors leave this task to "experts" and gladly pay sometimes obscene percentages of their rental income to deal with these tenant issues.
Even those who discriminate, can not guarantee tenant compatibility, nor can they guarantee ease of management of the tenant. Can an elderly woman not develop delusion, and claim false accusations of the elderly gentleman? How much better is this than the rocker-dude that is never home?
Just leave out discrimination out of the equation, and that is one less hassle you have to deal with. And it could be one big hassle once it does happen.
It very well may seem that the law greatly favors the tenant in attaining housing. However, there are many laws that the tenants must abide by to 'keep' that housing.
Tenant due diligence should be the same for every applicant, for example:
1. Households must meet income limits.
2. Households must provide verifiable landlord references.
3. Banking and credit references are required.
4. Applicants must provide a valid Social Insurance Number card.
5. Applicants must be able to pre-pay required rents prior to move-in, including first month's rent and security.
6. Applicants must be willing and able to enter into a lease agreement.
7. Applicant households cannot contain anyone who has been convicted of a felony or repeated misdemeanors within the last five years.
8. Personal interviews with an entire resident household present may be required.
If they pass this, why shouldn't they be approved?! Equally important, what possible reasons are left to deny such application without reason? Any compatibility issues should be brought up during the interview.
Those who feel that no reason for denial is necessary, are those who wish to empower themselves with powers they have no right to use... mainly those who practise some form of discrimination.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 171
Quite right HousingRental I would definitely not be attending the Human Rights Commission with that argument
Having said that I do believe that a lot is characterized as intuition is picking up on subtle non verbal cues that are being expressed by the applicant. I have actually rented to people who have perfect credit that I had bed feelings about and pooh poohed myself into accepting because everything was perfect. I invariably regret it.
I also am not really thrilled with this rental assignment, it is difficult. I would prefer to turn down such assignments except for my weakness for protecting seniors and vulnerable people. I don`t think I could live with myself if I turned down the assignment and he ended up with a professional tenant of some sort.
I am also well aware of the discrimination in housing that goes on. Immigrants and people of certain ethnicities are certainly targeted as undesirables. I had an application turned down once by the property manager for a guy who had $150,000 in cash in the bank and perfect credit because he was of a certain religion and cultural background, this in a building with 25% vacancy. I came close to getting fired because of what I said to the property management. Buildings like this had better take heed of that case in the States. Like most legislation this is not designed for small landlords but rather the corporate landlords who discriminate. Every building I have worked in has some sort of discriminatory policy in place. I also admittedly work in high vacancy places which are certainly models of what not to do.
I tell people all the time that about 99% of the people I have evicted are born and bred Canadians. I have never evicted any of the protected groups with the exception of people on assistance. Even people on assistance are OK it`s just that their budget is so so slim that one mistake makes it impossible to recover. After they pay their rent and their bills they have to stretch their budget to the breaking point just to eat. Affordable housing is a real problem for them. A single guy gets under $600 to pay for everything. Even rooms in Toronto are $500 per month. I`m a pretty financially prudent person but I wouldn`t want to attempt that budget.
Having said that I do believe that a lot is characterized as intuition is picking up on subtle non verbal cues that are being expressed by the applicant. I have actually rented to people who have perfect credit that I had bed feelings about and pooh poohed myself into accepting because everything was perfect. I invariably regret it.
I also am not really thrilled with this rental assignment, it is difficult. I would prefer to turn down such assignments except for my weakness for protecting seniors and vulnerable people. I don`t think I could live with myself if I turned down the assignment and he ended up with a professional tenant of some sort.
I am also well aware of the discrimination in housing that goes on. Immigrants and people of certain ethnicities are certainly targeted as undesirables. I had an application turned down once by the property manager for a guy who had $150,000 in cash in the bank and perfect credit because he was of a certain religion and cultural background, this in a building with 25% vacancy. I came close to getting fired because of what I said to the property management. Buildings like this had better take heed of that case in the States. Like most legislation this is not designed for small landlords but rather the corporate landlords who discriminate. Every building I have worked in has some sort of discriminatory policy in place. I also admittedly work in high vacancy places which are certainly models of what not to do.
I tell people all the time that about 99% of the people I have evicted are born and bred Canadians. I have never evicted any of the protected groups with the exception of people on assistance. Even people on assistance are OK it`s just that their budget is so so slim that one mistake makes it impossible to recover. After they pay their rent and their bills they have to stretch their budget to the breaking point just to eat. Affordable housing is a real problem for them. A single guy gets under $600 to pay for everything. Even rooms in Toronto are $500 per month. I`m a pretty financially prudent person but I wouldn`t want to attempt that budget.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 398
QUOTE (NicKStaR @ Jun 26 2010, 06:40 PM) For sure!
Human Rights is a very touchy subject, more so for some than others. In this scenario, infringement upon one`s Human Rights, is like sleeping with your best friend`s wife. They would never seek to harm you in any way, ever, had you not crossed that invisible line. If you practise non-discriminatory processes, you will NEVER have to worry about a human rights case, EVER!!
Although, there are those unavoidable few that try to make a case out of everything, they will quickly find that they have NO GROUNDS to base their suit. Giving a legitimate reason for denial is for your protection! If you can not provide a legitimate reason, there must be some form of discrimination in the decision, PERIOD! Otherwise, what are you afraid of?
Just leave out discrimination out of the equation, and that is one less hassle you have to deal with. And it could be one big hassle once it does happen.
Tenant due diligence should be the same for every applicant, for example:
1. Households must meet income limits.
2. Households must provide verifiable landlord references.
3. Banking and credit references are required.
4. Applicants must provide a valid Social Insurance Number card.
5. Applicants must be able to pre-pay required rents prior to move-in, including first month`s rent and security.
6. Applicants must be willing and able to enter into a lease agreement.
7. Applicant households cannot contain anyone who has been convicted of a felony or repeated misdemeanors within the last five years.
8. Personal interviews with an entire resident household present may be required.
If they pass this, why shouldn`t they be approved?! Equally important, what possible reasons are left to deny such application without reason? Any compatibility issues should be brought up during the interview.
Those who feel that no reason for denial is necessary, are those who wish to empower themselves with powers they have no right to use... mainly those who practise some form of discrimination.
From an observer`s point of view, the main argument on both sides seems to be based around the idea of discrimination. Often people think that it`s always a bad or illegal thing, as they think in terms of race, religion, gender issues, etc. In these cases, discrimination is obviously a bad thing. But society, and the law, permit/encourage discrimination in many forms, as long as it makes sense. This is still discrimination, even if it`s "common sense", as I think Berubeland talked about. It`s age discrimination to say that 15-year-olds can`t drive, and it`s age and sex discrimination to say that a 20-year-old male has to pay more in car insurance than a 45-year-old female. It`s discrimination that a practising Muslim can`t become a Catholic priest, too. All of these are examples of legally accepted discrimination. So, it`s not a matter of whether a landlord uses discriminatory practices or not....it`s a matter of if they`re legal, moral, and acceptable.
So, we obviously have laws to help determine the legal aspect, but the moral and acceptable ones will vary from person to person. The problem with giving a reason is that although that might fit with your moral code, and they might make sense to you, but to someone else, they won`t. Most of your criteria make sense to me, Nick, but to someone else, they`re discrimination, which you seem to abhor. For example...
1. Households must meet income limits.
You`re obviously discriminating against the poor, thereby opening yourself up for trouble.>
2. Households must provide verifiable landlord references.
Recent immigrants, or young people out on their own for the first time don`t have this, so you`re discriminating against both immigrants (race?) and the young.
3. Banking and credit references are required.
See number 2.
4. Applicants must provide a valid Social Insurance Number card.
Do landed immigrants have SIN numbers, or are you discriminating against immigrants again?
5. Applicants must be able to pre-pay required rents prior to move-in, including first month`s rent and security.
You`re breaking the law here....in Ontario, we can`t get a security deposit. It can only be first and last month`s rent.
So, in just your first five, you`ve discriminated against the poor once, the young twice, immigrants 2 or 3 times, and broken the law. Now, I understand why you want to do these, and I have no problems with most of your criteria, as by and large, they make sense. (I`m not sure about the SIN card, but I know a lot of people that do that, so it doesn`t bug me.) But if someone doesn`t meet your (reasonable) requirements, and you tell them why, then they now have a rationale to take you to court. As you have made "someone feel extremely violated, you best be ready to defend yourself", as you yourself said. Of course, you have a rationale to defend yourself, but why would you want to put yourself through it? Why would you want to spend the time, energy, and money when they could so easily be spent on more productive things? Especially when they could so easily be dispensed with by not giving them that ammunition, and without making that person feel so violated?
As we`ve mentioned before in this thread, the REIN mantra is "I`m sorry, but we`ve decided to go with someone else," and that`s it. That doesn`t give anyone anywhere near the ammunition or the sense of injured pride that giving them a different reason would. Is it foolproof? Of course not, as nothing is. But is it better than saying they didn`t get it because they`re immigrants (as some people would interpret your reasons, even though that clearly wasn`t what you said)? I`d say it obviously is.
Hopefully, that makes sense to you, but if it doesn`t, keep challenging!
Have a good one!
JohnS
Human Rights is a very touchy subject, more so for some than others. In this scenario, infringement upon one`s Human Rights, is like sleeping with your best friend`s wife. They would never seek to harm you in any way, ever, had you not crossed that invisible line. If you practise non-discriminatory processes, you will NEVER have to worry about a human rights case, EVER!!
Although, there are those unavoidable few that try to make a case out of everything, they will quickly find that they have NO GROUNDS to base their suit. Giving a legitimate reason for denial is for your protection! If you can not provide a legitimate reason, there must be some form of discrimination in the decision, PERIOD! Otherwise, what are you afraid of?
Just leave out discrimination out of the equation, and that is one less hassle you have to deal with. And it could be one big hassle once it does happen.
Tenant due diligence should be the same for every applicant, for example:
1. Households must meet income limits.
2. Households must provide verifiable landlord references.
3. Banking and credit references are required.
4. Applicants must provide a valid Social Insurance Number card.
5. Applicants must be able to pre-pay required rents prior to move-in, including first month`s rent and security.
6. Applicants must be willing and able to enter into a lease agreement.
7. Applicant households cannot contain anyone who has been convicted of a felony or repeated misdemeanors within the last five years.
8. Personal interviews with an entire resident household present may be required.
If they pass this, why shouldn`t they be approved?! Equally important, what possible reasons are left to deny such application without reason? Any compatibility issues should be brought up during the interview.
Those who feel that no reason for denial is necessary, are those who wish to empower themselves with powers they have no right to use... mainly those who practise some form of discrimination.
From an observer`s point of view, the main argument on both sides seems to be based around the idea of discrimination. Often people think that it`s always a bad or illegal thing, as they think in terms of race, religion, gender issues, etc. In these cases, discrimination is obviously a bad thing. But society, and the law, permit/encourage discrimination in many forms, as long as it makes sense. This is still discrimination, even if it`s "common sense", as I think Berubeland talked about. It`s age discrimination to say that 15-year-olds can`t drive, and it`s age and sex discrimination to say that a 20-year-old male has to pay more in car insurance than a 45-year-old female. It`s discrimination that a practising Muslim can`t become a Catholic priest, too. All of these are examples of legally accepted discrimination. So, it`s not a matter of whether a landlord uses discriminatory practices or not....it`s a matter of if they`re legal, moral, and acceptable.
So, we obviously have laws to help determine the legal aspect, but the moral and acceptable ones will vary from person to person. The problem with giving a reason is that although that might fit with your moral code, and they might make sense to you, but to someone else, they won`t. Most of your criteria make sense to me, Nick, but to someone else, they`re discrimination, which you seem to abhor. For example...
1. Households must meet income limits.
You`re obviously discriminating against the poor, thereby opening yourself up for trouble.>
2. Households must provide verifiable landlord references.
Recent immigrants, or young people out on their own for the first time don`t have this, so you`re discriminating against both immigrants (race?) and the young.
3. Banking and credit references are required.
See number 2.
4. Applicants must provide a valid Social Insurance Number card.
Do landed immigrants have SIN numbers, or are you discriminating against immigrants again?
5. Applicants must be able to pre-pay required rents prior to move-in, including first month`s rent and security.
You`re breaking the law here....in Ontario, we can`t get a security deposit. It can only be first and last month`s rent.
So, in just your first five, you`ve discriminated against the poor once, the young twice, immigrants 2 or 3 times, and broken the law. Now, I understand why you want to do these, and I have no problems with most of your criteria, as by and large, they make sense. (I`m not sure about the SIN card, but I know a lot of people that do that, so it doesn`t bug me.) But if someone doesn`t meet your (reasonable) requirements, and you tell them why, then they now have a rationale to take you to court. As you have made "someone feel extremely violated, you best be ready to defend yourself", as you yourself said. Of course, you have a rationale to defend yourself, but why would you want to put yourself through it? Why would you want to spend the time, energy, and money when they could so easily be spent on more productive things? Especially when they could so easily be dispensed with by not giving them that ammunition, and without making that person feel so violated?
As we`ve mentioned before in this thread, the REIN mantra is "I`m sorry, but we`ve decided to go with someone else," and that`s it. That doesn`t give anyone anywhere near the ammunition or the sense of injured pride that giving them a different reason would. Is it foolproof? Of course not, as nothing is. But is it better than saying they didn`t get it because they`re immigrants (as some people would interpret your reasons, even though that clearly wasn`t what you said)? I`d say it obviously is.
Hopefully, that makes sense to you, but if it doesn`t, keep challenging!
Have a good one!
JohnS
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,042
QUOTE (JohnS @ Jun 26 2010, 07:20 PM) As we`ve mentioned before in this thread, the REIN mantra is "I`m sorry, but we`ve decided to go with someone else," and that`s it. That doesn`t give anyone anywhere near the ammunition or the sense of injured pride that giving them a different reason would. Is it foolproof? Of course not, as nothing is. But is it better than saying they didn`t get it because they`re immigrants (as some people would interpret your reasons, even though that clearly wasn`t what you said)? I`d say it obviously is.
Hopefully, that makes sense to you, but if it doesn`t, keep challenging!
Have a good one!
JohnS
This mantra goes far beyond REIN. Every seasoned LL I know has learned from experience that not giving a reason, or simply stating as above, is best practice. No ones feelings get hurt, no one has to defend them self and no law is broken.
It falls in the category of: Don`t ask a question if you don`t want to hear the answer.
In this case it would be: Don`t give a reason if you don`t want to hear an argument.
Hopefully, that makes sense to you, but if it doesn`t, keep challenging!
Have a good one!
JohnS
This mantra goes far beyond REIN. Every seasoned LL I know has learned from experience that not giving a reason, or simply stating as above, is best practice. No ones feelings get hurt, no one has to defend them self and no law is broken.
It falls in the category of: Don`t ask a question if you don`t want to hear the answer.
In this case it would be: Don`t give a reason if you don`t want to hear an argument.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 171
Not to mention #7 here in Canada we have no such access to information about a person`s past felony status. We can suspect but it is certainly impossible to legally verify unless it appeared in the news.
John the problem with the REIN mantra of "we decided to give the place to someone else is that if you are not giving the apartment to someone else" you still have the ads out. If the applicant found your place by liking your price and location initially they may very well call back leaving you in a pickle.
That`s why I don`t give a reason at all.
John the problem with the REIN mantra of "we decided to give the place to someone else is that if you are not giving the apartment to someone else" you still have the ads out. If the applicant found your place by liking your price and location initially they may very well call back leaving you in a pickle.
That`s why I don`t give a reason at all.
QUOTE (JohnS @ Jun 26 2010, 07:20 PM) So, we obviously have laws to help determine the legal aspect, but the moral and acceptable ones will vary from person to person. The problem with giving a reason is that although that might fit with your moral code, and they might make sense to you, but to someone else, they won`t. Most of your criteria make sense to me, Nick, but to someone else, they`re discrimination, which you seem to abhor.
The list of checks was an example, and something I quickly googled and copy and pasted without any real investigation. This list was taken from: oregon.gov/OHCS/.../E_17_HOME_Sample_Tenant_Selection.doc
Now here is a list copy and pasted from the Ontario Human Rights Commission:
The Code says what landlords can ask when choosing tenants:
* Rental history, credit references and/or credit checks may be requested.
* A lack of rental or credit history should not count against you.
* A landlord can ask you about your income, but they must also look at any available information on your rental history, credit references and credit rating (such as through Equifax Canada).
* Income information can only be considered on its own when no other information is made available, and only to make sure you earn enough to pay the rent.
* Unless you are applying for subsidized housing, it is illegal for landlords to apply a rent-to-income ratio such as a 30% cut-off rule (which means only considering people whose if the rent is less than 30% of their income).
* Landlords can only ask you for a “guarantor” (someone who promises to pay your rent if you can’t) to sign the lease if they have the same requirements for all tenants.
This list provides even less security than the list I ignorantly posted earlier. Yes, I can admit my ignorance.
As for the "legally accepted forms of discrimination" you mentioned:
1-The driving age restriction is to protect the young drivers as well as others from accidents. This restriction is based on Statistical evidence. This is for the greater good of all.
2-Insurance premiums are also based on statistics. I feel that they are unfair, yet I abide by them.
3-Muslim practising Catholicism? I dare not touch that one.
I do not make the laws. I do not always agree with the laws. I am offering advice to keep people on the same side of the law. If you are offering advice to disregard the law, more specifically those of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I feel many should be aware of this disregard.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/factsheets/tenants
If you are advising to simply say we have chosen to rent to someone else, are you able to provide a reason that does not discriminate according to Human Rights? Are you really helping others in providing this mantra which is very open to discrimination? Are you telling others to discriminate, and use this reason/excuse as an umbrella to protect from the law?
This vague reason of choosing someone else offers no sense of closure. This may even offer a higher degree of objection. If you have chosen someone else, what makes them better that caused your denial of application.
"I`m sorry John, you and I both know that you are fully qualified for this apartment that you have your heart set on. Unfortunately, we have decided to rent to someone else."
How demoralizing is that?! I don`t know about you, but that would make me irate. That would prompt me to ask the questions:
"What the heck makes the other person so special to be chosen over me?"
"If I am qualified, who the heck are you to decide that someone else is better than me?"
If a human rights case was brought about, would this mantra be able to hold water?
Laws and rules become stricter and stricter due to those that abuse the freedom that was once enjoyed. Those who wish to continue to further discriminate will find the law become even stricter than it is now. Once again, if you can not provide a reason, I wholly believe that you are discriminating, according to Human Rights, and not by my own definition.
The list of checks was an example, and something I quickly googled and copy and pasted without any real investigation. This list was taken from: oregon.gov/OHCS/.../E_17_HOME_Sample_Tenant_Selection.doc
Now here is a list copy and pasted from the Ontario Human Rights Commission:
The Code says what landlords can ask when choosing tenants:
* Rental history, credit references and/or credit checks may be requested.
* A lack of rental or credit history should not count against you.
* A landlord can ask you about your income, but they must also look at any available information on your rental history, credit references and credit rating (such as through Equifax Canada).
* Income information can only be considered on its own when no other information is made available, and only to make sure you earn enough to pay the rent.
* Unless you are applying for subsidized housing, it is illegal for landlords to apply a rent-to-income ratio such as a 30% cut-off rule (which means only considering people whose if the rent is less than 30% of their income).
* Landlords can only ask you for a “guarantor” (someone who promises to pay your rent if you can’t) to sign the lease if they have the same requirements for all tenants.
This list provides even less security than the list I ignorantly posted earlier. Yes, I can admit my ignorance.
As for the "legally accepted forms of discrimination" you mentioned:
1-The driving age restriction is to protect the young drivers as well as others from accidents. This restriction is based on Statistical evidence. This is for the greater good of all.
2-Insurance premiums are also based on statistics. I feel that they are unfair, yet I abide by them.
3-Muslim practising Catholicism? I dare not touch that one.
I do not make the laws. I do not always agree with the laws. I am offering advice to keep people on the same side of the law. If you are offering advice to disregard the law, more specifically those of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I feel many should be aware of this disregard.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/factsheets/tenants
If you are advising to simply say we have chosen to rent to someone else, are you able to provide a reason that does not discriminate according to Human Rights? Are you really helping others in providing this mantra which is very open to discrimination? Are you telling others to discriminate, and use this reason/excuse as an umbrella to protect from the law?
This vague reason of choosing someone else offers no sense of closure. This may even offer a higher degree of objection. If you have chosen someone else, what makes them better that caused your denial of application.
"I`m sorry John, you and I both know that you are fully qualified for this apartment that you have your heart set on. Unfortunately, we have decided to rent to someone else."
How demoralizing is that?! I don`t know about you, but that would make me irate. That would prompt me to ask the questions:
"What the heck makes the other person so special to be chosen over me?"
"If I am qualified, who the heck are you to decide that someone else is better than me?"
If a human rights case was brought about, would this mantra be able to hold water?
Laws and rules become stricter and stricter due to those that abuse the freedom that was once enjoyed. Those who wish to continue to further discriminate will find the law become even stricter than it is now. Once again, if you can not provide a reason, I wholly believe that you are discriminating, according to Human Rights, and not by my own definition.
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 66
I appreciate and respect your stance on this issue but I believe it is my right to be selective when placing a Tenant. Processing an application for residency is done on its merits not on race, religious beliefs, disabilities or even the number of tattoos or piercings. Besides, 95% of the time a bad Tenant will shine through while doing the application and that is when my experience and intuitions kick in.
BTW, I do not mind giving a reason to a refused applicant because I know my reasons are legitimate and not discriminatory. I welcome any challenge an applicant might bring.
QUOTE (NicKStaR @ Jun 26 2010, 08:37 AM) That is in deed discrimination.
If this heavy metal band member passes the same checks as everyone else, such as credit check, reference check, criminal check, etc...why should he be denied housing?! His appearance, his hobbies/work should not be a factor in his acceptance. There are other laws that would protect others sharing the building with and around him from your prejudicial views of his actions. If they are in deed trouble makers, it would show up on reference checks. Criminal/Police checks would show charges of disturbing the peace, if this is what you are worried about.
Do you understand that you are conducting a business offered to the public? You have moral and legal obligations when offering products/services to the public.
How would you feel if all the lending institutions denied you access to funding because they didn`t like your haircut, or they had a "feel" about you, even though you were more than capable and creditworthy to be accepted. Let`s say you are more than qualified for a mortgage, and the lending institutions denied you without reason? Would you in any way think of discrimination towards you? Which percentage group would you be in? the one that accepts unfair denial and says/does nothing, or the smaller percentage that fully believes that they have rights, and will question whether these rights have been infringed upon?!!
Try turning the tables around, and see how your actions and decisions would sound if you were the applicant.
All that I am saying to ALL, is to UNDERSTAND what DISCRIMINATION is, and failure to protect yourself (not giving a legitimate reason for denying application), opens up the POSSIBILITY of a review by the Human Rights council. If you are willing to take this chance, and the chance of expensive legal council, that is your choice.
There may be no law that states that you "have" to give a reason.
There is also no law that states that they have to be part of the percentage that accepts unfair denial without further action.
BTW, I do not mind giving a reason to a refused applicant because I know my reasons are legitimate and not discriminatory. I welcome any challenge an applicant might bring.
QUOTE (NicKStaR @ Jun 26 2010, 08:37 AM) That is in deed discrimination.
If this heavy metal band member passes the same checks as everyone else, such as credit check, reference check, criminal check, etc...why should he be denied housing?! His appearance, his hobbies/work should not be a factor in his acceptance. There are other laws that would protect others sharing the building with and around him from your prejudicial views of his actions. If they are in deed trouble makers, it would show up on reference checks. Criminal/Police checks would show charges of disturbing the peace, if this is what you are worried about.
Do you understand that you are conducting a business offered to the public? You have moral and legal obligations when offering products/services to the public.
How would you feel if all the lending institutions denied you access to funding because they didn`t like your haircut, or they had a "feel" about you, even though you were more than capable and creditworthy to be accepted. Let`s say you are more than qualified for a mortgage, and the lending institutions denied you without reason? Would you in any way think of discrimination towards you? Which percentage group would you be in? the one that accepts unfair denial and says/does nothing, or the smaller percentage that fully believes that they have rights, and will question whether these rights have been infringed upon?!!
Try turning the tables around, and see how your actions and decisions would sound if you were the applicant.
All that I am saying to ALL, is to UNDERSTAND what DISCRIMINATION is, and failure to protect yourself (not giving a legitimate reason for denying application), opens up the POSSIBILITY of a review by the Human Rights council. If you are willing to take this chance, and the chance of expensive legal council, that is your choice.
There may be no law that states that you "have" to give a reason.
There is also no law that states that they have to be part of the percentage that accepts unfair denial without further action.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 171
I did go over an look at the decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Decisions at Canlii
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/nav/date/2010_06.html
I went through a number of months and discover very few cases brought by tenants, maybe one per month. In every such case the tenant abandoned their application.
From my initial investigations it appears that it take over a year to get a hearing. A high degree of commitment is required. Furthermore the process and the procedures are complex and convoluted. The high level of difficulty combined with the lengthy time required for a hearing makes it very unlikely that many tenants would undertake such a procedure even if they were were discriminated against.
Considering that tenants as a whole do not seem overly litigious with only 1300 maintenance claims in Ontario last year my recommendation is to keep your fire insurance but don`t lose too much sleep over this one. I looked through three months of hearing in Ontario and did not find one single successful case only a few cases and all were abandoned or dismissed.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/nav/date/2010_06.html
I went through a number of months and discover very few cases brought by tenants, maybe one per month. In every such case the tenant abandoned their application.
From my initial investigations it appears that it take over a year to get a hearing. A high degree of commitment is required. Furthermore the process and the procedures are complex and convoluted. The high level of difficulty combined with the lengthy time required for a hearing makes it very unlikely that many tenants would undertake such a procedure even if they were were discriminated against.
Considering that tenants as a whole do not seem overly litigious with only 1300 maintenance claims in Ontario last year my recommendation is to keep your fire insurance but don`t lose too much sleep over this one. I looked through three months of hearing in Ontario and did not find one single successful case only a few cases and all were abandoned or dismissed.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 128
QUOTE (Berubeland @ Jun 26 2010, 07:50 PM) Considering that tenants as a whole do not seem overly litigious
Perhaps the tenants you deal with. However, with TDC and Legal Aid Ontario taking on more and more tenant issues, all landlords should be cautious.
Perhaps the tenants you deal with. However, with TDC and Legal Aid Ontario taking on more and more tenant issues, all landlords should be cautious.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 398
QUOTE (NicKStaR @ Jun 26 2010, 09:03 PM) The list of checks was an example, and something I quickly googled and copy and pasted without any real investigation. This list was taken from: oregon.gov/OHCS/.../E_17_HOME_Sample_Tenant_Selection.doc
This list provides even less security than the list I ignorantly posted earlier. Yes, I can admit my ignorance.
As for the "legally accepted forms of discrimination" you mentioned:
1-The driving age restriction is to protect the young drivers as well as others from accidents. This restriction is based on Statistical evidence. This is for the greater good of all.
2-Insurance premiums are also based on statistics. I feel that they are unfair, yet I abide by them.
3-Muslim practising Catholicism? I dare not touch that one.
If you are offering advice to disregard the law, more specifically those of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I feel many should be aware of this disregard.
If you are advising to simply say we have chosen to rent to someone else, are you able to provide a reason that does not discriminate according to Human Rights? Are you really helping others in providing this mantra which is very open to discrimination? Are you telling others to discriminate, and use this reason/excuse as an umbrella to protect from the law?
This vague reason of choosing someone else offers no sense of closure. This may even offer a higher degree of objection. If you have chosen someone else, what makes them better that caused your denial of application.
"I`m sorry John, you and I both know that you are fully qualified for this apartment that you have your heart set on. Unfortunately, we have decided to rent to someone else."
Laws and rules become stricter and stricter due to those that abuse the freedom that was once enjoyed. Those who wish to continue to further discriminate will find the law become even stricter than it is now. Once again, if you can not provide a reason, I wholly believe that you are discriminating, according to Human Rights, and not by my own definition.
I`m glad to see that you can sometimes admit your ignorance, and see that using Oregon-based information isn`t the best way to support your case. So, I`ll try to clarify what I was saying, as you seemed to miss most of it. I guess it must have been because my writing was unclear, as the only other reason would be that you chose to ignore it.
Discrimination does not mean evil/bad. You were bang-on with your reasons on why those examples I provided are allowed forms of discrimination, so congratulations. You kind of proved my point there....certain forms of discrimination are allowed, both by law, and by society. Even with the Ontario-specific info you looked up, we can still discriminate. Most landlords will usually discriminate against someone who has bad credit and who doesn`t make enough money to cover rent. I didn`t think I`d have to say this, but seeing as how you missed it the first time, this obviously doesn`t mean that I`m advocating that people disregard the law, or that I`m trying to find ways for people to hide their illegal actions. Honestly, it`s laughable that you would try to insinuate that, and think people would believe it.
And I also laughed at the way you added whole phrases to what I said many uber-experienced landlords say when rejecting tenants. Classy, the way you twist what people say like that!
So, I, along with others here, have provided what we say, and our rationale. Therefore, I was hoping you could share your experience with us, Nick, and tell us how you screen tenants. How do you ensure that your soon-to-be tenants will take good care of the place? What sorts of questions do you ask them? How do you verify that the information they`ve given is accurate? Or, as might be read from your posts, do you just pull their credit, and rent the place to them if they`re over 550 with Equifax? Don`t just tell us what you think the really experienced investors are doing wrong (and I`m not counting myself as highly experienced, but those that I`ve learned these things from), but rather share with us your ways of doing it right.
Have a good one, all!
JohnS
This list provides even less security than the list I ignorantly posted earlier. Yes, I can admit my ignorance.
As for the "legally accepted forms of discrimination" you mentioned:
1-The driving age restriction is to protect the young drivers as well as others from accidents. This restriction is based on Statistical evidence. This is for the greater good of all.
2-Insurance premiums are also based on statistics. I feel that they are unfair, yet I abide by them.
3-Muslim practising Catholicism? I dare not touch that one.
If you are offering advice to disregard the law, more specifically those of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I feel many should be aware of this disregard.
If you are advising to simply say we have chosen to rent to someone else, are you able to provide a reason that does not discriminate according to Human Rights? Are you really helping others in providing this mantra which is very open to discrimination? Are you telling others to discriminate, and use this reason/excuse as an umbrella to protect from the law?
This vague reason of choosing someone else offers no sense of closure. This may even offer a higher degree of objection. If you have chosen someone else, what makes them better that caused your denial of application.
"I`m sorry John, you and I both know that you are fully qualified for this apartment that you have your heart set on. Unfortunately, we have decided to rent to someone else."
Laws and rules become stricter and stricter due to those that abuse the freedom that was once enjoyed. Those who wish to continue to further discriminate will find the law become even stricter than it is now. Once again, if you can not provide a reason, I wholly believe that you are discriminating, according to Human Rights, and not by my own definition.
I`m glad to see that you can sometimes admit your ignorance, and see that using Oregon-based information isn`t the best way to support your case. So, I`ll try to clarify what I was saying, as you seemed to miss most of it. I guess it must have been because my writing was unclear, as the only other reason would be that you chose to ignore it.
Discrimination does not mean evil/bad. You were bang-on with your reasons on why those examples I provided are allowed forms of discrimination, so congratulations. You kind of proved my point there....certain forms of discrimination are allowed, both by law, and by society. Even with the Ontario-specific info you looked up, we can still discriminate. Most landlords will usually discriminate against someone who has bad credit and who doesn`t make enough money to cover rent. I didn`t think I`d have to say this, but seeing as how you missed it the first time, this obviously doesn`t mean that I`m advocating that people disregard the law, or that I`m trying to find ways for people to hide their illegal actions. Honestly, it`s laughable that you would try to insinuate that, and think people would believe it.
And I also laughed at the way you added whole phrases to what I said many uber-experienced landlords say when rejecting tenants. Classy, the way you twist what people say like that!
So, I, along with others here, have provided what we say, and our rationale. Therefore, I was hoping you could share your experience with us, Nick, and tell us how you screen tenants. How do you ensure that your soon-to-be tenants will take good care of the place? What sorts of questions do you ask them? How do you verify that the information they`ve given is accurate? Or, as might be read from your posts, do you just pull their credit, and rent the place to them if they`re over 550 with Equifax? Don`t just tell us what you think the really experienced investors are doing wrong (and I`m not counting myself as highly experienced, but those that I`ve learned these things from), but rather share with us your ways of doing it right.
Have a good one, all!
JohnS