How I legally got scammed for $250 by an upscale apartment complex | Hacker News Reader

How I legally got scammed for $250 by an upscale apartment complex

medium.com

265 pointswunderg168 comments

If this happens to you, you should consider talking to:

1. Your state's AG [1]

2. The local TV news

3. Local police

I don't think I would call it a "legal scam," it sounds remarkably like fraud. Lots of modern fraud takes place over international VoIP calls, so the fact that there's a brick and mortar business with assets that can be seized means you shouldn't give up quickly.

> Even disputing a charge on the credit card — they have copies of our ID, smart.

Dispute it anyways. Yes, it may flip back on you once they disclose the fact that you were there. But just stipulate it upfront that you made the purchase but the terms were unclear or that the claims that they made regarding your rejection are false.

These guys sound like they are clever enough to try and make their scheme as close to legal as possible. They made sure that the amount you're getting scammed isn't worth your time or an attorney's time. But don't let them get away with it.

[1] Texas AG consumer complaints: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cpd/file-a-consumer-com...

I would love to see the look on their face if one of the people they had on the hook and about to sign somehow worked into the conversation that their uncle was State Attorney General, or a local District Attorney or something like that.

Since there really is a property there, they would probably cleverly slip their application into the "approved" pile.

That's why you mention it before signing. Then they have to make a decision to accept your application and fees and actually rent their cash cow, or to find some other reason to reject you (for something within their discretion) prior to committing to either scam you or rent to you.

You don't want a company like this as a landlord.

Wouldn't they notice that they had no neighbors, and that literally every other apartment in the building is being shown multiple times per day?

I'm pretty sure they rent most the units. It only takes a few empty units to run this scam, no reason not to rent the rest legitimately for more money.

Ah, okay, I just assumed that they were using the building only for the scam, not for actual renting.

It 100% is fruad.

Given what's in the Medium post, there's zero evidence for that. The author is assuming that a scam took place, but another plausible explanation is that the author had a missed rent payment on their record and the management company auto rejects those applicants. Sure, that record might be wrong, but it's still not a scam. Everything else they mentioned is pure speculation.

I think the author, if they feel strongly about this, should reach out to the local community to try to see how common rejections might be. They would also need to establish that CoreLogic is in cahoots with the management company.

Well, if they don't actually rent any apartments, they misled them and people spent money based on that lie. They paid for an application that would be accepted. How is that not fraud?

> Well, if they don't actually rent any apartments

Citation needed that they don't actually rent apartments as opposed to the author of the post making this assumption without establishing it with reasonable proof.

You're asking the wrong person; I am assuming OP is not intentionally misrepresenting the situation.

I didn't claim that he was intentionally misrepresenting the situation. It's that the author seems inexperienced in renting apartments and is jumping to conclusions as to the reason that he was denied.

It doesn't seem that he has a full understanding of the situation and the process given that, as others have pointed out in this thread, he found things like having a copy of his ID made, etc a red flag while this is normal when touring and applying to rent an apartment.

You don't need to keep all the apartments empty in order to carry on a scam like this, you just need to have one of each type that you're advertising.

You also don't need to actually be the owner of the apartment complex. The property manager can execute this all by herself: keep an apartment open, take the credit card payments directly rather than via the corporate account, deny all the prospective renters.

$17,000/month isn't an amazing amount of money for a corporation that owns apartment buildings, but it's a very nice supplement to the property manager's salary, if she runs it that way.

> Given what's in the Medium post, there's zero evidence for that

Except the stated facts (if you're just gonna call anything posted a fiction, what's the point of stating it's this and not that?). It's certainly not a conviction, but would specifically be evidentiary and a judge can make a ruling from the bench with contingency.

Here's my take, there's two parts of this story:

1) Their experience trying to rent a unit. 2) Their outline of the scam.

I'm going to take all of (1) as facts, albeit it's only one side of the story. So maybe parts are missing and it might be biased, but I'll assume the core points are true.

(2) is where things become less factual. A large part of their support for it being a scam comes from two parts: it could be profitable, and it appears they didn't sell any units that week. The problem is just because a scam is profitable doesn't mean it actually took place. If I get shorted change at the deli I can't call it scam simply because it was profitable for them to short me. I would need to show that the problem is systemic to prove that.

The other supporting evidence was that they didn't rent any units that week. The problem is that they don't actually know that. Maybe the website inventory is stale? Maybe they just happened to not lease any units that week or they're still pending lease signing.

So I would say they absolutely got rejected for an apartment due to the report from CoreLogic. Everything beyond that is unsubstantiated and merely circumstantial.

what convince me otherwise - with deposit paid it should be off the inventory imidiatelly otherwise multiple people can apply simulataneously for the same unit. How would they handle that?

Even though, when I was living in US and rent from an appartment complex, it took them 5 minutes to clear my credit check on their computer.

Even if the author did in fact miss a payment, why should they be able to keep $250 from an tenant they rejected?

Non refundable application fees are normal. Usually to pay for the credit check. $250 is high though.

Usually application fees are separate. Non-refundable deposits are fairly common for taking an apartment off the market while the application and lease are processed.

> Even disputing a charge on the credit card — they have copies of our ID, smart.

Your credit card company will charge back that charge. AND they will make a note on the merchant's account. More than likely, when you call regarding this merchant account it will already have notes on it -- just making it even quicker.

Once, I paid 2k for a couch on Macys.com. Their delivery guys came to deliver the couch on the agreed day. On that very day - the delivery men called and told me they couldn't get it up the stairs (which was a lie, they needed keys to figure this out). I called Macys support and it was marked delivered WITH MY SIGNATURE and there was nothing that could be done. Upset - I called my credit card company. I had the funds back in my account in 24 hours.

Are you saying they forged your signature?

Maybe it was one of those 'electronic signatures' - they're simply a scribble on an electronic device.

I don't even have a signature. While I can do lovely calligraphy, my actual handwriting is a testament to a failed Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test. Now, that's extreme, but how many people have a stable signature now when they almost never have to reproduce it?

I have been asked to 'reproduce' a signature once in my entire life. At a 7/11, buying $6 worth of food. It took 4 tries to satisfy the cashier, because my signature is completely inconsistent. I almost refused, but I was curious whether I was even capable of signing convincingly.

To this day, I have no idea what drove that decision.

Do you never use a CC? Ive drawn smiley faces before. No one really cares unless the charge is high and disputable.

Huh? I use them and sign regularly. I meant that once ever, a cashier actively refused my transaction because she found the signature unconvincing.

That's why I was so baffled by the context - a $2000 computer purchase doesn't get checked, but $6 of cookies got me the wringer.

Ah got confused. Clarified now.

I try very hard to stabilize it to avoid getting franked at the voting site. (problem: Florida)

So what will you do if it goes to a debt collector?

Ask them to verify the debt.

https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/collections#wi...

I could go to a debt collector right now and tell them that you own me money.

But if I do this to though people, I'll go to jail.

It won't.

4. Go to your state legislature and try to get a bill passed.

What surprises me is that CoreLogic is not bound by the same terms that any other credit reporting bureau is. There is no way any business is going to just write you a letter stating that you currently owe no money, not without talking to a lawyer first, I'd hope.

If they want to impugn your credit with with this type of reporting, then it's their responsibility to ensure its accuracy.

CoreLogic claims they FCRA doesn't apply to them, because they apparently are a "wholesale" data warehouse that sells data to companies that do background checks, but a federal judge disagreed:

http://www.reuters.com/article/employment-corelogic-idUSL2N1...

There is another major database called Early Warning [1] that also claims to be exempt from certain parts of the FCRA. I was an identity theft victim. After blocking credit checks at all 3 major bureaus and ChexSystems, I contacted these guys and asked them to block any reports they have on me. They essentially said that they don't have to, and won't, despite legislation allowing consumers to request freezing of credit files. I eventually got a nasty voicemail basically inviting me to sue them if I didn't like it.

These specialty databases need serious regulation...it's clear that credit bureaus and those that use them are tired of working within the confines of the FCRA and are going out of their way to create databases that are exempt.

[1] http://earlywarning.com/

Without any kind of accreditation I wonder if there's a slander angle here.

What I'm hung up on is how this isn't considered outright fraud.

Definitely sounds like fraud and I doubt it would be hard to prove. The employee who hangs up immediately likely knows what's going on or was instructed by someone higher up. These people are rarely criminal masterminds.

On cc. You're not disputing that you were there (that in itself would be fraud) but you can dispute that you received services for the payment you madd.

Totally agree with advice above, this is the kind of issue the legal system is made for. Additionally I'd suggest you go file in small claims court today. Suspect they will settle just to avoid the hassle... and if you do it quick you might still get your apt. Good luck.

Maybe you've never attempted to rent an apartment in NYC. They typically require

  * scanned ID
  * recent bank statements
  * recent pay stubs
  * recent tax return or W2
  * letter of employment on official company letterhead
  * company office number they can call to confirm employment
  * last two addresses you lived at
  * letter from previous landlord
  * yearly salary at least 40x (sometimes 50x) monthly rent
  * ~ $100 application fee for background / credit check
  * first months rent, security deposit, and broker's fee, on three separate certified/cashiers checks

The market of renters is very competitive. But also, as a tenant it's possible for you to be a huge problem, and you can be very difficult for them to remove. It's like they assume I might make a huge mess, damage the apartment, never pay rent, and refuse to move out for many months while legal proceedings grind slowly through the courts, and they'll never recover any costs because I'm broke. Even though my bank account statements show I could pay for the whole year up-front.

Compare to when Square shuts down or rejects a seller account with no explanation or recourse, or when Google AdWords does the same. It's because they've been burned by scammers in the past, scammers who are better at looking safe and innocent than honest people. It's just more efficient for them to be draconian and unsympathetic.

I just accept that's how it is. Maybe you take your business elsewhere. You're only out $250, could be way worse, could be thousands ...

The reason for all these upfront requirements is that many areas have made eviction almost impossible, so landlords have to be very sure up front that they are renting to qualified tennants.

It's pretty easy to evict a tenant in Texas, whereas its next to impossible in New York, which seems to have the perverse incentive of making it really hard for people to rent

I literally wrote the same comment. Though I must say that the relatively cheaper rent on a year/multi-year lease vs enormously overpriced sublets/AirBnB makes it a worthwhile investment.

I've never had to scan ID or provide a previous landlord letter for a NYC rental. Also there's usually no app fee just a $50 credit check. But all the other bullet points ring true. I've also lived in trendier Brooklyn neighborhoods where the competition is high. You must be prepared with a cashiers check for a down payment. Shit goes quick here.

I live in NYC and likewise have never had to scan my ID. Scanning my ID would seem really odd to me if a landlord ever asked for it.

Well. That doesn't justify one way $150 administration fee

Why don't they get a copy of the Corelogic report?

http://www.corelogic.com/solutions/rental-property-solutions...

How do I obtain a copy of my CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions Consumer File?

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you are entitled to receive one free copy of your consumer file in any twelve month period from a credit reporting agency (CRA). You are also entitled to a free copy of your consumer file if you meet the following criteria:

You have been notified of an adverse action or been denied housing or employment based on information in your consumer file within the past 60 days

You reside in a state where you are entitled to more than one free copy in any twelve month period

You suspect that your file may contain fraudulent information, or you are a victim of identity theft

You are unemployed or you currently receive public assistance

You may obtain a copy of your CoreLogic® Rental Property Solutions consumer file in one of two ways:

1) Call our toll-free number 1-888-333-2413 OR 2) Complete this form. http://www.corelogic.com/downloadable-docs/saferent-consumer...

Landlord here. This tenant made a mistake paying an "administrative fee" of $150, and giving the deposit ($350) without a signed lease. Though, we do charge a $50 application fee to cover the cost of the background check we run.

However, if this company is indeed not intending to rent this property and only collecting the application fees, it would be fraud.

> Then they made a photocopy of our ID for a file. Which again raised my suspicion, I’ve rented many apartment before and none of properties ever asked for that before signing the lease

That sounds like a red flag with the article/author. What apartment place wouldn't do a background check and want ID to make sure they go the right person?

Anecdote here: Once when I wanted to rent an apartment in a nice apartment complex they wouldn't even show me the apartment without me showing them my ID. I ended up renting the place and never had a problem.

In California - it's the Law. You need to provide picture ID before the property management company can you show you around the property. At least that's what the little sign in each leasing office I've visited said.... (????)

Huh? Is this a viewing or something else?

I have rented apartments and looked at housing in several places in CA, not once has anyone asked me for my ID. Only when it got down to the serious brass tacks was that required.

Every apartment complex I've looked at (bay area) has required me to leave my photo ID with them at the leasing office while one of them took me on a tour to show me the apartment.

Is this condominiums/highrises? When I was looking for my apartment here no one ever asked for that. But I also didn't really look at places that had a leasing office either.

Not necessarily in a high-rise. Basically a building or bunch of buildings with apartments that a single company owns and maintains and rents out. They tend to have a leasing office.

An owner can allow whomever they choose onto a property. The practice you are describing is probably the result of caution on behalf of either the owner or the management company, almost certainly due to potential liability for harms that might occur.

Thats not law, they do that to prevent assaults against the agent, to get your info for their marketing database and also as evidence they are complying with fair housing laws. Some places do it some places don't.

In Texas, an ID is required to even view an apartment. Usually, they hold the drivers license at the office while you go view the apartments. It is a state law, and was put in place to prevent rapes.

Same thing happens in Seattle.

Patently false, I've been to a few camera infested shitholes like the one on 15th and Market in Ballard where they tried to pull this crap on me (and gave up), but outside of that I have yet to run into it. IMO its a huge red flag, they're the only ones that tried that out of 80 places I've toured in the past 2 months.

If the property manager tries this, its a sure sign that they are an ass. Also, the market seems to be cooling, one nicely remodled place I toured dropped to $1500 from $1700 for 950sqft 2 bed/1 bath in Queen Anne, then rented a week later. Seen a couple others do that, figure it should become more common as we get into summer.

> Patently false

No, it was actually true when I looked at dozens of places.

> If the property manager tries this, its a sure sign that they are an ass.

That's a crazy assumption that's apparently based on nothing.

How does this work with landlords that do "direct sells" and there is no office?

Citation? This doesn't match my experience in Austin.

Doubtful there is a law for it but there are two good reasons to want a copy of an id.

Safety of agent. Proof of compliance with fair housing laws.

Matches mine in Austin.

That's pretty standard in most places AFAIK. Think about it - apartment salespeople are mostly women. Potential tenants are at least half men. When you walk in off the street to look at an apartment, they don't know you from Adam. And you're going into an empty apartment alone with a female salesperson. Do the math, they're gonna want some ID first.

Are you implying they are doing some kind of instant background check with the ID? If not, what good is checking ID?

The knowledge that you won't get away with rape, kidnap, or robbery acts as a deterrent.

Deterrence. Having your ID on file (vs knowing only a name that they likely made up) makes a potential criminal much more likely to get caught, so they're much less likely to do anything bad.

Good job there is not such thing as false ID

It's still another barrier that deters people - it's a numbers game, not about impossibility.

And even a forged ID would have a valid photo that looks like you, which is much more helpful in finding a suspect than simply eyewitness/victim testimony.

I think this is the common practice in FL and part of the rules of being a realtor.

Ditto with Australia, you have to show picture ID at inspections (which you must attend before applying).

As a non-American living in Western Europe the idea of a landlord doing a "background check" on prospective tenants is terrifying. Never heard of such a thing in Europe. What the hell does "background check" even entail.

Unfortunately in the UK landlords are obliged to perform immigration checks: https://www.gov.uk/check-tenant-right-to-rent-documents/who-...

Most European countries have mandatory ID / residence registration so this is handled directly by the state rather than making landlords do it.

(Whether the UK counts as "Europe" is a subject of extreme controversy)

That rule in the UK is very new, and also controversial.

They check for whatever they're legally allowed to check for. I found a service that does it when I just searched.

https://www.tenantbackgroundsearch.com

Most will minimally do a credit check. Some will check your past landlords - and won't rent to first-time renters. Some do criminal background checks, and a small portion will check personal references.

German landlords in large cities generally require a credit report (though not things like criminal record, which can be in a US background check). For large institutional landlords, you may sign a document permitting them to perform this check; the more usual case is that you request a report from the credit-report company yourself and send them a copy.

What, you've never lived in France? It's RIDICULOUSLY common in Paris (though probably not legal? who knows).

"background check" in America almost always means credit report and little besides that.

Yes it is fraud. For extra credit ensure they send you something by email AND something through usps. That is wire and mail fraud in the US which carrys absolutely ludicrous federal jail time.

Personally I consider charging an "application fee" to be slightly scamy anyway. I remember, many many many years ago, when charging such a fee was unusual and normally done by places I would not want to rent from anyway

If you feel the need to run a background check on your tenants, that should be the cost of doing business

Of course those times changed and one of many reasons I stopped renting...

It costs me $35 to run a background/credit check. I paid for that... once. And the prospective tenant passed, but backed out on the apartment. Since then, I've asked productive tenants to pay the $35 fee. Most are fine with that, and none have backed out from renting once they've paid that small fee. (So far all have cleared the check.)

I would only pay it if it was refundable if you refuse me later, that is a compromise I am willing to make

Places that have several hundred dollar non-refundable applications fees like the one in the story are the one I take issue with

The US housing market is crazy, they creep on their tenants, and make them pay for the creepiness. And then the "background checks" are bullshit anyways because the court records is a mess and nobody has any incentive to keep perfect records (there is no downside to hurting the wrong person).

It may depend on where you live. Here in south florida, everyone charges these fees. I tried to find complexes without it, and they don't exist. Sometimes you don't have a choice.

a signed lease is a legally binding contract. there's no need for a deposit at that point. are you confusing the holding fee "deposit" collected by the leasing office for the security desposit held in escrow by the landlord?

For what it's worth, landlords in Texas have to "maintain written [tenant] selection criteria"[1] and inform you of them when asked. This is supposed to be noted and underlined on rental applications.

1 (PDF): https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/pmcdocs/TenantSelectionCriteri...

And this is why … I love California and would never move to a “business-friendly” state.

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/looking.shtm...

> “The application fee cannot legally be more than the landlord’s actual out-of-pocket costs, and, in 2012, can never be more than $44.51. The landlord must give you a receipt that itemizes his or her out-of-pocket expenses in obtaining and processing the information about you. The landlord must return any unused portion of the fee (for example, if the landlord does not check your references).”

This is standard state of affairs in the UK, I see some agencies in US started to take notice.

Basically if you want to rent a property here, an agency will demand that you pay their fee first(last time I paid over 500 pounds just in agency fees), so they can run a full background check on you - so you have to submit proof of your employment, proof of income, history of addresses for past 3 years, bank account details, copy of my passport to prove the right to rent in the UK, and then it's sent off to some agency somewhere which does the check.

And basically it comes back as yes/no, depending on your credit score, income, blah blah blah. If it comes back as no, you lose all the money you paid in those "fees".

It's a scam of gigantic proportions, but UK plays along because people here love "order" and being invigilated by some random rental agency seems to scratch that itch.

True, but we are trying to make it illegal [0] for precisely the reasons you stated, and it's already illegal in Scotland.

[0] http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-4032280/...

Stories like this are why it's illegal in BC to charge application fees (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/0207...).

Our tenancy law isn't perfect, but I think this is one of the things we got right.

Also in Scotland. Soon to be the case in England & Wales, if the government doesn't blink in the face of outraged letting agents.

Thanks, I had thought that it was already illegal in England, just learned that it hasn't come into effect yet[0]. For information, the linked to article states that it will probably come into effect in September, provided the government doesn't blink as mentioned above.

[0] http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-4032280/...

Related but not precisely on topic... When will a group of talented people with access to capital end the gross imbalance of power between landlords and tenants with technology? In just about every other area of the economy the customer has the power. To give the customer aka renter more power they need more information. Step 1 is having ratings for all landlords/properties. The landlords get your rating (your credit) but you don't get theirs. That asymmetry puts the renter at a disadvantage. There is also no price discovery mechanism. You only know the rate they quote you, no way to find out the actual price they are charging existing tenants. Payments in this industry are often still by check which is absurd in 2017. This is one of the last giant markets left for technology to disrupt but it's going to be a war. The landlord/tenant relationship is "where the rubber meets the road" in the struggle between the rich and the rest of us... so this isn't going to be easy. If someone took this on I'd be honored to be a part of it!

https://vimeo.com/user12087540/checkmeonce

I was looking for rentals last weekend in ATL , and i noticed the administrative fee too. I don't remember seeing it last time around (couple of years ago), which makes me wonder if it's a recent phenomenon. The adminstrative fee, usually $250 or so, was in addition to the application fee. This makes no sense. What are they charging this for ? I didn't ask if it's after the application is approved or before. I'm guessing that it's after, but it's still a straight up cash grab. Another shitty thing that stood out was some sort of mandatory comcast fees. That is $85 for Comcast's most basic package, which is much higher than the price on Comcast's website.

In keeping with this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11986307), cable companies frequently pay for lock-in deals with apartment complexes. Spectacularly shitty, but I suspect related to you getting worse-than-listed rates.

Post this to the Austin reddit. Others may have been scammed as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/

If you have the time, sue them in small claims court. Document everything.

Edit: I see you've already posted it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/63azq8/how_i_legall...

Whenever you have something like this please put it on Yelp! Many of us will check yelp before renting with a company.

>The First place we visited Altis Lakeline managed by Altman Companies was amazing, its a brand new apartment complex with cool amenities, priced at $1400 which is much lower, compare to similar places $1600–$1700, that where I missed first red flag. Plus they had amazing special — 2 months free rent — which under normal circumstances will raise suspicion, I thought it’s a brand new property with construction done a few months ago trying to get to full capacity.

I really had trouble reading through this. I know medium isn't for writers per se but basic proofreading would have helped tremendously.

You assume the primary language is English. My assumption was that it isn't their first language. I was still able to read it just fine.

I felt the same way over and over again throughout. Whether or not the author's primary language is English, it feels like it was written without proofreading or editing at all.

Welcome to the internet?!

I got the sense they weren't a native speaker. Otherwise the errors were, frankly, egregious.

Any company like this is going to scam you at move out time as well. One agent told me that nobody gets their full deposit back, ever. They'll make up a list of things they had to do and give you an inflated bill for it.

Yeah, I remember living at a high rise that, while waiting for our move-out inspection, my partner and I happened to sight on the PM's desk our already filled out move out report, complete with cleaning notes and charges.

As in before we'd had the inspection...

"Oh, I hadn't finished editing from the previous tenant..."

"Why would you print it then?"

"..."

This is easy to get around. Take pictures of the apartment at move-in. Read the lease to discover standard cleaning fees before signing. Take care of the apartment. Walk through the apartment with the Landlord on move-out.

If they fraudulently deduct as part of some sort of profit-center, discover the wonderful world of small claims court. Not going to be fun but you'll win.

Haha this seems like maybe you haven't rented many places. My brother used to talk like this, but on his last move-out he got totally shafted. He and his wife had meticulously scrubbed every surface, then they hired a cleaning company, and they still got none of their deposit back.

The "easy" solution to this, although it does have some drawbacks, is simply not to pay the last month's rent.

The only time I haven't gotten screwed over by a landlord is when we knew each other through our university alumni association.

Rented plenty of places. Read my comment again. You seem to have ignored critical parts of it. Yes, if your landlord takes your deposit and do nothing except complain on hackernews they obviously aren't going to write you a check out of the goodness of their hearts.

Not paying the last months rent seems like an absolutely terrible idea (depends on local state laws I suppose, but please consult with a local renter advocate association or lawyer before trying this) and the exact sort of advice that will lead you into handing over gobs of cash to your landlord for absolutely no good reason then writing anecdotes about it till the end of time.

Yeah, note everything, preferably with the landlord on a walk through when you first get the place. Write down any flaws/damage and have both of you sign/date it. Keep this for when you move out.

Also, it may depend on your State or local municipality, but usually they can't deduct normal wear and tear from your security deposit. Stuff like nails or anchors in the walls, faded paint, worn carpet, scuffed floors, broken appliances because of mechanical wear not negligence or improper use.

That is not easy. It's possible to avoid, not easy. As soon as small claims is involved, there is already considerable hassle.

> Then they made a photocopy of our ID for a file. Which again raised my suspicion, I’ve rented many apartment before and none of properties ever asked for that before signing the lease, in my head it was done deal — so I let it slip.

Seems to be normal here in the bay area. They usually do a background check too and I can't imagine that happening without ID.

I was confused about that being suspicious myself. It seems common, and it doesn't actually prevent him from doing a credit card chargeback - he's not disputing on "I never paid that", he's disputing on "they didn't give what they promised".

I faced a relatively similar situation when trying to rent in the East Bay. My wife and I both have 720+ credit scores as were looking to rent in the $2500 range. After going through applications at 3 places and getting rejected, I realized something was off. Our credit scores had been run multiple times and we had paid application processing fees at multiple places yet we were getting rejected. Perhaps the applicant pool is so strong that my 7X multiple on rent income and great scores won't cut it - but I find it hard to believe. Perhaps the blessing of a strong tech economy comes with the curse of arrogant and fraudulant potential landlords. Can't wait to get out of this city

Which town in the East Bay, if you don't mind me asking?

Fremont

> After going through applications at 3 places and getting rejected, I realized something was off.

So did you investigate what that something is? (Unclear to me)

he's saying "lots of people are probably running this scam" as an explanation his shitty experience with the shittiness that is the bay area housing market.

Ah, okay. After reading the author's Medium post, I wasn't as convinced the rest of HN that he's actually being scammed. Put another way, he has not convinced me that the issue doesn't lie in something unique to his situation or his credit report. Most of the "red flags" mentioned, as others have pointed out here, are not abnormal in (legitimate) apartment rental application processes, my own included.

That something could be:- - Too many good applicants with better credentials (I doubt this part) - Landlords pocketing fees from as many applicants as possible. - The tenant is now a commodity, unlike 7 years ago.. There are no regulations protecting potential tenants - Something like a single standard application that could be used across potential rental properties would be helpful - Subjectivity of the landlord. I sense landlords figure that there are certain types that will stay in the property longer and will keep the property in order. People with kids are seen as a red flag sometimes, and single people miht not stay in one place too long. And I can guarantee there are some unspoken racial considerations in there.

Anyways, I do suggest people get a credit monitoring app like credit karma and negotiate with a landlord to use that if possible.

I help manage an apartment building.

There's always the chance there's something wrong on your reports. You should get your own credit reports directly from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion; this will cost you $30-ish in CA. Make sure the reports include FICO scores, and don't settle for any non-fico nonsense (eg CreditKarma or any such competitors). For future applications, you may be able to re-use those reports for a month. It never hurts to ask.

As for us, our algorithm (at least in part to avoid illegal discrimination) is simple: we drop anyone with bad credit (maybe a small medical collection is ok, but nothing else), then sort by income descending.

The other possibility is you're giving off a difficult tenant vibe. It's hard to explain in words, but after a while, I think you get a sense of who's going to be a pita. So things like asking about apartment rules (eg no smoking, how many pets, etc) is fine; asking for exceptions to those rules can go either way. It really depends how you ask.

Didn't they pass a law some years back allowing folks to get their credit report (from the major companies) once a year? In addition, isn't it law that they send a letter after taking negative action based on the credit report - because people are entitled to it then as well?

If this is the case, that fee won't be there.

Free credit reports don't include FICO scores, and come with various other drawbacks, such as a lengthened time for the CRAs to respond to disputes.

The CRAs don't send a letter after negative action, the company who chose to grant or not grant credit does. You are entitled to a free report; however, it can be a pain to get when the company from whom you requested credit is small.

Ah, ok. Well, in that case, it is only a half-good law and not really helpful. Thanks for filling in the details for me.

In my opinion, bad credit does not always imply the person is irresponsible or incapable of paying their debt. Landlord subjectivity is hurting some genuinely good people who would make responsible tenants.

Honestly the author should try applying for renting an apartment/room in NYC. I had to give, ID, Letter from employer/university, payslips, SSN etc. Weeks before signing the lease, which actually ended up happening literally the day of move-in. The 250$ charge seems exorbitant, but ~50 to 100$ credit check fee is common, most agents will provide a realistic assessment of your chances.

This is why I vastly prefer to rent on handshake deals and standard lease agreements with homeowners. It's waaaay more human.

I've been burned by a major corporate rental before, and will never do that again. Moving in wasn't a problem, though the "Smart Saver" non-refundable deposit they offered should have been enough of a red flag. Once while on a week long company retreat they upgraded their payment system, which removed my payment information not only causing my rent to be late, but they then filed for eviction after only three days. That cost me easily half a month's rent in fees to clear up because of their own technical fuckup. The only notice for the upgrade, of course, was a flyer left hanging from my door which I found when I got home along with a notice on my door. When I moved out they claimed nearly a thousand dollars in cleaning fees, with line items like "trash bag (5), $75 each," which in itself would be bullshit had I not had the place cleaned. When I tried to dispute the charges, the ever so helpful rental agents told me to pay it in thirty days or it would go to collections.

These mega rental corporations just exist to nickel and dime the shit out of everyone and will throw their weight around. You'll just spend more on legal fees, and they bank on that.

From me, pulling that sort of horseshit gets you a certified letter notifying you, the landlord, of your impending small claims court date.

Companies that want to play that kind of game don't want to play it with me. Particularly in my state (MA), the law is vastly in my favor, and I am willing and able to spend the time proving that point. I know a lot of people can't, so i'm happy enough to exact some measure of karmic equivalence.

Ditto. I'm happy to spend the time to crush people like this.

In my state (VT), there's a section of the law that says something to the effect that if a landlord willfully withholds returning any part of the security deposit after 14 days then the tenant is automatically awarded 3x of the deposit.

I learned all about this in the last apartment I rented before buying a house. I was trying to work with the property management companies lawyer over how much it would cost to replace broken door (another long story), and the lawyer was of the mind that I owed them more than I had on deposit and I should set up a payment plan ASAP.

The 14 day limit passed and I got a summons that I was being sued for $1500 over the deposit for a couple of small things plus a empty heating oil tank (heat wasn't included). They said it was full when I moved in, but I produced a receipt that I paid for the tank to be filled on the day I moved in along with a voice mail from the actual landlord that said I didn't need to fill the tank when I moved out.

The lawyer immediately wanted to "settle" with them keeping the whole deposit, but I was happy to go to court. We were in front of the judge for less than a minute and they ended up paying almost 1/2 of the first year of my mortgage.

I found a really lovely blog post a few years back where something like this happened. The landlord's lawyer's face apparently visibly collapsed when the tenant replied "oh, let me check my notes" on the stand in response to questioning and pulled out 3" of paper..

And this is why I love California...

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/sec-deposit....

> What if the landlord doesn't provide a full refund, or a statement of deductions and a refund of amounts not deducted, by the end of the 21-day period as required by law? According to a California Supreme Court decision, the landlord loses the right to keep any of the security deposit and must return the entire deposit to you.

At that moment the ex-tenant can also sue for 3x the deposit amount.

In college as an RA, I did detailed room audits before/after people moved in/out.

The best thing you can do before moving any of your stuff in is document any defects in detail (every single apartment has them).

The best thing you can do before finalizing moving out is to take photographs of how you left the place for evidence.

Ideally you have before/after photos to demonstrate things that may have been defective before you moved it but that you may be (mistakenly) charged for. Most people don't do this and have little recourse when the bill shows up.

That, and not having to deal with the BS corporate yield management system trying to increase your rent, and some leasing office agent saying the "system says..."

Does Medium.com not have editors or something? Some things sounded off, some didn't make any sense at all.

"She just hang up on me"

"Plus they had amazing special"

"They provide iPad on the spot"

"my wife credit score"

"At this point I hate it them."

there are no editors. it's user generated content, it's not a magazine.

The whole situation sucks. The last thing anyone wants to do is consistently use an attorney to handle matters like these. Each and every day it seems like a necessity. I guess when leasing a place, add up all the months. It might be a good rule of thumb to always consult an attorney for any contracts with goods or services worth more $2000.00.

What sucks is finding an attorney that can advise you on such matters, deal with them, and litigate them for your refund + attorney costs.

I know that 'obtaining money or property under false pretenses' is a felony in at least some states. I wonder why this wouldn't apply?

This is exactly what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is designed to fight against. www.consumerfinance.gov

It's possible the author is on to something -- but proving it is something else. Maybe 5 people in Austin area with perfect-ish credit scores / hidden cameras could mount a sting op.

Similar to how government agencies build cases of racial discrimination in housing.

Ask them what their minimum credit score is? If they refuse, I'd say you definitely have a legal case to recover your time and lawyer fees

It's a proprietary credit system. Presumably, they have the ability to tweak the system (possibly though a separate agency under similar ownership that is able to report people with post-dated collections).

I imagine if someone is familiar enough with the law, they might find that some statutes about credit reporting are broad enough to apply to any credit system, and these people might find themselves under indictment if the right entities are alerted.

At a minimum, it's very fishy that a proprietary credit system is being used and people are finding that they just happen to have bogus entries in that system. It would be really interesting to know the total number of companies that use that system and to see the query and reporting history of each...

This just seems like a property-rental equivalent of the "yo-yo scam" that car dealers do.

The essence of the scam is they carefully let you think you're buying a car when really you're just "applying" for a loan to buy it. They collect a down payment, processing fees, etc., hand you the keys to the car and you drive off... only to get it repossessed a day or two later when "the bank denied your financing". And of course, all the money you gave them is non-refundable, as spelled out in the paperwork you signed. Then they repeat with the next sucker who walks onto the lot.

are people really so naive? maybe living in NYC has made me hard and bitter, but shit, it's just a ground truth here that the landlords and the real estate agents are not your friends and you should treat EVERY transaction done with them with extreme scrutiny.

This has "class-action lawsuit" written all over it. Some smart lawyer just needs to double down and get it together.

Send this to John Oliver on last week tonight

This isn't a scam. The author admits they had an actual reason for denying him. It was a mistake in his record and they charged an exorbitant processing fee, but there is nothing that shows they acted in bad faith.

I've used Corelogic as a landlord as well. Any applicant with a reported history of non payment is a big red flag and would likely be denied. I'd compare it to very late credit card payments or a charge off. Not a scam. The employee doing the review would get in trouble for approving this application!

> Any applicant with a reported history of non payment is a big red flag and would likely be denied.

Directly from the article:

> My application was denied due to their system show that some management company filed missing rent in 2011. Which is not true I have zero collections or public records.

The point is they were lying.

Or the data was wrong.

Most likely the data was wrong. The credit report industry has a 20% error rate.

See the old 60 Minutes investigation on this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/40-million-mistakes-is-your-cred...

They can request a copy of the report.

CoreLogic is not to blame here. They are a massive company. They would not be scamming renters out of such small amounts.

I heard or listened to an anecdote about how credit reporting would actually be a perfect application for ML, but ML companies are fearful of stepping into a minefield of "you can't do this" regulations.

If an algorithm found some correlation between your "credit worthiness" (however their proprietary IP chooses to define it) and race or color of skin (or some proxy of), then using that information would be (legally) discrimination, say most legal experts speculating on a hypothetical (but bound to happen eventually) case. The fact is, yes, ML could probably discover a bunch of novel correlations that increase effectiveness by 7.8%, but since we can't really describe what "model" or way of thinking about our world the deep neural net is using, it's too easy to build a racist and discriminatory credit report. Kinda like that microsoft twitter chatbot that had to be taken down because it was learning from (and repeating) the racist garbage that a bunch of trolls were feeding it. Point is, it's a minefield.

But it's going to happen. Someone's going to try it.

And that's what the dark side of these companies like CoreLogic is: when real people's life events are influenced by the outcome of these databases, what's a societally-acceptable error rate? And what mechanisms are in place to check it?

Not saying CoreLogic is using racist ML credit bots. Not even saying the problem here is racism. I'm saying we've decided to put rules in front of credit reporting companies because, even if it's unintentional, it can lead to outcomes we all decided "you know, we have these ideals we're trying to strive towards and this isn't it." You also don't need a conscious conspiracy to output a racistbot -- microsoft didn't set out to make one, they just didn't think to build in a troll filter.

So yeah, CoreLogic isn't scamming renters out of such small amounts, but they are benefitting from an environment that allows such scams to exist.

Put another way, if there was some pending legislation that would make it harder for these scams to work (eg CoreLogic being legally obligated to also publicly report how many inquiries an inquirer has made with CoreLogic for the purpose of this specific property), do you think CoreLogic would spend lobbying money protecting their interests and preventing this at the expense of the consumer? Of course they would, reporting regulations are a huge operating expense! (wait... aren't you a company specializing in reporting...?)

That's why the author made a few swipes at the less-regulated corner of the credit report industry.

If it isn't fed the information then it can't discriminate. The meat and potatoes of the issue seems to lie in the "some proxy of" clause. Is unknowingly using some proxy for race really discrimination though? I'd imagine several things could be used as this proxy to varying degrees, everything from income to criminal history.

> I'd imagine several things could be used as this proxy to varying degrees, everything from income to criminal history

But I think you could also make a compelling argument that many of those things are accurate proxies primarily due to the legacy of more overt discrimination, and it would be difficult to impossible to disentangle that.

I would make that argument, but I'd also argue that modern companies shouldn't factor in past injustices, things would get too messy too quickly.

Life is messy. I think there's a fine line, but still a difference, between factoring in past injustices and factoring in current negative conditions that resulted from past injustices. Throwing your hands up and saying "it's too hard" seems a bit of a cop out for the latter.

I think you should explain your reasoning in more detail here. Why is a "massive company" less likely to commit financial fraud? If they do it at a large scale, they make lots of money from it. Or perhaps it is a scam being run just by this one office and not a company-wide policy. Even if that is the case, CoreLogic is still to blame, they are responsible for their leasing offices.

Do you know who CoreLogic is? They're a data aggregation company. They take available data and generate statistically actionable reports. They didn't gain anything from the fraud that took place here, besides that a report was generated from the potential lease.

CoreLogic doesn't have leasing offices. I don't know if you read the article. That statement is incredibly ignorant.

I don't get why the property got so much flak. Okay, management seems bad and communication seems to suck. However, background checks cost $50 each. So, it's already $100, putting their profit to $150 for locking one appartement for you for a few days. If you fail the background checks, it's your issue not there. And maybe we just need a better system for background checks. Surely.

I think the building might not be ready for occupancy. Maybe there is some holdup from a municipality, investor, contractor, fire inspection that is the cause of the real holdup. They really should just return your money but please remember, the person you dealt with also must deal with a large bureaucracy. Maybe the company she works for thinks everything is OK and they just had a series of bad tenants. When dealing with the company you need to remember that person has no incentive in telling you no. At the end of the day they just want a paycheck and will do whatever their bosses tell them to do, right or wrong.

I believe CoreLogic was spun off from First American.

https://www.corelogic.com/about-us/news/asset_upload_file346...

You may want to see if you are eligible to file a claim with your renter's insurance policy.

As for CoreLogic, you will want to use all the debtor's rights laws at your disposal. All those credit reporting laws apply to them, maybe small claims court would be a good avenue. Small claims courts will usually squash any unruly practices of a landlord.

The large rental management companies can be difficult to worth with as a tenant. At the same time its easier for tenants because they have more tools at their disposal especially in collecting minimal amounts of security deposits and timely repairs. They can be difficult when trying to break a lease, return deposits, or charging misc/extra fees. Sometimes there is no way around it. You need to go into the situation understanding you will lose money.

A good rule of thumb is more amenities => more fees => more problems!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com