Posts Tagged ‘prospective’

ATTENTION FRISCO LANDLORDS: You Can’t Charge a $49.50 Application Fee – Take a Look at This Example on Page

Friday, August 11th, 2017

Here we go:

7J7C7509 copy

Now let’s hear from the California Apartment Association:

“As you consider prospective renters in 2017, remember that your applicant screening fee can only cover the expenses you incur in the process. This includes the actual money spent gathering information, as well as time spent by you or your staff. But no matter how much you pay for tenant screening, your fee to applicants may not exceed $47.72. That figure represents this year’s maximum applicant-screening charge. Each December, the state of California adjusts its cap on applicant-screening fees based on changes to the Consumer Price Index. This year’s adjustment amounted to an increase of $1.05.”

A landlord not following what the CAA says is a bad sign from the get-go.

The kind of people who overcharge on the application fee are the kind of people who do other things wrong as landlords as well.

(OTOH, I’m sure many landlords would prefer naive, moneyed tenants who say, “Take my money, take my money,” as they are less likely to complain about other issues.)

Anyway, the cost of doing a background check has come down over the years, non? So why not just charge prospective tenants the eight dollars or whatever you are out of pocket? Cause I’ll tell you, this isn’t a good look, this nickel-and-diming at the start of a potential $40-something thousand dollar land deal.

Speaking of which, back in the day, Before the Aughts, back during DotCom 1.0, let’s say 1998 or so, you’d see 50 people showing up at open houses. They’d each pay an application fee of $50 or so and then the manager / landlord / agent would have a nice multi-thousand dollar tax-free payday just by depositing a bunch of checks at the bank. Not bad for a few hours “work.” And they wouldn’t even do a background check on you, the sucker prospective tenant, ’cause that would increase costs.

A cite from that era:

“Some landlords in the San Francisco Bay Area were found guilty of charging application fees of $50 or more and/or collecting application fees when no rentals were even available.”

That’s what happens when people treat the application process as a profit center.

Anyway, choose wisely, tenants.

(more…)

Oh Snap! Senator Barbara Boxer Goes After Law Schools as If They Were Cooking Schools – “Luring Students In”

Friday, October 14th, 2011

Well this is different. (Actually, it reminds me of the fuss over the California Culinary Academy.)

“Coburn, Boxer Call for Department of Education to Examine Questions of Law School Transparency – In Light of Concerns About Misleading Information, Senators Request Statistics on Six Key Metrics

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) yesterday asked the Department of Education’s Inspector General to provide information about key law school job placement, bar passage and loan debt metrics in light of serious concerns that have been raised about the accuracy and transparency of information being provided to prospective law school students.

This letter follows repeated calls from Senator Boxer to the American Bar Association to provide stronger oversight of reporting by law schools and better access to information for students.

In their letter, the Senators pointed to media reports that raise questions about whether the claims law schools use to lure prospective students are, in fact, accurate. They also cited reporting that questions whether law school tuition and fees are used for legal education or for unrelated purposes.”

Enjoy the whole thing, after the jump

(more…)