I just got a tour request on my pre-screening web form. When I ran our free court record search, I pulled up 8 "hits" for this person. I'm confident this is her because the First, Middle, and Last name combination is uncommon.

One offense from 2017 - Littering, $250 fine

One from 2019 - Small Claims $5000 judgment entered. No record of satisfaction on file. Doesn't look like an eviction, but no clues as to what was being redressed.

All 6 other offenses are from 2022, two of which were from September! What kinds of things?

1. Speeding 20-25 mph over.

2. Inattentive driving (???)

3. Operation vehicle without insurance; happened same day as #2.

4. Operating vehicle without license; same days as #2 and 3.

5. Again, Operating vehicle without a license; 14 days ago.

6. Again, Operation vehicle without insurance; happened same day as #5.

Individually, none of these are particularly concerning to me, except for that $5000 judgment not showing as paid yet. We all make mistakes and screw up sometimes. But this to me six issues in one year and two others not that long ago constitutes a pattern that leads me to believe that this person doesn't believe the rules apply to her.

How would she react to the rules of a lease? My guess is there would be problems. I do not plan to respond to this person's tour request.

But I'm wondering what you do if you pre-screen and find multiple, recent minor infractions?

To me, it shows either a pattern of "I don't care about the rules" or desperation for some reason. If it's "I don't care", well you're right--they won't care about your rules either. If it's desperation, I guess it's about what's causing the desperation and can it be cured.

No license around here generally either means drunk driving conviction or some other stupid thing like repeated no insurance or not paying for gas and driving off.

It all depends on what you expect from tenants, and what you will tolerate from them.

It seems pretty clear what to expect from this tenant. If thats within your tolerance, its your choice, you have been forewarned.

For me, I would give him a polite "No Thank You". I don't waste my time with applicants that I know I won't be happy with.

A lot depends on the type of clientele that you usually take, By now, you should know what you like and don't like, and what your market deserves. My market doesn't tolerate such applicants.

I don't bother with seeking out a court record; I don't even entertain applicants without decent educations, appropriate jobs and professional demeanors. Thats mu guarantee of the kind of person I want as a tenant.

As an arrogant teenager, I once got six tickets at one time. Probably would have gotten a warning instead if I had been polite.

I learned my lesson...the hard way of course!

Sid, I had some second thoughts about your posting.

In a previous posting, you said (or at least implied) that you found nothing wrong with violating rules when it is in the landlord's best interests. Is that what is happened with this applicant? He did what he considered to be in his own best interests despite the rules, he got caught, but you consider that he had a right to do that and you had no problem with that.

By the way, when I first came to the US, I lived in Chicago (midwest) where rules were nonexistent if you knew the right people, and life for many, many residents was miserable, unless again, you knew he right people, and life was very chaotic indeed. Every man was a lawbreaker, from the corner merchant to the Police, and, of course, the landlord.

I was raised in a religious society, although neither my parents nor I were religious. As a result, I have a great regard for the interests of society as an adjunct to one's own interest. The country was a mess, despite the lessons of religion, but the principles remain with me: We don't live in the world alone.

There are two levels I would be checking......

the first as many have said - the disregard for rules. they are not doing so well with this. Depending on what was done, I might be able to oevr look this as long as there wasn't a pattern. With six though -

I've had a tenant for 40 years. He was a medium level banker that could not have any negative issues or he would loose his job.

I have teachers and administrators working for the public schools and State Universities. One became the chair of the philosophy department, going on 37 years. Another going on 17 years, from teacher to Vice Principal.

I also have a 12 year tenant that works for the public library.

I likely would DQ on "cooperative" since they aren't cooperating with community laws, but repeat offenses like that can also speak to "stable employment", and "sound finances" which could also be affected by these repeated unstable behaviors.

Moshe, I assume you're referring to this: my views expressed earlier on a land lord's right to discriminate on source of income.

If you want a serious answer, then cite a specific passage and ask a specific question. Otherwise, as I used to tell my Freshmen English students, "I'm not going to write your thesis for you."

Hmmmm…I need to update my written criteria.

The offenses listed are not on my checklist for documenting a denial.

My Son in law, a former cop, says lots of seatbelt or taillight tickets possibly means the police are watching them, hoping to catch them with drugs or such.

I would prefer to not rent to scofflaws.

The driving with no license and no insurance is serious.

The "littering" is probably serious, too, because no officer is going to bother to write anyone up for dropping a candy wrapper. I suspect that it is a plead-down conviction from something more serious. At the very least, it indicates some sort of unaccepible behavior that provoked police attention.

When we first began developing our written screening criteria, our mindset was everyone was qualified and we were listing items which would disqualify people. Our default was yes until we could prove them a no.

On our application listed we listed specific things which were deal breakers. Under criminal, we listed a history including: child abuse, child neglect, child abandonment, child endangerment, violence, drug manufacturing or drug distribution.

Then, when the criminal reports came back, there were items we had not listed because it never occurred to us, like forgery, or a warrant for an arrest. As the items which came back were not on our written application, I felt that I couldn’t deny them, so our first few experiences weren’t fun.

Then we changed our mindset (thank you, Mr. Landlord forum!) to no one was qualified until they proved they were. Now our default is no until they prove themselves a yes. We shifted the responsibility onto the applicant. We still treat every applicant exactly the same and they all go through our standard screening criteria.

Now our application states: We are looking for Residents who have a positive history of being law abiding, responsible, community members.

In our business handbook, we added the following to our written screening criteria:

Multiple (2 or more) lesser crimes like failure to yield, not wearing a seat belt, no car insurance? Automatic Unable to Qualify

It was for exactly the reason you described. If an applicant has multiple "small" items, it is likely they do not believe the rules apply to them and my job will be an uphill battle getting them to comply with our policies and procedures.

So far, our list includes:

Does not have a driver’s license, expired or suspended driver’s license? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Income not 3 x the rent? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Not able to verify current/previous landlord references or negative references? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Not able to verify current/previous employer references or negative references? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Utility charges sent to collections or charged off? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Crimes of child endangerment, child abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, any type of violence, drug manufacturing, or drug distribution? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Behind on child support? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Warrant out for arrest? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Profanity during application process? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Rude or uncooperative during application process? Automatic Unable to Qualify

Luke 16:10 “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much.”

Martha Beck, “How you do anything is how you do everything.”

For awhile the deputies around here were on patrol for seatbelt violations. I got pulled over for speeding, which I was doing, and the officer said he would just write it up as no seatbelt. I told him to do what he needed but I would fight it as I wore my seatbelt before it was law in our state.

The reply was that he didn't understand why someone would fight a seatbelt violation ($25 fine) instead of a speeding violation which was more. I did one, not the other.

He let me go with a warning.

Talked to other people that I worked with at the time and saw a pattern of people getting stopped for one thing and getting seatbelt charges instead.