AIC CAC common mistakes
AIC CAC · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a fair housing complaint about a seemingly neutral policy (e.g., a blanket 'no criminal record' or 'no children' rule) as a non-issue because the policy applies to everyone equally.
Candidates conflate 'applies to everyone' with 'legal' and overlook disparate impact and familial status protections under fair housing law.
What to do instead
Before judging a policy, ask two questions: does it treat a protected class differently on its face, and does it disproportionately exclude a protected class in effect? Apply the same screening criteria to every applicant and document the business necessity for any neutral rule.
Answering a maintenance or habitability question by citing the resident's responsibility to report issues rather than the owner's affirmative duty to maintain the unit.
Day-to-day property work is reactive, so candidates frame habitability as a tenant-triggered process instead of a continuous owner obligation.
What to do instead
Memorize the implied warranty of habitability as an ongoing landlord duty covering heat, water, plumbing, sanitation, and structural safety. When a prompt describes a defect, start from the owner's duty, then layer in notice and repair timelines.
Computing economic occupancy from scheduled rent rather than collected rent, or mixing physical and economic occupancy in the same calculation.
Candidates grab the most visible number (gross scheduled rent) and skip the distinction between units occupied and rent actually received.
What to do instead
Define each metric before solving: physical occupancy = occupied units ÷ total units; economic occupancy = rent collected ÷ gross potential rent. Write the formula down first, then plug in only the figures the prompt gives.
Using a single security deposit deduction answer for every scenario without separating normal wear and tear from damage or checking the required itemization and return timeline.
Deposit handling feels administrative, so candidates default to 'keep the deposit for cleaning' without applying the legal standard.
What to do instead
For each deposit question, apply three tests: is the charge for damage versus ordinary wear, is it supported by an itemized statement, and was it returned within the jurisdiction's deadline. State all three in the answer.
Describing a leasing follow-up process that stops at 'send the application' without addressing fair housing consistency, occupancy standards, or the reasonable accommodation request path.
Candidates focus on closing the lease and treat accommodation and screening questions as separate topics rather than part of the leasing flow.
What to do instead
Walk every leasing scenario through the same sequence: inquiry, consistent screening criteria, accommodation handling, approval or adverse action notice, and lease execution. Flag the accommodation step explicitly even when the prompt does not mention a disability.
Confusing a budget variance with a reforecast by treating any line that is over budget as a problem to be cut, without checking whether the variance is timing-related or offset by another line.
Candidates apply a simple 'over is bad' heuristic and skip variance analysis concepts like favorable/unfavorable and accrual timing.
What to do instead
Classify each variance as favorable or unfavorable and as timing or permanent before recommending action. Compare year-to-date actuals to the budgeted period, not the annual total, and check offsetting lines before proposing cuts.
Responding to an angry resident by immediately promising a rent credit or waiving a fee to calm the situation.
Candidates want to demonstrate customer service and equate de-escalation with concession, forgetting that unauthorized promises create financial and legal exposure.
What to do instead
Use a listen-acknowledge-act sequence: hear the concern, restate it, state what you can do within policy, and commit to a follow-up time. Route any concession through the approved authority level and document the interaction.
Handling a maintenance emergency by describing the work order process rather than the immediate life-safety steps and notification chain.
Candidates default to the routine work-order workflow and underweight triage, emergency escalation, and documentation of liability.
What to do instead
For any emergency prompt (fire, flood, gas, no heat in freezing conditions, security breach), answer in order: protect life and property, notify the on-call manager and owner per policy, document, then schedule permanent repair. State the triage criteria you used.
Giving a legal-sounding opinion on a lease clause or eviction question instead of identifying the limit of the property manager's role and the need to refer to counsel.
Candidates want to appear knowledgeable and answer the legal substance rather than the role-appropriate action.
What to do instead
When a prompt involves litigation, eviction filing, or contested lease interpretation, answer with the manager's permitted actions (document, follow policy, notify owner) and explicitly state that legal interpretation is referred to an attorney.
Treating a resident's request to add an assistance animal as a pet-policy question and applying pet rent, deposits, or breed restrictions.
Assistance animals are visually and procedurally similar to pets, so candidates apply the pet framework out of habit.
What to do instead
Separate the two categories at the start of the answer: assistance animals are not pets, so pet fees and breed or weight limits do not apply, and the request is handled as a reasonable accommodation with supporting documentation reviewed under the accommodation policy.