Choosing a Tenant When the Numbers Conflict
A manager is marketing a two-bedroom unit at $2,400 per month. Three applications arrive in one week. Applicant A has a credit score of 720 and income of $6,800 per month, but has two pets and no rental history because she lived with family. Applicant B has a credit score of 610, income of $7,500 per month, and a previous landlord who reports late payments twice in the past year. Applicant C has a credit score of 780, income of $5,200 per month, and excellent references, but wants to move in with a roommate who is not on the application. The owner wants the highest income and tells the manager to pick B. The manager has a written tenant selection criteria list that requires verifiable income of at least three times the rent and a satisfactory landlord reference.
1. Apply the stated selection criteria to each applicant and recommend who should be offered the tenancy.
Read the worked answer
Three times the rent is $7,200 per month. Applicant A earns $6,800, which falls short of the income threshold, though her credit is strong and the pets are not a lawful basis for refusal by themselves. Applicant B earns $7,500, meeting income, but the landlord reference shows repeated late payments, which fails the satisfactory-reference criterion. Applicant C earns $5,200, well below the threshold, and the undisclosed roommate creates an additional problem: the roommate would be an occupant or co-tenant who has not been screened. On the stated criteria, no applicant clearly qualifies. The manager should not simply follow the owner's preference for B, because B fails a published criterion and selecting B would be inconsistent with the firm's own policy. The defensible path is to apply the criteria uniformly, document the reasoning, and either request more information (such as a guarantor for A or C, or clarification of C's roommate) or continue marketing.
2. The owner insists on Applicant B. What are the manager's obligations regarding the criteria and fair treatment?
Read the worked answer
The manager should explain that the published criteria exist to make decisions consistent and defensible, and that departing from them for one applicant invites a human-rights or bad-faith complaint. If the owner still insists, the manager should document the instruction and the advice given. The manager must also ensure the decision is not based on any protected characteristic. Refusing A because of pets is permissible only if the building has a genuine no-pet rule; refusing C because of a roommate is permissible only as a screening issue, not as a proxy for family status or other protected grounds. The professional obligation is to give the owner accurate advice, follow lawful instructions, and keep records showing the criteria were applied in the same way to everyone. If the owner's instruction would require a discriminatory refusal, the manager must decline.