Prospective landlords asking for too much information

The Student

NuMarvel wrote: »

Of course I think it's important. I said as much only a few posts back. You even quoted that post.

What's ALSO important, is that LLs and agents don't collect more information than is necessary to make these determinations. That's what the law says.

If you keep interpreting that as me saying LLs can't collect *any* data, then that's on you, not me.

A landlord is engaging in a commercial transaction and part of any commercial transaction is ascertaining the other parties ability to discharge their liabilities ( a credit check for want of a better term).

In the absence of any other proof of a persons ability to discharge their prospective liability the use of a bank statement will fulfil this requirement. A employer reference and photo id will identify the individual to ensure no misrepresentation/fraud where the applicant for a property is actually the person who presents themselves at any viewing of the property.

A landlord can request the above information and must store this information for the purpose for which it is collected and securely destroy the documentation once the purpose for which it was collected no longer exists.

Once a tenant is chosen by the landlord then the landlord is legally required to obtain further information to fulfil the landlords obligations under the RTB Act.

Dav010

Graham wrote: »

Why wouldn't you properly vet a tenant once you'd made your provisional selection?

Provisional selection criteria for many Landlords I suspect, would include confirmation of the ability to afford the rent. You know Graham that once a lease is signed and the tenant is in situ, it can take a year to remove the tenant and costs thousands if they can’t/won’t pay rent. Initial vetting should include the basic information, do you have the means to pay the rent?

Graham

Who on earth would be daft enough to give a prospective tenant a lease before checking the tenant has the means to pay the rent.

Nobody has suggested that approach.

Fol20

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think the consequences of a potential data breach are too serious to ignore, which is why data protection laws are designed to ensure excessive amounts of information aren't requested in the first place.

I have no issue with landlords or agents taking reasonable steps to ensure they won't encounter problems down the road. But that doesn't mean they have free reign to ask for whatever they want, no matter how much of a renter's market it is.

The whole point though as many others have said is that they can ask for info and you have the right to decline to provide this. At the same time, the ll has the right to decline you has a tenant if he finds better tenants.

Graham

Fol20 wrote: »

The whole point though as many others have said is that they can ask for info and you have the right to decline to provide this. At the same time, the ll has the right to decline you has a tenant if he finds better tenants.

The guidelines are pretty clear, the info can only be asked of the provisionally selected tenant.

There is nothing in the guidelines to suggest it is appropriate to ask the info of all applicants. Quite the opposite.

Dav010

Graham wrote: »

Who on earth would be daft enough to give a prospective tenant a lease before checking the tenant has the means to pay the rent.

Nobody has suggested that approach.

Why consider them at all if they can’t? Being able to afford the rent is a basic requirement, why on earth should you be even considered if you can’t show this?

What you are saying is that a LL should go through the whole process, and then at the very end check if the preferred applicant can afford it. That is akin to opening a job interview to everyone, and then only checking that the person you are about to offer the job at the end has the necessary qualifications, if you state necessary qualifying criteria at the start, then everyone up for consideration can show they have the means, a basic requirement for a tenant.

NuMarvel

Fol20 wrote: »

The whole point though as many others have said is that they can ask for info and you have the right to decline to provide this. At the same time, the ll has the right to decline you has a tenant if he finds better tenants.

There are data protection principles in respect of the LL's request in the first place and this isn't just about tenant selection.

LLs and agents who request and collect excessive amounts of information are potentially in breach of data protection laws. They have to be able to show that the information they request is the minimum required to be able to make a decision. It's not enough to say it makes it easier for them, which is what some posters have suggested, it has to be that it's necessary.

And this applies to LLs regardless of who they end up selecting. A complaint can be made by anyone the LL has requested the information from, including the successful tenant.

Captain Flaps

JustAThought wrote: »

I guess with that attitude you’ll living in your own house-no lease for you. I asked the lsst time I remted out for work contracts & their managers names, LinkedIn profiles & to see their online banking live - fairly successful for me& doable on the spot in the house -no messing &screened out the messers. Made it very easy to make a decision.

Contracts and live online banking? Are you actually serious? That is grossly invasive and if a landlord asked for that I'd assume they would be a nightmare to rent from. I never had an issue showing payslips for my partner and I to confirm our income was more than enough to cover the rent, and providing work and landlord references, that should be absolutely adequate. I'd run a mile from someone like you if I encountered you at a viewing as I would assume you'd overstep the privacy boundary in other ways during the tenancy. I bought a house 2 years ago but having viewed and been offered many different rental properties any time I was moving I never encountered anyone asking what you are.

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

There are data protection principles in respect of the LL's request in the first place and this isn't just about tenant selection....

No but it's the the majority of what this specific issue was about retaining information before a tenant is spelled selected. It's in the documents linked previously.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

You move on to the second choice.

You can't contact them because....

Graham wrote: »

The guidelines are pretty clear, the info can only be asked of the provisionally selected tenant.

There is nothing in the guidelines to suggest it is appropriate to ask the info of all applicants. Quite the opposite.

Catch 22

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

I answered the question you asked, and I have to point out that it's clear from the thread that not everyone knows about the concept of data minimisation. If you wanted specific examples, you should have just asked, but I'm happy to do that now .

Someone gave the example earlier of wanting to see someone's live online banking data. That seems excessive to me, because I don't see why anyone needs to see every transaction on a tenant's bank account.

On the other hand, I think an example of a reasonable request would be to see a record of someone rental payments by standing order. That would show reliability and ability to pay, and prove they also have a bank account (if that's a requirement for the LL).

The question was what information you can get from someone before you selected them not afterwards.

But you won't answer that, constant deflection.

Graham

There's nothing to suggest you can't retain contact details while tenants are being considered.

That would appear to fall well within the scope of the data protection principles.

Graham

Dav010 wrote: »

Why consider them at all if they can’t? Being able to afford the rent is a basic requirement, why on earth should you be even considered if you can’t show this?

What you are saying is that a LL should go through the whole process, and then at the very end check if the preferred applicant can afford it. That is akin to opening a job interview to everyone, and then only checking that the person you are about to offer the job at the end has the necessary qualifications, if you state necessary qualifying criteria at the start, then everyone up for consideration can show they have the means, a basic requirement for a tenant.

It's more like meeting all of the candidates and then taking up references on the candidate you've provisionally selected.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest you can't retain contact details while tenants are being considered.

That would appear to fall well within the scope of the data protection principles.

Well thats personal information The only reason to retain contact information is to expedite the process. If thats irrelevant then no need to hold it.

If you have details of 100 people likely 97% of that is not needed. How do you decide the 3% you can't get the information until after you've decided. Lol.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

It's more like meeting all of the candidates and then taking up references on the candidate you've provisionally selected.

How did you select them if you have no CV

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

The question was what information you can get from someone before you selected them not afterwards.

But you won't answer that, constant deflection.

That wasn't the question asked of me, or if it was, it wasn't clear. In any case, I think Graham has answered this, and I don't have any additional or different to add.

AlanG

NuMarvel wrote: »

Information that's necessary in relation to the purposes in question, and can't be fulfilled through other means. It's called data minimisation and is one of the principles of data protection.

A good data protection policy will cover this.

If you were to apply for a job in the Data Protection Commissioner, or any public Service organization they will ask for and check your references before offering you a contract. You do not get offered a contract subject to references you simply get asked to provide references as the next stage of the process.

As a contract for exclusive use of a 300 or 400k house is far more valuable than a work contract where you can be let go with no explanation within the first 6 weeks I think it is reasonable for landlords to apply the same principals that the office of the Data Protection Commissioner themselves use with regards to references.
As Regina Doherty said - DPC guidelines are only their opinion and not the law and their rulings can be wrong as they are not judges.

Graham

I do have to laugh at some of the responses here.

I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to do any checks at all on a prospective tenant.
I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to take a note of their name and telephone number.

:rolleyes:

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

That wasn't the question asked of me, or if it was, it wasn't clear. In any case, I think Graham has answered this, and I don't have any additional or different to add.

This is classic example of knowing the letter of the law and no knowledge of how to apply that to the real world.

Captain Flaps

Graham wrote: »

I do have to laugh at some of the responses here.

I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to do any checks at all on a prospective tenant.
I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to take a note of their name and telephone number.

:rolleyes:

Also the lads who seem to think that showing up to your own property to show people around for half an hour is somehow comparable to a HR hiring process.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

I do have to laugh at some of the responses here.

I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to do any checks at all on a prospective tenant.
I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to take a note of their name and telephone number.

:rolleyes:

Checks based on what.

Mr Smith and random mobile probably a burner.

Lol

Graham

Ahh I can see why you would be confused. It would go something like this....


Ask first prospective tenant for relevant information. No good?


Ask second prospective tenant for relevant information.

NuMarvel

AlanG wrote: »

If you were to apply for a job in the Data Protection Commissioner, or any public Service organization they will ask for and check your references before offering you a contract. You do not get offered a contract subject to references you simply get asked to provide references as the next stage of the process.

As a contract for exclusive use of a 300 or 400k house is far more valuable than a work contract where you can be let go with no explanation within the first 6 weeks I think it is reasonable for landlords to apply the same principals that the office of the Data Protection Commissioner themselves use with regards to references.
As Regina Doherty said - DPC guidelines are only their opinion and not the law and their rulings can be wrong as they are not judges.

I've worked in the public sector, and I received the job offer before reference checks were carried out. The offer was subject to satisfactory checks, references, Garda clearance, etc. If any of those didn't check out, then I didn't get the job. I know this for a fact, because the only reason I got the job was the person before me on the panel didn't pass these checks and therefore didn't get the job. So as you may imagine, I am very pro-checks :pac:.

But the information I provided was proportionate and reasonable. I didn't have to provide references from everyone I've ever met; just a small number of recent employers. I didn't have to provide evidence of qualifications beyond what was initially stated. I didn't have to have irrelevant medical tests carried out.

I expect LLs and agents adhere to the same standards. I am not saying they can't collect information needed to make decisions, I'm saying they should only collect the information needed.

As for the standing of the Data Protection Commissioner, they're certainly not infallible, but they are the regulator in this area. Their guidance isn't just a random opinion; it has weight, especially in the absence of a contrary court judgement.

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

This is classic example of knowing the letter of the law

Why, thank you

Claw Hammer

The position of the DPC is more nuanced than has been adduced here. The current position is in response to a communication with one agent. It does not mean that it wouldn't change if it got a better response. It does not appear that the agent referred to the obligations of landlords under the Equal Status legislation whereby a landlord cannot discriminate against prospective tenants on numerous grounds. A landlord therefore must have a rational explanation as to why one prospective tenant was chosen rather than another. This means recording information given by prospective tenants and showing that a rational system was applied. Since the DPC was not told about these requirements they can't be regarded as the end of the matter.

Graham

The case study was specific, there is no indication that the guidelines only apply to the company covered by the case study.

Dav010

Graham wrote: »

I do have to laugh at some of the responses here.

I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to do any checks at all on a prospective tenant.
I can't ask for financial details from dozens of people so I'm not going to take a note of their name and telephone number.

:rolleyes:

I think you are doing a trolling now Graham, no one is saying you do no checks at all.

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

The case study was specific, there is no indication that the guidelines only apply to the company covered by the case study.

The guidelines were on the basis of the replies given. The DPC said they information requested hadn't been justified. That is not to say justification couldn't be given by someone else in response to a similar query. In particular, the Equal Status issues were not raised with the DPC. It is legitimate to gather data if there is a legal requirement to do so. The Estate Agent made no mention of that when queried so naturally the The PC did not deal with that issue.

NuMarvel

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The guidelines were on the basis of the replies given. The DPC said they information requested hadn't been justified. That is not to say justification couldn't be given by someone else in response to a similar query. In particular, the Equal Status issues were not raised with the DPC. It is legitimate to gather data if there is a legal requirement to do so. The Estate Agent made no mention of that when queried so naturally the The PC did not deal with that issue.

As the DPC says in the opening paragraphs, the guidance was developed because of the volume of queries the DPC gets and the trends they identified.

The instance you're referring to is a case study, based on something that happened in 2014, not the sole basis of the guidelines, which were most recently updated in 2019.

And while you are correct that LLs must also comply with equality status legislation, I'm unclear what information this obliges them to collect or what issues would cause the DPC to issue different advice.

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

In particular, the Equal Status issues were not raised with the DPC. It is legitimate to gather data if there is a legal requirement to do so.

Which out of "financial statements, utility bills, references, PPSNs," would be necessary to comply with the equal status obligations?