Prospective landlords asking for too much information

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

...you have to show that you have the requisite skills and experience to perform the job in order to be shortlisted for an interview. But even then, the information is based solely on what the applicant says; it's rare they have to provide independent evidence before being offered the job....

It wasn't about personal data

...its was about you never need to back up what you say in an interview before getting a job. You might not in some jobs, but you definitely do in other jobs. That has come into being because of so many spoofers and chancers.

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

It wasn't about personal data

...its was about you never need to back up what you say in an interview before getting a job. You might not in some jobs, but you definitely do in other jobs. That has come into being because of so many spoofers and chancers.

I'll assume you're right, but the fact remains that independent verification of what a job applicant has said comes after the job offer, not before.

And nobody so far has given any concrete reason as to why things should be any different for landlords.

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll assume you're right, but the fact remains that independent verification of what a job applicant has said comes after the job offer, not before.

And nobody so far has given any concrete reason as to why things should be any different for landlords.

For a start you've already been filtered based on personal information before you get shortlisted to interviews. There are technical interviews before you get offered certain jobs.

I have no idea why LL should not be allowed to follow similar rules.

beauf

Captain Flaps wrote: »

JFC, it's common sense. You hold a viewing, you collect names and contact info from those who arrive. You chat to people, answer question, and you create a mental shortlist of the people you like best based on whatever criteria you like provided you're not being discriminatory. You pick your favourite, you contact them to request the relevant info. If you're not satisfied you move on to the next potential candidate and so on. If you don't like any of the tenants or the info doesn't check out you hold another viewing.

Which would be fine. Except you are not allowed to do much of this.

Claw Hammer

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll assume you're right, but the fact remains that independent verification of what a job applicant has said comes after the job offer, not before.

And nobody so far has given any concrete reason as to why things should be any different for landlords.

When accommodation is vacant it needs to be let as soon as possible as it is not earning any money lying idle. It is not practical to pick a tenant, ask for references, check them out and then, if they are not suitable find another one and so on. A property will be advertised. A number of prospective tenants will view it within a short period. A decision has to be made quickly as to which of them should be offered the accommodation. If too much time is taken the prospective tenants may well have secured other accommodation. It will also be impossible to demonstrate compliance with equality legislation if o records are kept of all viewers. In a job situation, if there is an urgent need to fill a vacancy candidates might well be asked to bring transcripts of exam results etc to the interview so an offer can be made to a person on the spot or after a very short interval.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Which would be fine. Except you are not allowed to do much of this.

Where do you get that from?

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

For a start you've already been filtered based on personal information before you get shortlisted to interviews. There are technical interviews before you get offered certain jobs.

I have no idea why LL should not be allowed to follow similar rules.

They are allowed to follow the same rules; namely that they collect the information necessary to progress to the next stage.

No employer that I've ever heard of has required references, checks, etc are carried out before making a job offer, so I don't see why LLs should be any different.

LollipopJimmy

NuMarvel wrote: »

They are allowed to follow the same rules; namely that they collect the information necessary to progress to the next stage.

No employer that I've ever heard of has required references, checks, etc are carried out before making a job offer, so I don't see why LLs should be any different.

I make 5-10 job offers a month and each offer is conditional on references being carried out

NuMarvel

Claw Hammer wrote: »

When accommodation is vacant it needs to be let as soon as possible as it is not earning any money lying idle. It is not practical to pick a tenant, ask for references, check them out and then, if they are not suitable find another one and so on. A property will be advertised. A number of prospective tenants will view it within a short period. A decision has to be made quickly as to which of them should be offered the accommodation. If too much time is taken the prospective tenants may well have secured other accommodation. It will also be impossible to demonstrate compliance with equality legislation if o records are kept of all viewers. In a job situation, if there is an urgent need to fill a vacancy candidates might well be asked to bring transcripts of exam results etc to the interview so an offer can be made to a person on the spot or after a very short interval.

I'd have a hard time believing that a potential loss of income is sufficient grounds for a landlord to breach data protection laws. Renting a place is an established, standard process, so any business person worth their salt should have some sense of what's involved. I'd especially have a hard time believing its grounds in the current rental environment.

However, as far as I can see, that doesn't prevent landlords from asking prospective tenants to *bring* the data with them, especially if the LL make clear this is to expedite the signing of contracts. But the collection of that data is a different story, and the DPC guidance is clear that there are different expectations for what LLs can collect from prospective tenants as opposed to the person to whom a tenancy offer is being made.

NuMarvel

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I make 5-10 job offers a month and each offer is conditional on references being carried out

Which is pretty much what I've been saying all along, and what I'm saying LLs should follow as well.

beauf

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I make 5-10 job offers a month and each offer is conditional on references being carried out

How many that apply do you interview roughly. How do you know which ones to interview?

Maybe you let them all turn up, then had a "chat" with them in the hall.

Mic 1972

Claw Hammer wrote: »

When accommodation is vacant it needs to be let as soon as possible as it is not earning any money lying idle. It is not practical to pick a tenant, ask for references, check them out and then, if they are not suitable find another one and so on. A property will be advertised. A number of prospective tenants will view it within a short period. A decision has to be made quickly as to which of them should be offered the accommodation. If too much time is taken the prospective tenants may well have secured other accommodation. It will also be impossible to demonstrate compliance with equality legislation if o records are kept of all viewers. In a job situation, if there is an urgent need to fill a vacancy candidates might well be asked to bring transcripts of exam results etc to the interview so an offer can be made to a person on the spot or after a very short interval.

Yep, that makes sense.

Renting and hiring are not the same thing. There is no probation period for tenancy, once the tenant is in that's it. You can check whatever you want after that, it won't make any difference anymore so you better do all the checks before hand, and quickly

beauf

Well there kinda is....

A valid Notice of Termination is required in order to end a tenancy. If a tenancy has lasted less than 6 months, a landlord does not have to give a reason to end a tenancy, however, the tenant must be provided with a valid notice of termination in writing providing a minimum notice period of 28 days. If a tenancy lasts 6 months or more, a landlord must give a reason for ending the tenancy under the grounds contained in Section 34 of the Act.

..and kinda isn't since it could take a very long time, to evict someone. Though people (and the law) here will tell you that time, and loss of income isn't relevant.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

When you verify the information/documentation from your preferred potential tenant.

At the very least you would need to have a short list of day 3 to 5 preferred tenants who you get all the information from before making a decision. It’s just a joke of a way to do business of you are expected to pick one, get the info and then they don’t pass so possibly have to readvertise again wasting time and money.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent to putting out a job advert where people just apply with their name, come for interview and only when you pick someone can you ask for any paperwork. If they are suitable you have to readvertise and start again.

Graham

Why would you re-advertise and not just go back to your second choice?

I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone it takes too long to review the full details of 1 or 2 prospective tenants when you've advocating reviewing the full details of dozens of candidate.

wonski

As for the references normal companies and landlords request them at the end of the process.

If you have 20 candidates for a job you are not going to waste your and other people time to check them before meeting them in person.

What if you have 100?

You make 100 phone calls or send emails?

Ubbquittious

I don't get all this piss-acting around with short listing tenants and picking favourites, holding multiple viewings and all this malarky with poking into the background and asking invasive personal information from potential tenants. The people at this craic must have feck all else to be doing. Perhaps they are trying to create a bit more work for themselves to alleviate the boredom before they head back to Marbella to sit in the sun drinking away their rental income for another 6 months.

I wonder do these feckers when they sell their car on Donedeal give the potential buyers a mini driving test and ask for bank statements to make sure only the right calibre of driver gets the privilege of being allowed to buy it? Do they not understand that any person can make sh1t of a house, that certain landlords will write a good reference to offload a bad tenant? or that all this dilly dallying costs time and money as well?

Mic 1972

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I don't get all this piss-acting around with short listing tenants and picking favourites, holding multiple viewings and all this malarky with poking into the background and asking invasive personal information from potential tenants. The people at this craic must have feck all else to be doing. Perhaps they are trying to create a bit more work for themselves to alleviate the boredom before they head back to Marbella to sit in the sun drinking away their rental income for another 6 months.

I wonder do these feckers when they sell their car on Donedeal give the potential buyers a mini driving test and ask for bank statements to make sure only the right calibre of driver gets the privilege of being allowed to buy it? Do they not understand that any person can make sh1t of a house, that certain landlords will write a good reference to offload a bad tenant? or that all this dilly dallying costs time and money as well?

This post makes no sense
Checks are done before hand to prevent bad tenants. Personally i dont care much about references but i will sure dig into your linkedin history and will require bank statements and proof of rent payments for your last rental house.

Mic 1972

wonski wrote: »

As for the references normal companies and landlords request them at the end of the process.

If you have 20 candidates for a job you are not going to waste your and other people time to check them before meeting them in person.

What if you have 100?

You make 100 phone calls or send emails?

Hiring for a job is not the same thing.
With tenants you must do all you can BEFORE you give your house keys to a stranger. If you get the wrong tenant in there is no easy way out

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

Why would you re-advertise and not just go back to your second choice?

.

By the time you're done validation, which can take a few days, the second choice will be gone having obtained accommodation elsewhere. Even at that, you are assuming that the potential tenants have been ranked in order however that brings the question as to what criteria was used in the ranking and how can be shown that it did not breach the equality legislation.

Graham

If it takes a few days to trawl through and validate the personal data of one person, think of the time saved compared to trawling through and validating the personal data of potentially dozens of people.

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

If it takes a few days to trawl through and validate the personal data of one person, think of the time saved compared to trawling through and validating the personal data of potentially dozens of people.

It doesn't take long to trawl through the data. Previous landlords have to be contacted, employers have to be contacted and bank references obtained. It is waiting around for the persons contacted to come back which is the time-consuming element of it. The only rational way to do it, if there are a number of tenants presenting, is to get all the request all the documents simultaneously validate them all and then rank the tenants in order of preference and contact them all one after another on a first-come first served basis.

NuMarvel

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It doesn't take long to trawl through the data. Previous landlords have to be contacted, employers have to be contacted and bank references obtained. It is waiting around for the persons contacted to come back which is the time-consuming element of it. The only rational way to do it, if there are a number of tenants presenting, is to get all the request all the documents simultaneously validate them all and then rank the tenants in order of preference and contact them all one after another on a first-come first served basis.

So instead of waiting around for the references and checks of one person, you want to do it for multiple people? That will surely take longer, because referees are going to come back at different rates. And it of course will take longer requesting the information in the first place, because you're doing it for multiple people, instead of once or maybe twice.

And that's leaving aside the potential breach of data protection legislation, which is the point of the whole thread. If you're concerned about breaches of equality legislation, I'd presume you're also concerned about breaches of other legislation too, especially when the fines can be hefty.

And on top of all that, the data you collect could make it look like you've breached equality legislation. What if you see a Grindr subscription or a child support payment on my bank account, and end up picking someone else? How do you prove that your selection wasn't influenced by sexual orientation or family status? It seems to me that the less personal data you have before you make an offer, the less likely you are to have breached equality legislation.

So as well as creating more work for yourself, you're leaving yourself exposed to legal actions on multiple fronts. How precisely is this rational?

Mic 1972

NuMarvel wrote: »

So instead of waiting around for the references and checks of one person, you want to do it for multiple people? That will surely take longer, because referees are going to come back at different rates. And it of course will take longer requesting the information in the first place, because you're doing it for multiple people, instead of once or maybe twice.

And that's leaving aside the potential breach of data protection legislation, which is the point of the whole thread. If you're concerned about breaches of equality legislation, I'd presume you're also concerned about breaches of other legislation too, especially when the fines can be hefty.

And on top of all that, the data you collect could make it look like you've breached equality legislation. What if you see a Grindr subscription or a child support payment on my bank account, and end up picking someone else? How do you prove that your selection wasn't influenced by sexual orientation or family status? It seems to me that the less personal data you have before you make an offer, the less likely you are to have breached equality legislation.

So as well as creating more work for yourself, you're leaving yourself exposed to legal actions on multiple fronts. How precisely is this rational?

you can black out any sensitive information from bank statements

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It doesn't take long to trawl through the data. Previous landlords have to be contacted, employers have to be contacted and bank references obtained. It is waiting around for the persons contacted to come back which is the time-consuming element of it. The only rational way to do it, if there are a number of tenants presenting, is to get all the request all the documents simultaneously validate them all and then rank the tenants in order of preference and contact them all one after another on a first-come first served basis.

The idea that a landlord is going to take bank statements, PPS numbers, check employers references, bank references and contact previous landlords for potentially dozens of prospective tenants before viewing, even though the people enquiring haven't yet decided if they want to take the property and only one of them is ultimately going to be offered a tenancy?

Thread certainly explains why Data Protection legislation is necessary and why the DPC issued guidelines.

beauf

This thread is hilarious.

They keep bring out one new regulation after the other because each time it's so divorced from reality that it doesn't work in the real world.

The system has no legal means to short list anyone. you can't request any information, but you have to record what you use to make that short list. This is catch 22.

So people here are suggesting either do no checking, it will be grand, or check them all, or only check the short list, which you can't legally create in the first place. Or have as chat. Lol.

One of the main issues us requesting a pps. A landlord can do nothing with this data, it's useless to them. Its the PRTB (govt) who look for this, and it's the DC (also Govt) saying you don't have to give it. This from the same people who gave us the public service card. The same people who have given us the longest housing crisis in the history of the state.

Nothing wrong with having rules. But there is no joined up thinking here.

beauf

I've sat in meetings where people have decided to remove all means of looking up someone via their personal information on a system.

Then at somepoint someone will eventually realise that there is no way to look up someone without personal information. But it's the only thing that makes a person unique. Once you give them an ID then thats just creating another bit of personal information. If they make a typo you get the wrong person so you need more info to cross check...and now you're back where you started....

Reinventing the wheel....

NuMarvel

Mic 1972 wrote: »

you can black out any sensitive information from bank statements

If we're fine with the concept of data miniminsation in the information provided, then we can take that just one step further one and apply it to the request. So instead of asking for bank statements, the LL instead specifies the precise information they need, in line with the reason they need it, eg record of rent payments for the last 6 months.

And of course, if LLs want to make sure they don't unintentionally end up on the wrong side of the law, they can take that concept one step further again, by only requesting it from the person they have or will offer the place to.

Which, in my experience, has been how most landlords do it. So I'm unsure why some posters here believe it to be some kind of herculean task. Maybe there's a job market for data protection advisers for landlords who think it's just too hard.

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

I've sat in meetings where people have decided to remove all means of looking up someone via their personal information on a system.

Then at somepoint someone will eventually realise that there is no way to look up someone without personal information. But it's the only thing that makes a person unique. Once you give them an ID then thats just creating another bit of personal information. If they make a typo you get the wrong person so you need more info to cross check...and now you're back where you started....

Reinventing the wheel....

Assuming this is true, those people sound like idiots, and shouldn't be handling personal data in the first place. So maybe they've done everyone a favour by effectively locking themselves out of it.

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

...by only requesting it from the person they have or will offer the place to. ..

There is no way of selecting this person except at random in the logic trap that's been created here.

It's the exact same same as those IT systems.