Prospective landlords asking for too much information

Graham

beauf wrote: »

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

Only trapping those that have convinced themselves that data-mining is the only way to 'interview' tenants.

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

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.

And like those IT systems, the problem isn't the law, but the people themselves.

Mic 1972

Graham wrote: »

Only trapping those that have convinced themselves that data-mining is the only way to 'interview' tenants.

data-mining sounds a bit dramatic
maybe if you were a LL yourself you'd understand how crucial it is to run checks before giving you house to a stranger

Graham

Mic 1972 wrote: »

data-mining sounds a bit dramatic
maybe if you were a LL yourself you'd understand how crucial it is to run checks before giving you house to a stranger

Checks are absolutely essential, at no point have I suggested otherwise.

Neither does the DPC guidelines.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

Only trapping those that have convinced themselves that data-mining is the only way to 'interview' tenants.

In theory any sort of verbal interview is also data mining by that logic.

The interview can't use personal data (op original premise) and you have to record it to prove its not discriminatory and you need the contract details when people turn it down. Except you can't record any of it because of the first point.

The only solution is to pick at random. If they fail any checks (which are very easy to fool) then you pick the next person at random and repeat the checks. You've ruled out any other options..

beauf

Graham wrote: »

Checks are absolutely essential, at no point have I suggested otherwise.

Neither does the DPC guidelines.

But you can't select anyone to check, without out breaking one of these rules.

NuMarvel

Mic 1972 wrote: »

data-mining sounds a bit dramatic
maybe if you were a LL yourself you'd understand how crucial it is to run checks before giving you house to a stranger

Unless I've missed it, absolutely zero posters have said checks can never be carried out. Doing checks of the person you've decided to offer the place to so that you can confirm their suitability is fine.

But getting this type of information from multiple people in the off chance it might save you some time if something doesn't work out with your first preference isn't fine.

This really isn't rocket science.

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

...
This really isn't rocket science.

...and yet you can't explain how someone selects that first preference (and second for that matter) and keeps a record of how they were selected but without storing any data...

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

...and yet you can't explain how someone selects that first preference (and second for that matter) and keeps a record of how they were selected but without storing any data...

You're right that I can't explain how they do this without storing any data, because nobody has said they do this without storing *any* data.

That's a straw-man you've come up to avoid addressing what's been said.

beauf

"...such information will not be necessary until such time as a landlord decides upon a preferred tenant..."

You can't get the information to select the client until after you've selected him.

beauf

Even if a tenant gives consent you can't take it....

"..Landlords should be wary of seeking to rely on consent as a legal basis for the collection
of personal data from prospective tenants, as the imbalance of power in the landlord-
tenant relationship will likely mean that the consent is not is ‘freely given’ by the tenant
for the processing of their personal data – which is a requirement where relying on
consent under the GDPR...."

Graham

it continues

In other cases landlords may seek certain information in order to protect their own
financial or property interests (e.g. a reference from a previous landlord in respect of the
prospective tenant to whom the property is being offered) and, in such cases, reliance
may be placed on the legitimate interests legal basis. However, where this is the case,
the landlord must be able to demonstrate how the personal data sought (in particular
the nature and extent of the information being requested in a reference) is not
disproportionate or outweighed by the rights of the tenant (i.e. their right to privacy and
protection of their personal data).

and

Personal data should not be requested, collected, or stored by landlords on a ‘just in case’ basis

beauf

You keep jumping to the second stage and ignoring how you got to that point. How are you meant to shortlist one or more prospective tenants with no information. Out of 20 what makes someone "prospective". Nice suit? Posh accent, a sad story?

Further more you may have to prove this selection was not discriminatory. How do you prove that. Considering ability to pay is considered discriminatory.

beauf

It's all academic anyway.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Further more you may have to prove this selection was not discriminatory. How do you prove that. Considering ability to pay is considered discriminatory.

That raises an interesting question all on its own, probably worthy of a thread of its own.

Outside of the whole GDPR question:

how does a landlord disprove discrimination (or prove non-discrimination).

NuMarvel

Graham wrote: »

That raises an interesting question all on its own, probably worthy of a thread of its own.

Outside of the whole GDPR question:

how does a landlord disprove discrimination (or prove non-discrimination).

By trampling all over people's privacy rights seems to be answer going by this thread.

The point some posters seem to miss is that people like me, who want to make sure our equality rights aren't breached, also want to make sure our privacy is protected. People shouldn't be put in a position where they're effectively asked to chose which rights they want breached.

GGTrek

beauf wrote: »

It's all academic anyway.

Could not agree more. This thread shows exactly the detachment of some of the posters from reality. The OP can do whatever he/she wants, I would not even ask for references, neither in the ad (that would be pure stupidity) and neither in the emails (nothing written), if the tenants are clever they will provide references and financial means proof voluntarily as soon as they are interested in the property, if they are not (like the OP and some other posters seem to be) then they would be discarded from selection in the blink of an eye.
All the BS unenforceable Irish regulations (described perfectly in this thread) restricting freedom of contract in the rental/property market introduced since 2010 have done nothing but worsening the situation for tenants, but still a big chunk of the Irish have lately voted for "moar", usually they are from that chunk of the population that lives off the state.

Mic 1972

NuMarvel wrote: »

By trampling all over people's privacy rights seems to be answer going by this thread.

The point some posters seem to miss is that people like me, who want to make sure our equality rights aren't breached, also want to make sure our privacy is protected. People shouldn't be put in a position where they're effectively asked to chose which rights they want breached.

How do you expect a landlord to trust your ability to pay and to take care of his/her property if you was unwilling to provide information about yourself?
I'd rather leave my house vacant than give it to a stranger that may not have a stable job, may have failed to pay rent to previous landlord and so on

Mic 1972

GGTrek wrote: »

Could not agree more. This thread shows exactly the detachment of some of the posters from reality. The OP can do whatever he/she wants, I would not even ask for references, neither in the ad (that would be pure stupidity) and neither in the emails (nothing written), if the tenants are clever they will provide references and financial means proof voluntarily as soon as they are interested in the property, if they are not (like the OP and some other posters seem to be) then they would be discarded from selection in the blink of an eye.
All the BS unenforceable Irish regulations (described perfectly in this thread) restricting freedom of contract in the rental/property market introduced since 2010 have done nothing but worsening the situation for tenants, but still a big chunk of the Irish have lately voted for "moar", usually they are from that chunk of the population that lives off the state.

Perfeclty said

Mic 1972

NuMarvel wrote: »

Unless I've missed it, absolutely zero posters have said checks can never be carried out. Doing checks of the person you've decided to offer the place to so that you can confirm their suitability is fine.

But getting this type of information from multiple people in the off chance it might save you some time if something doesn't work out with your first preference isn't fine.

This really isn't rocket science.

Let's put this way, If you a looking for a house to rent you have better chances of getting one if you are upfront about your income and have a good records of paying rent to previous landlords.
A Landlord shouldn't even have to ask for this information

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

By trampling all over people's privacy rights seems to be answer going by this thread.

The point some posters seem to miss is that people like me, who want to make sure our equality rights aren't breached, also want to make sure our privacy is protected. People shouldn't be put in a position where they're effectively asked to chose which rights they want breached.

You're inventing conflict where there is none.

The question asked by this thread is if you remove all the information to make critical decision, how do you make that decision. Also if you want that decision to stand up to scrutiny, so there is no discrimination, how do you record it.

This is not unique to rental market. This is a common scenario in lots of business cases. If often why people in a business scenario won't put anything in writing or email. Then that culture become systemic in an organisation. Then they wonder why communication culture is so dysfunctional in their organisation.

If you don't want to give information, you don't have to. But then neither does the other party either. They'll effectively just ignore each other.

NuMarvel

Mic 1972 wrote: »

How do you expect a landlord to trust your ability to pay and to take care of his/her property if you was unwilling to provide information about yourself?
I'd rather leave my house vacant than give it to a stranger that may not have a stable job, may have failed to pay rent to previous landlord and so on

Of course I'm willing to provide information that verifies that. I've had four landlords in my lifetime and I've had no issue giving them information like that when they offered me the place.

Why are posters acting as if data protection laws that have been around for decades suddenly mean they can't check this information for the prospective tenant?

NuMarvel

beauf wrote: »

You're inventing conflict where there is none.

I'm pointing out the contradiction of posters saying they have to comply with equality legislation while they continue to ignore their obligations under data protection legislation.

NuMarvel

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Let's put this way, If you a looking for a house to rent you have better chances of getting one if you are upfront about your income and have a good records of paying rent to previous landlords.
A Landlord shouldn't even have to ask for this information

Some posters have said they've asked for a lot more than that; eg live online banking data.

Can you really not see how that's excessive?

beauf

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm pointing out the contradiction of posters saying they have to comply with equality legislation while they continue to ignore their obligations under data protection legislation.

Changing your process you don't have have to deal with it, is not ignoring it.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Changing your process you don't have have to deal with it, is not ignoring it.

Correct.

It might mean a landlord can't collect enormous amounts of data before the viewing stages but changing the process is exactly the answer.

beauf

LL won't need to. Most of the list will eliminate themselves from selection.

Bit like the person who emailed me yesterday requesting a meeting but failed to specify subject, time or location.
I just replied sure, but also failed to specify subject, time or location.

Mic 1972

NuMarvel wrote: »

Some posters have said they've asked for a lot more than that; eg live online banking data.

Can you really not see how that's excessive?

I've people asking for screen shots of bank accounts that show recent rent payments. That's totally fine with me. I would ask for that too

NuMarvel

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I've people asking for screen shots of bank accounts that show recent rent payments. That's totally fine with me. I would ask for that too

And I've said earlier that asking for proof of recent rent payments seems fine to me.

Would you agree that requests to see full bank accounts would be excessive?

beauf

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

....

From what I understand, as per GDPR & GDC we are being asked too much from "prospective" landlords, namely:

PPS number
Copy of ID
Payslips / bank statements

....

ID is also excessive. Since a PPS or indeed a phone number is uniquely identifiable can't ask for that either.

So some people won't give it, and I wonder how far they'll get before realizing the LL has no means (or intention) to contact them.