Shouldn ’ t our teams answer “ Yes , if you meet the legal requirements ”?
While a good answer , this answer can be difficult to execute , and therefore could be problematic as well . Specifically , to execute this answer , the team member answering the phone must be knowledgeable about the legal requirements . Are you confident that any team member answering the phone can explain the legal requirements ? Let ’ s use one of the previous examples to illustrate potential problems .
Prospective Tenant : " I ' m disabled . If I rent at your community can I have an Emotional Support Animal ?" Team Member : " Yes , if you meet the legal requirements ". Prospective Tenant : " What are the legal requirements ?" If the team member doesn ' t know the legal requirements , this conversation has a high probability of going bad . Let ’ s assume the team member knows the requirements ( disability , disability related need , and reasonableness ), and explains them to the prospect . The prospective tenant is going to respond : " Look , I already told you that I was disabled ".
Regardless of what the team member says in response to this statement , the answer is not likely to be accepted by the caller . Almost any answer is likely to create the impression that the community discriminates against disabled individuals by not granting reasonable accommodations or attempts to erect barriers to prevent disabled individuals from renting at the community .
What should your teams not say ?
Like responding to any reasonable accommodation request , if nothing else , team members should never say " NO " when a prospective tenant ( tester ) calls . To consistently avoid the liability of saying no , team members need to be familiar with reasonable accommodation requests ( disabled individuals are entitled to exceptions based on disability related needs ), be able to identify reasonable accommodation requests made by prospects , and should know that testers may call to make such requests . Absent such training , the team should be instructed to avoid saying no . If they don ’ t know the answer they could say " I don ' t know the answer , but we consider all such requests , let me look into it , and get back with you ". Instructing the team to never say no should be a landlord ' s highest priority . Regardless of a landlord ' s overall SOP , instructing the team to never say no can be easily executed , and is the simplest step to significantly reduce potential liability .
What else can landlords do to protect themselves against drive-by testers ?
Landlords should maintain a log of disability related requests made by prospects . Recording the details of such requests ( when made , what was requested , and the team ' s response ) can be used to defend the landlord against discrimination charges . The log can also be used to evaluate the team ' s response , develop SOPs , and assess whether further training is necessary . Landlords should also have a SOP to deal with email requests . Unless you have a high degree of confidence that team members can adequately respond to email ( written ) requests made by prospects , all written requests made by prospects should be handled by a team member who is adequately trained to respond . Otherwise , incorrect answers , or denials ( NOs ) are now in writing .
FOR RENTAL HOUSING IN COLORADO
10TH EDITION
NOW ONLINE AT WWW . AAMDHQ . ORG
The best defense against fair housing testing is an educated and trained onsite team . Any onsite team member who regularly interacts with prospects or tenants , either in person , on the telephone , or via the web , should be educated and trained . No one should ever be deployed onsite before they have fair housing training . It only takes one slip up to become a target of a fair housing testing investigation . Fair housing testers do not discriminate . If you think that testers only target bigger players , you are mistaken . Because of their deeper pockets , companies that own or manage larger portfolios are attractive targets . However , testers also regularly test small landlords ( probably because they assume onsite personnel are not adequately trained ). The Denver Metro Fair Housing Center recently tested a 28-unit apartment community resulting in a $ 75,000 settlement .
Finally , landlords should regularly ( at least annually ) test their communities . Landlords shop their own assets to evaluate service . Fair housing testing and evaluation should be incorporated into any onsite testing and evaluation . If a landlord is not testing their teams , then the onsite teams are just a box of chocolates , and the landlord will never know what they are going to get if a fair housing tester comes calling .
This Q & A article is based on Mark N . Tschetter ’ s article in the firm ’ s October 2016 Edition of Landlord News , and had to be condensed due to space limitations – the full article may be found at tinyurl . com / FHTesters
36 | TRENDS • APRIL 2017 www . aamdhq . org