According to a report from The Columbus Dispatch, the landlord:
- told testers who claimed to need service animals for a disability either that all animals aren't allowed under any circumstances, or that keeping an animal for a disability would require a specific deposit; and
- told a tester who posed as a single mother with a child that she can only rent a downstairs apartment at a higher cost (a practice commonly known as "steering").
(Learn more about steering by reading "Fair Housing Help: Identify and Avoid Illegal Steering" and get more information about the role of testers by reading "Landlording in a World of Fair Housing Testing.")
Was this a fair outcome? Should the fact that the complaint stemmed from allegations based solely on testing play a role in determining liability or the amount of damages?
What do you think?
_______________________________
Looking for fair housing compliance training
that's informative, engaging, convenient, and affordable?
Check out the new
Fair Housing Helper
for Apartment Professionals
Visit www.fairhousinghelper.com for more information.
Find out how you can become a
FairHousingHelper.com Gold Professional
at no additional charge.
_______________________________
1 comment:
We're seeing this all over the country. I take a couple of observations from it. First, obviously, it shows a lot of need for further education for property managers and owners. The vast majority of violators want to do things right, but they just do not have a clear understanding of the laws and how to apply them. There are always some bad apples, but most folks want to do it right. Secondly, in a lot of cases the methodology for testing lacks transparency and, at times, is a bit unfair to the owners and management companies. It's important to educate and test, but it's also important that the testing is fair and conducted without an agenda.
Will Johnson
www.RentalHousingJournal.com
Post a Comment