TIC woes

illinoisjoe

New member
I'm not sure if this will end up a rant or a plea for advice. Probably both.

My wife and I are getting a very dim impression of the Irvine Company right off the bat. We used their online system to put a hold on a place exactly as instructed by our slick TIC apartment showing guy. Now they are balking at my wife's SSN because she's a recent immigrant (SSN issued after 2015). They say she needs to present her actual card in person to them before they can move forward processing our application. Nobody mentioned this to us, though it definitely came up that my wife is from Argentina and she has an accent. Also, we were cleverly advised to only apply with one of our names, since they charge $45 per applicant. We chose her, and that ended up being the wrong choice.

Now we're back in Santa Cruz, with firm plans to move into an apartment that we may or may not have on July 1st. TIC is saying our only options are:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Have her travel back to Irvine with social security card in hand.
[*] Take care of all of this on our moving day, because we won't be busy you know, MOVING. And also I'm sure there won't be anymore unadvertised complications that keep us from unloading our truck.
[*]Submit a new application under my name (i.e. fork over another $245), since I'm a citizen with an appropriately aged SSN.
[/list]

I get that our situation is a bit unusual, but on the other hand, how many immigrants live in TIC apartments now? I doubt she's the first. What really gets me is that we were told our hold would be fully refundable for three days, so of course no one contacted us to mention this problem until day four. Now our $200 has gone from this deposit that was good for any TIC apartment to this thing we have to pay again just to edit the name and SSN on our application.

The contrast in their warmness and eagerness to communicate with us before versus after we applied is not encouraging. They've basically ghosted us since they got our $245. If I had $20 for every time someone there promised to call us back and then didn't, we'd already have our money back. I would have thought they'd wait till we'd given them a few months of rent money before ignoring us to such a degree.

I'd be glad to hear any thoughts and advice on this. Similar experiences?
 
UPDATE: A couple hours after I posted this, some higher-up sales manager called us back and took care of everything: application approved, no need to present social security card in person, everything seems to be moving forward normally. I don't exactly rescind anything I said, but I'm comforted that they did the right thing after exhausting all other options.
 
Well I'm glad everything worked out for you.
As long as this site has enough eyeballs, it can act like a check on Irvine power.
 
illinoisjoe said:
UPDATE: A couple hours after I posted this, some higher-up sales manager called us back and took care of everything: application approved, no need to present social security card in person, everything seems to be moving forward normally. I don't exactly rescind anything I said, but I'm comforted that they did the right thing after exhausting all other options.

Hmm I dunno if I find that comforting or disconcerting?  That TIC only acts when it is outed for shady practices...
 
upon9k said:
illinoisjoe said:
UPDATE: A couple hours after I posted this, some higher-up sales manager called us back and took care of everything: application approved, no need to present social security card in person, everything seems to be moving forward normally. I don't exactly rescind anything I said, but I'm comforted that they did the right thing after exhausting all other options.

Hmm I dunno if I find that comforting or disconcerting?  That TIC only acts when it is outed for shady practices...

Typical paper pushers, ie clerks often does not understand and just follows the rules by the book. Just get a manager involve and that will clear up the situation in most case.
 
illinoisjoe said:
UPDATE: A couple hours after I posted this, some higher-up sales manager called us back and took care of everything: application approved, no need to present social security card in person, everything seems to be moving forward normally. I don't exactly rescind anything I said, but I'm comforted that they did the right thing after exhausting all other options.

Goes to show that TIC does read TalkIrvine.  haha
 
I have great credit.  If you make me pay for a credit report and you don't accept me, then I want a refund on that credit report fee.

I applied for a rental in Irvine a few years ago.  This was some random person using a realtor to rent out their place.  I paid for the credit report on both myself and my wife.  Both of our credit scores fluctuate around 800.  The renter then decided to go with someone else.

I told them I was pissed that I had to pay for the credit reports if they weren't going with us.  I asked why we were rejected.  Was it because we had 2 very young kids?  I think that was the case, which would be illegal.

My line of questioning basically resulted in a check to pay me back for the credit report fees.
 
spootieho said:
I have great credit.  If you make me pay for a credit report and you don't accept me, then I want a refund on that credit report fee.

I applied for a rental in Irvine a few years ago.  This was some random person using a realtor to rent out their place.  I paid for the credit report on both myself and my wife.  Both of our credit scores fluctuate around 800.  The renter then decided to go with someone else.

I told them I was pissed that I had to pay for the credit reports if they weren't going with us.  I asked why we were rejected.  Was it because we had 2 very young kids?  I think that was the case, which would be illegal.

My line of questioning basically resulted in a check to pay me back for the credit report fees.

You missed out on a nice payday. Should have called the Larry H Parker for tenants. :p
 
spootieho said:
I have great credit.  If you make me pay for a credit report and you don't accept me, then I want a refund on that credit report fee.

I applied for a rental in Irvine a few years ago.  This was some random person using a realtor to rent out their place.  I paid for the credit report on both myself and my wife.  Both of our credit scores fluctuate around 800.  The renter then decided to go with someone else.

I told them I was pissed that I had to pay for the credit reports if they weren't going with us.  I asked why we were rejected.  Was it because we had 2 very young kids?  I think that was the case, which would be illegal.

My line of questioning basically resulted in a check to pay me back for the credit report fees.

A landlord needs to have the same processes in place to screen EVERYONE.  If someone puts in an application, they need to pay the fee to get a credit check done.  It could be viewed as discrimination if there is a different process for different people (ie. require one applicant to have credit report pulled and not require it from another applicant). 

It's tough to be a renter in a hot market.  The landlord can pick anyone he wants and the reasons might not ever be known unless there is a clear pattern of discrimination against a protected class.  Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?
 
woodburyowner said:
Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?

Family status is a protected class.
 
peppy said:
woodburyowner said:
Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?

Family status is a protected class.

Right, but how will you ever know why he went with the other tenant.  Maybe the guy was wearing Nike's and the owner is a big fan of Nike shoes.  Isn't that a legal reason?
 
woodburyowner said:
Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?
I would certainly understand his reasoning, but it's illegal if that's the case.  When I am the victim, I will raise hell.  The tenant at this point is paying out of pocket and hoping that the landlord is going to act in good faith.

What is F'd up is forcing people to pay for multiple credit checks if you aren't going to approve them on good results.  That said, I don't want an inconsiderate asshole landlord so maybe it's for the best.
 
woodburyowner said:
peppy said:
woodburyowner said:
Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?

Family status is a protected class.

Right, but how will you ever know why he went with the other tenant.  Maybe the guy was wearing Nike's and the owner is a big fan of Nike shoes.  Isn't that a legal reason?

The burden is on the landlord to show that it was not due to discrimination against a protected class. Good luck trying to argue in front of a judge that shoe preference was the determining factor. This is not how any of this works.




 
peppy said:
woodburyowner said:
peppy said:
woodburyowner said:
Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?

Family status is a protected class.

Right, but how will you ever know why he went with the other tenant.  Maybe the guy was wearing Nike's and the owner is a big fan of Nike shoes.  Isn't that a legal reason?

The burden is on the landlord to show that it was not due to discrimination against a protected class. Good luck trying to argue in front of a judge that shoe preference was the determining factor. This is not how any of this works.

You would first need to bring a lawsuit against the owner for discrimination.  There will be a number of legal reasons he can say why he picked one tenant over another (Irvine is a hot market and he will get multiple applications).  Like I said, unless it is blatantly obvious that there was clear discrimination (there would probably need to be multiple instances), you will get no where. 
 
spootieho said:
woodburyowner said:
Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?
I would certainly understand his reasoning, but it's illegal if that's the case.  When I am the victim, I will raise hell.  The tenant at this point is paying out of pocket and hoping that the landlord is going to act in good faith.

What is F'd up is forcing people to pay for multiple credit checks if you aren't going to approve them on good results.  That said, I don't want an inconsiderate asshole landlord so maybe it's for the best.

How will a landlord know the results if you don't provide them?  The landlord needs to treat all prospective applicants the same way which includes filling out the application and credit check.  If you don't want to pay the fee for a credit check, don't apply for the rental.  Simple as that.

As a landlord, I've accepted copies of credit reports to help the prospective tenant out, but I know this wasn't that smart thing to do in case it was forged.  I even spent hours researching online what the cheapest credit check company is and looked for ways to get discounts on the service.
 
woodburyowner said:
peppy said:
woodburyowner said:
peppy said:
woodburyowner said:
Would you really blame the landlord for say picking a single tenant who is a consultant and travels 75% of the time vs. a family with young kids?  Both have similar credit / income levels?

Family status is a protected class.

Right, but how will you ever know why he went with the other tenant.  Maybe the guy was wearing Nike's and the owner is a big fan of Nike shoes.  Isn't that a legal reason?

The burden is on the landlord to show that it was not due to discrimination against a protected class. Good luck trying to argue in front of a judge that shoe preference was the determining factor. This is not how any of this works.

You would first need to bring a lawsuit against the owner for discrimination.  There will be a number of legal reasons he can say why he picked one tenant over another (Irvine is a hot market and he will get multiple applications).  Like I said, unless it is blatantly obvious that there was clear discrimination (there would probably need to be multiple instances), you will get no where.

A complaint with HUD would be enough. No need to go for a civil lawsuit although that can also be done. Landlord would have to show his documented selection protocol. The amateur landlord would mostly come up empty handed with that request. Keep in mind that reasonable cause is enough. Chances are it would end up in conciliation rather than all the way to court at this point. Most discrimination actually ends up not getting reported and there is not a lot of incentive for a law firm to get into this (unless it's in larger rental complexes where they can suit for a boatload).

Certain localities, fair housing group or groups representing tenants will actually hire people to apply for rentals and use that data to pursue any discrimination charges that they encounter. However, this is mostly a priority in low income areas where there is a much higher incidence of housing discrimination. Back when I was living in the South Bay I remember reading about such an effort in San Pedro.




 
Back
Top