California will now require landlords of multi-family housing to give tenants the option to opt into having their rent payments reported to the credit bureaus.
Monthly cost or $10, whichever is less, is better. It means the landlord is incentivized to keep costs down. Even if it costs the landlord $50, they can only charge the tenant $10. If it costs them $5, they can only charge the tenant $5. It’s a ceiling on the cost.
I assume the landlord uses a service to share rent with the credit report agencies. The landlord can shop around for a cheaper service, or use their cousin who charges $50/tenant but gives the landlord a kickback.
If the landlord has a realistic way to control the price then that’s one thing but I would want to see how they control that price. Or if they even have any say in it. If the landlord has no say then the landlord should charge exactly their cost.
I somewhat disagree, because landlords have a say by their sheer number and capital. If credit agencies or reporting services want to gouge landlords, that shouldn’t be the tenant’s problem and landlords should come together to negotiate lower prices. I much prefer the built-in tenant protection here of a $10 per month cap.
The reality is this will only affect the mom and pop landlords. The large corporations it won’t have any affect on. Will ten dollars kill them? No. But if we keep adding things like this where the landlord can’t recoup their costs then it will. The large corporations will negotiate a deal for the individual large corporations but the mom and pop operations won’t have the bargaining power.
Again I’m not saying ten dollars would kill them. It’s the idea of adding fees that a landlord can’t recoup that I’m against, because of who it will affect.
Yes I know the landlord can just up the rental price to recover the loss, but a ton of landlords run on a shoe string budget. The corporations can weather that storm easier. One fee probably not a problem. Keep adding fees and limit the ability to raise rent beyond a certain percentage and watch what happens.
In order for the landlords as a whole to get that kind of bargaining power would require the mom and pop landlords to unionize. Does anyone think that kind of union is a good idea?
Take a look at certain areas and see which type of landlord is getting out of the business and which type of landlord is buying more and more land.
I’m not saying this is the only reason for that but it doesn’t help.
Good point and well said. The law in CA only applies to buildings with at least 15 units, it’s opt-in so landlords will only have to pay for tenants who opt for it, and there are provisions for canceling the service for tenants who don’t pay (then restrictions on their ability to opt-in again). That should help mitigate the impact to mom and pop shops.
Monthly cost or $10, whichever is less, is better. It means the landlord is incentivized to keep costs down. Even if it costs the landlord $50, they can only charge the tenant $10. If it costs them $5, they can only charge the tenant $5. It’s a ceiling on the cost.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding.
This is a cost to have your rent showing up on the credit report, correct?
How would the landlord have any control over what they charge?
I assume the landlord uses a service to share rent with the credit report agencies. The landlord can shop around for a cheaper service, or use their cousin who charges $50/tenant but gives the landlord a kickback.
I think assumptions in this case is a bad idea.
If the landlord has a realistic way to control the price then that’s one thing but I would want to see how they control that price. Or if they even have any say in it. If the landlord has no say then the landlord should charge exactly their cost.
I somewhat disagree, because landlords have a say by their sheer number and capital. If credit agencies or reporting services want to gouge landlords, that shouldn’t be the tenant’s problem and landlords should come together to negotiate lower prices. I much prefer the built-in tenant protection here of a $10 per month cap.
The reality is this will only affect the mom and pop landlords. The large corporations it won’t have any affect on. Will ten dollars kill them? No. But if we keep adding things like this where the landlord can’t recoup their costs then it will. The large corporations will negotiate a deal for the individual large corporations but the mom and pop operations won’t have the bargaining power.
Again I’m not saying ten dollars would kill them. It’s the idea of adding fees that a landlord can’t recoup that I’m against, because of who it will affect.
Yes I know the landlord can just up the rental price to recover the loss, but a ton of landlords run on a shoe string budget. The corporations can weather that storm easier. One fee probably not a problem. Keep adding fees and limit the ability to raise rent beyond a certain percentage and watch what happens.
In order for the landlords as a whole to get that kind of bargaining power would require the mom and pop landlords to unionize. Does anyone think that kind of union is a good idea?
Take a look at certain areas and see which type of landlord is getting out of the business and which type of landlord is buying more and more land.
I’m not saying this is the only reason for that but it doesn’t help.
Good point and well said. The law in CA only applies to buildings with at least 15 units, it’s opt-in so landlords will only have to pay for tenants who opt for it, and there are provisions for canceling the service for tenants who don’t pay (then restrictions on their ability to opt-in again). That should help mitigate the impact to mom and pop shops.