3 ms·

"Ries said Naborly seems to be acting as a consumer reporting agency, of which there are currently two licensed in Ontario: Equifax and TransUnion. The industry

"Ries said Naborly seems to be acting as a consumer reporting agency, of which there are currently two licensed in Ontario: Equifax and TransUnion. The industry is tightly regulated due to the personal information involved." On the other hand, if it isn't acting as a consumer reporting agency, then Naborly's operation seems like it should be strictly illegal: "The process has also raised concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), which noted that property managers in Canada are not allowed to publish "bad tenants" lists." > "Any landlord that overweights that in their decision-making around who to rent to is probably doing so to their own longterm detriment." On the other hand, as in technical hiring, it is probably better to miss 10 good tenants rather than rent to one bad one. Right?

nokcha 7y ago
> On the other hand, as in technical hiring, it is probably better to miss 10 good tenants rather than rent to one bad one. Right? Sure, if there is a shortage of housing and surplus of potential tenants. But in areas where there is a surplus of housing, it might be better than fill a unit with a tenant who has a 15% chance of not being able to pay rent (but who is otherwise a good tenant) than leaving the unit vacant for a year.
- Nacraile 7y ago
  > it might be better than fill a unit with a tenant who has a 15% chance of not being able to pay rent That's nowhere near the worst-case "bad tenant". The worst-case scenario takes months to evict and leaves behind tens of thousands of dollars of property damage. There might even be some personal harassment thrown in just for good measure. Avoiding such a tenant is absolutely worth missing some opportunities to fill the property with a paying tenant. Not that missing rent this April 1 is likely to tell you much about that particular risk.

nokcha 7y ago

> On the other hand, as in technical hiring, it is probably better to miss 10 good tenants rather than rent to one bad one. Right? Sure, if there is a shortage of housing and surplus of potential tenants. But in areas where there is a surplus of housing, it might be better than fill a unit with a tenant who has a 15% chance of not being able to pay rent (but who is otherwise a good tenant) than leaving the unit vacant for a year.

Nacraile 7y ago
> it might be better than fill a unit with a tenant who has a 15% chance of not being able to pay rent That's nowhere near the worst-case "bad tenant". The worst-case scenario takes months to evict and leaves behind tens of thousands of dollars of property damage. There might even be some personal harassment thrown in just for good measure. Avoiding such a tenant is absolutely worth missing some opportunities to fill the property with a paying tenant. Not that missing rent this April 1 is likely to tell you much about that particular risk.