Thread: Re: Experian Targets Renters

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:23:12 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 5:07*pm, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <697444a4-824a-4e8f-bd25-901fe2f8e...@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> *ItsJoanNotJoann <itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>> > On Mar 8, 1:52 pm, Nancy2 <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote:
>> > > On Mar 8, 9:53 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In a move that will help some tenants but hurt others, Experian has
>> > > > started adding rent-payment information to some consumers' credit
>> > > > reports.
>> > > > Experian's program is just beginning and affects only a few million
>> > > > people at this point.
>>
>> > > It's only appropriate - why not renters and their payment history?
>> > > The Big 3 credit reporting agencies have been including insurance
>> > > records (as in car insurance) for years as a basis for credit scores.
>>
>> > > N.
>>
>> > I agree. *They're making a payment each month whether it's rent, house
>> > note, car payment, or credit card. *It should reflect on their credit
>> > history if they're prompt in paying their bills. *It reflects on home
>> > owners who are late in making payments, why not renters as well??
>> > It's a bill like any other.
>>
>> Nonsense. Your credit score should reflect your ability to manage
>> credit. Paying rent is not a form of credit, nor is insurance. With
>> rent, if you miss payments, you can get evicted. With insurance, your
>> coverage will lapse if you fail to pay your premium on time. A mortgage,
>> on the other hand, is definitely a form of credit.
>
>I disagree.
>
>My parents bought another house and rent out the rooms. When somebody
>doesn't pay, it takes at least 2 months to get rid of them by way of
>eviction. And it costs money in addition to the lost rent and lost
>utilities. So, in effect, it is credit., They got the product, used
>it, and did not pay for it. That should be reported. Especially since
>they are likely to do it again to another person.
>
>Yes, we got legal judgements against them, but they tend to move every
>few months,and they lose jobs. So, the money is lost.
>
>Now, if the person could be out in 3 days and NOT use your house and
>utilities for free while waiting for a court date and then getting
>another 30 days to move out, then it would be more like buying
>something up front. But the way the system, works, it is possible to
>live in the house or apartment without paying up front. That sounds
>like credit to me, and that is what landlords are looking for when
>doing a credit check.

What a lotta BS. Who are you trying to kid... wtf is a "legal"
judgement, are there *illegal* judgements? People who rent out rooms
in a single family residence don't declare the income so are not
entitled to declare any relatively small losses for lack of rent, nor
would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to
keep it quiet lest their neghbors turn them in to local authorities
and the IRS.

Lots of people buy 2nd single family residenses because tax code not
only permits but rewards it, but then they lie on their mortgage
application by declaring it owner occupied when it's not (banks can
penalize for lying, as can homeowner insurance), and then instead of
renting the entire house (which is legal) they rent out rooms and/or
divide them into apartments but they are definitely illegal... so your
parents are simply common thieves and you are a liar because courts do
not enrich people awarding judgements to those who come with unclean
hands... and in fact the courts will order social services to relocate
those illegal tenants at the slumlord's expense and place a lien on
the property until the order is satisfied, there can also be punitive
fines, and state tax agencies and IRS will be notified, they will
collect back taxes with penalties... the judge may also order jail
time for fraud.

People who rent a room in their home are very careful not to create a
paper trail, they collect rent in cash and give no receipts, and they
don't deposit that cash regularly either... those tenants don't balk
because they pay low rent and are afforded the ability to maintain a
low profile... there are many people who live quietly for many years
in a room in a private home and out of PO Boxes. Today with everyone
using plastic and making on line money transfers there is still a huge
cash-only economy out there... some economists estimate it's more than
double the recorded economy, I believe it is... it's really very easy
to acquire great wealth while leaving no trail whatsoever, and I mean
besides dealing drugs.

Paying rent does not count towards a credit rating, in fact the mere
fact that one is a tenant places a sizable liability on a credit
rating... banks are far more likely to approve loans for property
owners than tenants... tenants have no collateral, not unless they
have a sizable bank account that they are willing for the bank to
freeze until the loan is satisfied, doesn't happen... tenants can and
do just pick up and disappear leaving unpaid bills behind. I've had
several tenants who loaded up a U-Haul and left in the middle of the
night, and my rentals have all been legal, but it's always better they
just leave quietly than go through the eviction process.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:23:12 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Now, if the person could be out in 3 days and NOT use your house and
> utilities for free while waiting for a court date and then getting
> another 30 days to move out, then it would be more like buying
> something up front. But the way the system, works, it is possible to
> live in the house or apartment without paying up front. That sounds
> like credit to me, and that is what landlords are looking for when
> doing a credit check.

Thank you for the reality check. If a "house guest" knows their way
around the law (like a close relative that you really didn't want, but
didn't want them on the streets - don't ask me how I know this), at
least here, they can use those laws to park their carcass in your
house *legally* while you go through the court process to remove them.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mar 11, 8:16*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:23:12 -0800 (PST), "fries...@zoocrewphoto.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <fries...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 8, 5:07 pm, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <697444a4-824a-4e8f-bd25-901fe2f8e...@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> ItsJoanNotJoann <itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >> > On Mar 8, 1:52 pm, Nancy2 <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote:
> >> > > On Mar 8, 9:53 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > In a move that will help some tenants but hurt others, Experian has
> >> > > > started adding rent-payment information to some consumers' credit
> >> > > > reports.
> >> > > > Experian's program is just beginning and affects only a few million
> >> > > > people at this point.
>
> >> > > It's only appropriate - why not renters and their payment history?
> >> > > The Big 3 credit reporting agencies have been including insurance
> >> > > records (as in car insurance) for years as a basis for credit scores.
>
> >> > > N.
>
> >> > I agree. They're making a payment each month whether it's rent, house
> >> > note, car payment, or credit card. It should reflect on their credit
> >> > history if they're prompt in paying their bills. It reflects on home
> >> > owners who are late in making payments, why not renters as well??
> >> > It's a bill like any other.
>
> >> Nonsense. Your credit score should reflect your ability to manage
> >> credit. Paying rent is not a form of credit, nor is insurance. With
> >> rent, if you miss payments, you can get evicted. With insurance, your
> >> coverage will lapse if you fail to pay your premium on time. A mortgage,
> >> on the other hand, is definitely a form of credit.
>
> >I disagree.
>
> >My parents bought another house and rent out the rooms. When somebody
> >doesn't pay, it takes at least 2 months to get rid of them by way of
> >eviction. And it costs money in addition to the lost rent and lost
> >utilities. So, in effect, it is credit., They got the product, used
> >it, and did not pay for it. That should be reported. Especially since
> >they are likely to do it again to another person.
>
> >Yes, we got legal judgements against them, but they tend to move every
> >few months,and they lose jobs. So, the money is lost.
>
> >Now, if the person could be out in 3 days and NOT use your house and
> >utilities for free while waiting for a court date and then getting
> >another 30 days to move out, then it would be more like buying
> >something up front. But the way the system, works, it is possible to
> >live in the house or apartment without paying up front. That sounds
> >like credit to me, and that is what landlords are looking for when
> >doing a credit check.
>
> What a lotta BS. *Who are you trying to kid... wtf is a "legal"
> judgement, are there *illegal* judgements? *People who rent out rooms
> in a single family residence don't declare the income so are not
> entitled to declare any relatively small losses for lack of rent, nor
> would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
> family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to
> keep it quiet lest their neghbors turn them in to local authorities
> and the IRS.
>
> Lots of people buy 2nd single family residenses because tax code not
> only permits but rewards it, but then they lie on their mortgage
> application by declaring it owner occupied when it's not (banks can
> penalize for lying, as can homeowner insurance), and then instead of
> renting the entire house (which is legal) they rent out rooms and/or
> divide them into apartments but they are definitely illegal... so your
> parents are simply common thieves and you are a liar because courts do
> not enrich people awarding judgements to those who come with unclean
> hands... and in fact the courts will order social services to relocate
> those illegal tenants at the slumlord's expense and place a lien on
> the property until the order is satisfied, there can also be punitive
> fines, and state tax agencies and IRS will be notified, they will
> collect back taxes with penalties... the judge may also order jail
> time for fraud.
>
> People who rent a room in their home are very careful not to create a
> paper trail, they collect rent in cash and give no receipts, and they
> don't deposit that cash regularly either... those tenants don't balk
> because they pay low rent and are afforded the ability to maintain a
> low profile... there are many people who live quietly for many years
> in a room in a private home and out of PO Boxes. *Today with everyone
> using plastic and making on line money transfers there is still a huge
> cash-only economy out there... some economists estimate it's more than
> double the recorded economy, I believe it is... it's really very easy
> to acquire great wealth while leaving no trail whatsoever, and I mean
> besides dealing drugs.
>
> Paying rent does not count towards a credit rating, in fact the mere
> fact that one is a tenant places a sizable liability on a credit
> rating... banks are far more likely to approve loans for property
> owners than tenants... tenants have no collateral, not unless they
> have a sizable bank account that they are willing for the bank to
> freeze until the loan is satisfied, doesn't happen... tenants can and
> do just pick up and disappear leaving unpaid bills behind. *I've had
> several tenants who loaded up a U-Haul and left in the middle of the
> night, and my rentals have all been legal, but it's always better they
> just leave quietly than go through the eviction process.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah, Shel, there you go again with the sweeping generalizations that
are pretty inaccurate in lots of cases. In some zoning, a rented room
in a single-family dwelling is perfectly legal. Your area and/or
your experience isn't that of everyone.

N.

"Nancy2" wrote
Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

>> judgement, are there *illegal* judgements? People who rent out rooms
>> in a single family residence don't declare the income so are not
>> entitled to declare any relatively small losses for lack of rent, nor
>> would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
>> family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to
>> keep it quiet lest their neghbors turn them in to local authorities
>> and the IRS.

> Ah, Shel, there you go again with the sweeping generalizations that
> are pretty inaccurate in lots of cases. In some zoning, a rented room
> in a single-family dwelling is perfectly legal. Your area and/or
> your experience isn't that of everyone.

Sheldon is as normal, completely and totally ignorant of something but wants
to speak out anyways.
He's unfamiliar with the long term almost BnB style business you described
where rooms are sublet in a rental agreement.

On Mar 11, 6:16*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> What a lotta BS. *Who are you trying to kid... wtf is a "legal"
> judgement, are there *illegal* judgements? *


Legal, as in they went to court and won. They have evicted 2 people
through the court system. Each time, they had to wait for a court
date, won, but still had to wait 30 days before the person was
required to leave.

People who rent out rooms
> in a single family residence don't declare the income so are not
> entitled to declare any relatively small losses for lack of rent, nor
> would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
> family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to
> keep it quiet lest their neghbors turn them in to local authorities
> and the IRS.
>

Not everybody is like that. My parents count the income, though it has
been a lost the last few years since we have had 4 people who who got
behind and never got caught up. Two left when asked. And the other
two were evicted. We do not hide the rental. We even post a sign when
there is an opening. The house is paid off. No mortgage.

> People who rent a room in their home are very careful not to create a
> paper trail, they collect rent in cash and give no receipts, and they
> don't deposit that cash regularly either...

My dad keeps teh records on the computer, gives receipts and keeps a
receipt book. He accept cash or check, renter's preference. Not
everybody is a cheater.


> several tenants who loaded up a U-Haul and left in the middle of the
> night, and my rentals have all been legal, but it's always better they
> just leave quietly than go through the eviction process.

Agreed. Much cheaper. And faster.

On Mar 11, 9:15*am, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:23:12 -0800 (PST), "fries...@zoocrewphoto.com"
>
> <fries...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
> > Now, if the person could be out in 3 days and NOT use your house and
> > utilities for free while waiting for a court date and then getting
> > another 30 days to move out, then it would be more like buying
> > something up front. But the way the system, works, it is possible to
> > live in the house or apartment without paying up front. That sounds
> > like credit to me, and that is what landlords are looking for when
> > doing a credit check.
>
> Thank you for the reality check. *If a "house guest" knows their way
> around the law (like a close relative that you really didn't want, but
> didn't want them on the streets - don't ask me how I know this), at
> least here, they can use those laws to park their carcass in your
> house *legally* while you go through the court process to remove them.

Yes, and then you see people posting looking for a room, and they
can't understand why landlords won't let them move in with a free
first month, or no deposit. If they can't pay that, then they will
just stay as long as they can, knowing they have about 2 free months
past the date you finally give up and go forward with the eviction.
And you can't shut down any of the utilities or they can sue you and
win. Meanwhile, the bills still have to be paid, you can't get another
renter in yet, you have to pay to dispose of the junk they leave
behind, and you just lose money.

On Mar 11, 5:37*pm, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Nancy2" wrote
>
> Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> >> judgement, are there *illegal* judgements? People who rent out rooms
> >> in a single family residence don't declare the income so are not
> >> entitled to declare any relatively small losses for lack of rent, nor
> >> would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
> >> family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to
> >> keep it quiet lest their neghbors turn them in to local authorities
> >> and the IRS.
> > Ah, Shel, there you go again with the sweeping generalizations that
> > are pretty inaccurate in lots of cases. *In some zoning, a rented room
> > in a single-family dwelling is perfectly legal. * Your area and/or
> > your experience isn't that of everyone.
>
> Sheldon is as normal, completely and totally ignorant of something but wants
> to speak out anyways.
> He's unfamiliar with the long term *almost BnB style business you described
> where rooms are sublet in a rental agreement.

Yup, we have lots of those here in this college town, and they are
perfectly legal. Sometimes I just get tired of reading his error-
filled generalizations.

N.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:25:49 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 11, 5:37*pm, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Nancy2" wrote
>>
>> Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>> >> judgement, are there *illegal* judgements? People who rent out rooms
>> >> in a single family residence don't declare the income so are not
>> >> entitled to declare any relatively small losses for lack of rent, nor
>> >> would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
>> >> family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to
>> >> keep it quiet lest their neghbors turn them in to local authorities
>> >> and the IRS.
>> > Ah, Shel, there you go again with the sweeping generalizations that
>> > are pretty inaccurate in lots of cases. *In some zoning, a rented room
>> > in a single-family dwelling is perfectly legal. * Your area and/or
>> > your experience isn't that of everyone.
>>
>> Sheldon is as normal, completely and totally ignorant of something but wants
>> to speak out anyways.
>> He's unfamiliar with the long term *almost BnB style business you described
>> where rooms are sublet in a rental agreement.
>
>Yup, we have lots of those here in this college town, and they are
>perfectly legal. Sometimes I just get tired of reading his error-
>filled generalizations.


Those single family residenses are legal for multiple dwelling use
ONLY if the owner applied for and received a zoning variance and
complied for such; whereas they are reassesed at a higher property tax
rate, their homeowner insurance carrier is notified, of course the
mortgage holder if one exists is also notified. Naturally there will
be some scofflaw single family residence owners who will rent rooms
illegally, and will get away with it until such time as they're turned
in by those who obey the law and/or someone is hurt on that property
who litigates and ends up owning it. Yoose imbeciles who I know by
what you've written in your posts over the many years have very likely
never owned any real property and haven't a clue what you're talking
about... yoose very likely live in some illegal basement apartment or
some such where ya gotta sneak and lie to stay... typical no account
gypsy tenants, I bet yoose two deadbeats haven't paid your March rent
yet.

"Brooklyn1" wrote
> Nancy2 wrote:
>> "cshenk" wrote:
>>> "Nancy2" wrote

>>> >> would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
>>> >> family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to

>>> > Ah, Shel, there you go again with the sweeping generalizations that
>>> > are pretty inaccurate in lots of cases. In some zoning, a rented room
>>> > in a single-family dwelling is perfectly legal. Your area and/or
>>> > your experience isn't that of everyone.

>>> Sheldon is as normal, completely and totally ignorant of something but
>>> wants
>>> to speak out anyways.

>>Yup, we have lots of those here in this college town, and they are
>>perfectly legal. Sometimes I just get tired of reading his error-
>>filled generalizations.

Nancy, sometimes he must type just to hear the click of the keys I guess?

> Those single family residenses are legal for multiple dwelling use
> ONLY if the owner applied for and received a zoning variance and
> complied for such; whereas they are reassesed at a higher property tax

Now Sheldon, surely you know this is state and local area law driven? If
you already live where multiple dweeling is allowed, you dont have to file
for a zoning varience. Taxes may not change either (sometimes you pay the
higher rate because you live in that area, regardless if you rent a room or
not).

The rest of your drivel, not worth repeating.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:53:48 -0400, "cshenk" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Brooklyn1" wrote
>> Nancy2 wrote:
>>> "cshenk" wrote:
>>>> "Nancy2" wrote
>
>>>> >> would they want to... in fact in all cases those rentals in single
>>>> >> family homes are illegal, so the homeowners do everything they can to
>
>>>> > Ah, Shel, there you go again with the sweeping generalizations that
>>>> > are pretty inaccurate in lots of cases. In some zoning, a rented room
>>>> > in a single-family dwelling is perfectly legal. Your area and/or
>>>> > your experience isn't that of everyone.
>
>>>> Sheldon is as normal, completely and totally ignorant of something but
>>>> wants
>>>> to speak out anyways.
>
>>>Yup, we have lots of those here in this college town, and they are
>>>perfectly legal. Sometimes I just get tired of reading his error-
>>>filled generalizations.
>
>Nancy, sometimes he must type just to hear the click of the keys I guess?
>
>> Those single family residenses are legal for multiple dwelling use
>> ONLY if the owner applied for and received a zoning variance and
>> complied for such; whereas they are reassesed at a higher property tax
>
>Now Sheldon, surely you know this is state and local area law driven? If
>you already live where multiple dweeling is allowed, you dont have to file
>for a zoning varience. Taxes may not change either (sometimes you pay the
>higher rate because you live in that area, regardless if you rent a room or
>not).
>
>The rest of your drivel, not worth repeating.

Because it's your truth.