Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landlord Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require proof of charged background checks; landlords raise implementation concerns
Summary
House Bill 1395 would require landlords who charge applicants for criminal or background checks to provide proof of the check if requested. Supporters described the change as consumer protection; some landlords and committee members warned about administrative burden for small landlords and third-party screening platforms.
Representative Jared Hendricks introduced House Bill 1395 to the Senate Industry and Business Committee as a measure aimed at transparency for prospective renters. “If they are going to charge a fee ... if requested, they must produce proof that they did that,” Hendricks said, describing the bill’s intent to let applicants verify that a charged background or consumer report was actually obtained.
Hendricks said the bill grew from constituent complaints in his District 10, an area with a high concentration of apartment buildings, where applicants who believed they had clean records said they were denied after paying screening fees. He framed the bill narrowly: it requires landlords who charge an application fee for a background check to provide evidence — typically a receipt or confirmation — that the check was conducted, not necessarily the full report.
Committee members asked detailed questions about scope and implementation. Senator Kessel asked whether the bill could open a path to demands for full reports or other unintended consequences; Hendricks said the bill’s intent is limited to proof of payment and that producing the full report would not be required by the bill.
Ben Kappel, a small landlord who owns five properties, testified in opposition on practical grounds. Kappel described common practice of routing screening through third-party platforms such as Apartments.com, which supply landlords with completed screening results but may not route payment receipts to the landlord. He said small-time landlords and elderly landlords who manage properties themselves could face a heavy administrative burden complying with a requirement to provide individualized receipts for every applicant and that confusion could lead to refund demands and litigation.
Committee members discussed possible middle-ground drafting and asked committee staff and the sponsor to meet with landlords after the hearing to refine language. No opposing groups from government testified; the committee closed the hearing without voting and deferred further action while members sought wordsmithing and follow-up discussions.
Representative Hendricks said an amendment added a two-week period for tenants to request proof, and he described the requirement as limited to showing proof the check was run (for example, a receipt) rather than exposing sensitive report contents. The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing.
