Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Screening And Landlord Practices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require landlords to furnish proof of background checks or refund fee, committee hears
Summary
House Bill 1395 would require landlords who charge fees for background checks to furnish proof to prospective tenants or return the fee; sponsor and tenants described cases of fees taken without proof while apartment industry warned about administrative burden and timing for report delivery.
A bill requiring landlords who charge an application or background-check fee to furnish proof to a prospective tenant that the check was completed, or to refund the fee, drew testimony from lawmakers, tenants and landlords at an Industry, Business and Labor Committee hearing.
Representative Jared Hendricks, who introduced House Bill 1395, said the measure aims to give applicants clarity about why they were denied housing and to prevent situations in which applicants pay fees and receive no documentation. "This practice will instill a sense of clarity among tenants," Hendricks said.
Several people who work with or have experienced housing barriers testified in favor. Carol 2 Eagles, who described herself as a landlord and housing advocate, said she had posed as a tenant and found instances in which people were charged "anywhere from $30 to $100 per person" and received no proof the background check was performed. "I think this is fraud and theft when you charge a fee to do something, and then you don't do it," she told the committee.
Representative committee members pressed about details: what constitutes acceptable proof and whether delivery should be electronic or printed. Hendricks said the bill could be clarified to specify delivery method and time frame; he suggested 7 days as a possible practical target but left final language to the committee.
Opposition came from the North Dakota Apartment Association. Jeremy Petron, a lobbyist for the association, said many property managers already use third-party screening vendors and that administrative or billing timing can make immediate delivery of an invoice or receipt impractical in some cases. He described common vendor reports as multi-page documents that typically arrive within a few days and said email delivery would generally be a workable option.
Committee members suggested simple, practical fixes: require a landlord to provide an electronic copy or an on-paper receipt that the applicant can print, or a short signed acknowledgement that the check was completed. Questions also focused on who bears the cost of providing paper mailings and whether civil remedies would apply if a fee were taken and not refunded; witnesses said the licensing or civil process would address many disputes.
No committee vote was recorded in the transcript. The hearing closed with members indicating the bill needs editing to clarify timing and the method for proof delivery before further consideration.
