Emotional Support Animal (ESA) Low Allergen Building - *FAS

[Teresa Ramos]

*FAS = FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER the nature of SERVICES provided

Why has no one been able to turn down ESA requests based on the wording of the actual FHA law?

From the FHAA Federal Housing Authority:

[Landlords are required to accept ESA requests] unless doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider's services.

-------------

Granted this does not apply to the majority of situations, but for a small percentage it should!

Ok, so lets say a landlord had a building that was specifically marketed towards tenants who have allergies. When they bought the building, during renovations they tore out carpeting, hepa vacuumed as much trace of any previous pets in buildings, removed and replaced subfloor where needed, ran hepa filters, painted walls, etc etc. Maybe even hired allergy consultants to measure allergens. The end result is lower rates of pet dander and allergens in the buildings.

Surely they could market this as a "reduced allergen" apartment (or in case of new construction actually claim "no pets have ever lived here") and there would be a solid niche market of folks who suffer from allergies who would love to live in a unit like that!

Now since the landlord had undertaken renovations to create a low allergen place to live, marketed their building as such - being forced into accepting an ESA would "fundamentally alter the nature of the services provided" and thus allow them to legally decline the request!

Why has no one tried this, surely there must be a few buildings in this situation!!

You would need proof (pics) of renovations, of marketing to "reduced allergen living", and possibly letters from any tenants & their doctors stating that said tenants indeed impacted by allergies and that is one of the big reasons they chose to live their.

This is getting ridiculous that everyone is being held hostage by these standards that don't take into account how it affects everyone involved. Legally speaking, is this a solid defense? Why or why not?