All Forum Posts by: Teresa Ramos

I have been trying to learn as much as possible about the topic of support animals, ESA, or otherwise and looking at how different groups are approaching this.  We need better policies and understanding of the law, or tenants are simply going to continue to take advantage of us.  

Have any of you guys looked at the housing policies used by colleges in their university housing?  They seem to be way ahead of what landlords are doing.  

Can we borrow from them by creating similar policies and rules?  If not, why are they allowed to ask such in depth questionnaires, talk with providers at will, and take many in depth measures to ensure that:

1) not only is there an actual disability but also 

2) that there is an actual need / documented "nexus" for an esa? This is a huge huge area that is quite confusing. We need clarification on how to actually make the decision of who passes this requirement and who fails. Many universities have a person whose job it is to make this decision (disability coordinator etc), or they convene an entire board of people to do so. Most mom and pop landlords are left to interpret this with way too little insight. And the larger landlords are stuck paying attorneys thousands, many of whom do not really know exactly what they're doing either. HUD has really screwed this whole process up by having it so vague!!

Universities are also seeming to require:

3) Re-evalution throughout the tenancy.  It appears that applicants who are determined to need an esa must re-apply either each semester, or annually.  

This makes complete sense to me!  If someone does not have a chronic illness, it would stand that once they've been through therapy, or whatever methods they used to get help, that there will eventually come a point where they are no longer classified as disabled.  Holding a person accountable for an annual update should be a best practice for landlords (their doctor prescription letter is only good for a year anyway and needs to be re-submitted).  This would show that while a person may have a need during the fall of 2016, by 2018 they no longer qualify for an esa.  It should not be a "lifetime appointment" automatically for all tenants!  

4) Most colleges do not simply allow a resident to bring an animal into their residence and then when it's found later, allow them to claim ESA!  On the contrary, they have distinct set of policies that clearly tell the applicant "these steps must be followed and you must be approved BEFORE the animal can move in".

5) They acknowledge the difference between an animal the resident has been living with or already has, and an unknown animal they are planning on buying.  Many require that the animal has been vetted and that it responds to its owner.  This is reasonable to me!  How can they allow a resident to bring in a new animal into tight living quarters without knowing if it barks all night disrupting everyone, whether it is aggressive, whether it listens to the owner?  In short, they only allow animals that are already trained and temperment known.  

6) They require the resident to never leave the animal home alone for such and such period.  Many have a requirement of 24 hours.   

These are only a few points, please read a few of these and chime in with your interpretations of how these could/should affect landlords?

My research on this has not scratched the surface of how a majority of Universities are dealing with this (please do some google searches and contribute any findings to this thread).  Here are a few with well-reasoned processes that seemed helpful.

https://www.missouriwestern.edu/reslife/wp-content...

https://www.unl.edu/ssd/PDFs/assistanceanimals_pol...

http://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/www/campuslivin...

I have to run, will try to add more later but you get the idea.

And to be clear, I am not implying we should discrimate or not accept those who truly have a need! On the contrary, we need to accept true cases where disability and need is established, but how exactly does one go about that process is THE elephant in the room? How many of you are truly able to determine the difference between disability and when someone comes to you who has read the FAQ at some online place like certipet, and finds a loophole to turn their animal into an esa! The attitude of "instantly accept anyone who brings you a letter" is not   

Thank you Greg and Bettina. I will look into the allergy accommodation from FHA. Makes complete sense to me and the was exactly the type of thing we've been looking at.

*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?