Why bother wasting your time and end up possibly having to reject.

It does mean rejecting higher risk applicants that most landlords would not even consider a risk.

After I review the entire report I may still reject a applicant with a higher score if they have maxed out their credit limit.

Those are the same regulations we are forced to work with in our jurisdiction and I choose to ignore them to protect my business and my tenants.You will learn from experience that :  enforcement of the regulations will be rare if not non existent, reports by applicants few and far between, proving their case nearly impossible and landlords will quickly learn to operate their business as they always have.Stupid landlords will tell their applicants why they were rejected and suffer the consequences while the smart one will operate with impunity by simply not being so stupid as to tell them they have discriminated.Ignoring the regulations is necessary to protect your business and your other quality tenants.

It seems to actually be adding work for you, in having to refund deposit moneys, and having to deal with rejected applicants after telling them they were denied.What worked for me in Silicon Valley, for simple units in a good location (mainly studios), was to give applications to interested applicants.  

Most tenants are easy to deal with and that is because I did pay attention to the signals and did reject the troublesome ones.

Do them a favour and reject them if you do not want them  otherwise it will not go well.

I'm not sure what the legal ramifications of denying him would be, but I would HIGHLY suggest you find a way to reject his application.  

I would reject her without giving it a second thought.

The floor and walls are cosmetic issues and I would reject the upgrades on that basis.