Remind : A lawsuit against an owner for an unsigned credit check prevented thanks to the APQ

The investigation agency of the APQ avoided that an owner would have been confronted with a lawsuit against him.

We received an unsigned offer to lease. As we are the only organization or association to check for a 100% the evaluations feedback received, the APQ saved the day for a landlord! Still, during our process of protecting the member, we contacted the tenant so that he allowed us and signed the rental offer.

The tenant answered us that it was “normal that the verification was not signed, I did it on purpose, so that my credit rating was not checked. My girlfriend’s is, so I can complete the survey and sign in her place.”

Obviously, the answer of the tenant is not suitable and no verification can be allowed in this case. The intent to defraud causes immediate rejection of the application!

Imagine if the owner had signed himself in order to avoid having to meet the tenant again. The owner could have been facing a request at the Commission for access to information against him and demands for damages with interest to pay for having verified credit without permission of the person and for falsifying a document.

Similarly, the case of a tenant who comes to visit alone and fills out two offers, because his girlfriend works, can have the same dramatic consequences.

Whether the date is missing, or whether the signature is missing, it is essential for your safety to take the time to check that everything is completed correctly.
Having to pay thousands of dollars to a tenant who lives in one of our dwellings is not a pleasant situation to experience.

Finally, to conclude with the precautions to take while doing verifications, it is also important to check the content of the offer to lease. The APQ does no outsourcing: the importance of quality assessment must be controlled by a very severe and ongoing process, internally.

Another example of the indisputable superiority of the APQ:

During one of our audits on employment we learned that the tenant who had to start a new job the day before had never presented himself for the new job. The credibility of the tenant and his solvency are then challenged!