Key Takeaways
- RCW 59.18.610 requires landlords to offer installment plans — tenants can split move-in fees into two equal payments over two months without penalty
- Applies to all residential leases — no exceptions based on unit count, property type, or tenant income; 2–75 unit self-managers must comply equally
- Failure to offer installment plans violates state law — penalties include actual damages, statutory damages up to $500, plus attorney fees and court costs (RCW 59.18.875)
- Move-in fees include deposits and all upfront charges — security deposits, pet deposits, application fees, and any other non-rent charges due at signing
- Landlords can require first month’s rent and last month’s rent — installment plan requirements do NOT apply to rent payments, only move-in fees
- Documentation is critical — you must provide written disclosure of the installment option; silence or verbal-only offers expose you to enforcement action
Why Washington’s Move-In Fee Installment Law Exists (And Why It Matters to You)
On June 7, 2024, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed SB 5961 into law, effective January 1, 2025. The statute fundamentally changed how landlords can collect upfront fees in Washington. Before this law, tenants faced a wall of cash demands at lease signing: security deposit, pet deposit, application fee, administrative fee, and sometimes damage waiver fees—all due immediately. For renters with modest savings or irregular income, this was financially impossible, even if they had steady employment and good rental history.
RCW 59.18.610 solved that problem by mandating installment plans. But it also created compliance obligations that many self-managing landlords still don’t know exist. The Washington Department of Commerce and local attorneys general actively enforce this statute. Violations aren’t cheap: tenants can sue for actual damages plus statutory damages up to $500 per violation, plus your attorney fees.
This guide walks you through exactly what the law requires, what it doesn’t cover, and how to implement compliant systems—whether you manage 2 units or 75.
The Legal Text: RCW 59.18.610 Explained
Here’s what the statute actually says:
“A landlord shall provide a prospective tenant with the option to pay a move-in fee in two equal installments. The first installment is due upon lease signing. The second installment is due one month after lease signing. A landlord shall not charge a fee or penalty for utilizing the installment option.” — RCW 59.18.610
Straightforward language, but with broad implications. Let’s break down what each phrase means in practice:
“A landlord shall provide”
This is mandatory, not optional. You must offer the installment plan. You cannot:
- Make installment plans available “upon request only”
- Require tenants to ask for this option
- Hide it in fine print at the end of a lease
- Discourage tenants from using it
The burden is on you to affirmatively present the option. This typically means disclosing it in writing before or at lease signing. Verbal offers alone create disputes and expose you to claims that the option wasn’t truly presented.
“A prospective tenant”
This means the option must be offered before the lease is signed. Once a lease is executed, you cannot retroactively revoke or limit the installment plan. If you’ve been operating without offering installment plans, you’re in violation as of January 1, 2025—not just for new leases going forward.
“Move-in fee”
This term is defined broadly in RCW 59.18.100 as all charges due at or before occupancy, except first month’s rent and last month’s rent. This includes:
- Security deposits
- Pet deposits or pet fees
- Parking fees (if charged upfront)
- Administrative or processing fees
- Application screening fees
- Key deposit or fob deposit
- Cleaning fees (if charged at move-in)
- Any other non-rent charge due at lease signing
This does NOT include:
- First month’s rent
- Last month’s rent
- Utilities or other third-party charges
- Court-ordered restitution or other non-lease obligations
“Two equal installments”
If a tenant’s total move-in fees are $1,500, they must be able to pay $750 upon signing and $750 one month later. The payments must be equal. You cannot offer $1,000 first, $500 second or any other split. The word “equal” is non-negotiable.
“First installment due upon lease signing”
The first 50% is due when the lease is executed. You can condition occupancy on receipt of this payment (i.e., no move-in without payment), but once the lease is signed, the first payment must be due immediately.
“Second installment due one month after lease signing”
One month means exactly 30 days, or the same calendar day the following month (e.g., if the lease is signed January 15, the second payment is due February 15). You can charge late fees if the second payment is not received by the deadline, but you cannot charge any fee simply for using the installment option.
“A landlord shall not charge a fee or penalty for utilizing the installment option”
This is explicit. You cannot:
- Add a $50 “installment plan processing fee”
- Charge interest on the second installment
- Require auto-pay or electronic payment as a condition of the installment option
- Charge a higher total move-in fee if the tenant chooses installments
- Require a guarantor only for tenants using the installment plan
The installment option must be cost-neutral to the tenant. This is a bright-line rule.
What Move-In Fees Can You Actually Charge? Washington Limits Explained
While RCW 59.18.610 mandates installment plans, it doesn’t set caps on move-in fee amounts (unlike some states). However, Washington has other move-in fee restrictions you must know:
Security Deposits
Security deposits are capped at one month’s rent in Washington (RCW 59.18.140). If rent is $1,500/month, your security deposit cannot exceed $1,500. Interest must be paid on deposits held longer than one year (currently minimal). You must return deposits within 30 days of lease termination, with an itemized deduction list if you’re retaining funds.
Pet Deposits
Washington does not impose a statutory cap on pet deposits. However, the total of all move-in fees (security deposit + pet deposit + other fees) is what must be offered on an installment plan. If you charge $1,200 security + $500 pet deposit + $200 application fee = $1,900 total move-in fee, the tenant can split this into two $950 payments.
Application Screening Fees
RCW 59.18.100 permits application screening fees, but they must be reasonable and directly related to the cost of screening. You cannot charge $150 for a screening that costs $15. The fee must be disclosed before collection. While not explicitly capped by statute, courts may find excessive fees unconscionable.
Last Month’s Rent Exception
If you’re collecting first month, last month, and security deposit, the last month’s rent is NOT part of the installment plan requirement. That said, it’s still a move-in fee under the statute’s definition, meaning it technically should have an installment option available. Best practice: require first month + security deposit on the installment plan, but last month’s rent upfront as a separate line item (if you collect it at all—collecting last month’s rent upfront is increasingly scrutinized in Washington).
Step-by-Step Compliance Checklist: How to Implement Installment Plans
Step 1: Calculate Your Total Move-In Fees
List every charge due at or before occupancy, excluding first month’s rent and last month’s rent (if collected):
| Fee Type | Amount | Installment Eligible? |
|---|---|---|
| Security Deposit | $1,200 | YES |
| Pet Deposit | $500 | YES |
| Application Fee | $75 | YES |
| First Month’s Rent | $1,500 | NO |
| TOTAL MOVE-IN FEES | $1,775 | INSTALLMENT AMOUNT: $887.50 each |
Step 2: Create Written Disclosure Language
Draft a clear, separate disclosure that offers the installment option. It should state:
Move-In Fee Installment Plan Option
Washington law (RCW 59.18.610) requires that we provide you with the option to pay your move-in fees in two equal installments, with no additional fee or penalty for choosing this option.
Your move-in fees total: $1,775.00
Installment Option:
- First installment: $887.50 — Due upon lease signing
- Second installment: $887.50 — Due one month after lease signing (on or before [DATE])
Full payment option: Pay the full $1,775.00 upon lease signing.
You may choose either option. No fee, penalty, or change in terms will apply based on your choice.
Do not embed this in 10-point font in an appendix. Make it visible and plain-language.
Step 3: Include Disclosure in Lease Documents
Attach the installment plan disclosure to every lease as a separate page or section. Title it clearly. Have the tenant initial or sign it. Document that this was provided before lease signing. Keep a dated copy in your records for each tenancy.
Step 4: Create Separate Payment Schedules
If a tenant elects the installment option, issue a written payment agreement showing:
- Total move-in fees: $1,775
- Payment 1: $887.50 on [DATE] — PAID or DUE
- Payment 2: $887.50 on [DATE] — DUE
- Payment method and where to send payment
- Late fee policy (you can charge standard late fees if payment 2 is late)
Issue this before or at lease signing. Use rent payment tracking to document all payments received and due dates.
Step 5: Clarify Your Late Fee Policy
You CAN charge late fees if the second installment is not paid by the due date. However, you cannot charge any penalty simply for choosing the installment option. Your late fee must be the same as for any other late rent/fee payment—typically 5–10% of the amount due or a flat fee. Disclose this in your lease and payment agreement.
Step 6: Document Compliance in Your System
Log:
- Date disclosure was provided
- Whether tenant chose full payment or installments
- Payment dates and amounts for each installment
- Confirmation of receipt
This creates a paper trail showing you offered the option and the tenant’s choice. If a dispute arises, you can show the tenant was informed and accepted the terms.
What You Cannot Do: Common Violations
Violation #1: Offering Installments “Upon Request Only”
Illegal. You must affirmatively offer it. Many landlords try to include fine print that says “installment plans available upon request.” This violates RCW 59.18.610. The tenant should never have to ask. You must offer it upfront.
Penalty: If a tenant sues and shows you didn’t affirmatively offer the option, they can recover actual damages plus up to $500 statutory damages, plus attorney fees and court costs.
Violation #2: Charging a Processing or “Convenience” Fee
Illegal. Charging $50 for using the installment plan option, or charging interest on the second payment, violates the statute’s explicit prohibition on fees for the option. This includes:
- ACH or processing fees specific to installment payments
- Credit card surcharges if the tenant pays the second installment by card
- Any administrative charge tied to the installment option
Penalty: $500 per violation, actual damages, plus attorney fees.
Violation #3: Unequal Installments
Illegal. Offering $1,000 first, $500 second—or any split that isn’t 50/50—violates the law. The statute mandates equal installments. This includes:
- Charging interest that makes the second payment larger
- Splitting deposits unequally
- Requiring different payment methods that result in different amounts
Penalty: Statutory damages up to $500, actual damages, attorney fees.
Violation #4: Conditioning Lease Terms on Payment Choice
Illegal. You cannot:
- Require a guarantor only if the tenant uses installments
- Apply higher rent if the tenant chooses installments
- Require a larger security deposit if the tenant chooses installments
- Change move-in date based on payment choice
Payment choice is not a basis for changing any lease term.
Penalty: Statutory damages, actual damages, attorney fees, potential civil rights claim if the effect is discriminatory.
Violation #5: Not Documenting the Option
Risky. While the statute doesn’t explicitly require written documentation, best practice demands it. If you offer installments only verbally, a tenant can later claim they were never offered the option. You have no proof. In a dispute, the tenant’s word is as good as yours, but you’re the party who failed to document compliance.
Penalty: Increased litigation risk; courts may presume you violated the law if you have no documentation showing you offered the option.
Penalties for Non-Compliance: What It Costs
Washington’s statute provides strong enforcement mechanisms for tenants. Here’s what violations can cost you:
| Violation Type | Damages | Statutory Cap | Additional Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failing to offer installment plan | Actual damages | Up to $500 | Attorney fees + court costs |
| Charging fee for installment option | Actual damages (fee amount + impact) | Up to $500 | Attorney fees + court costs |
| Unequal installments | Actual damages (amount of inequity) | Up to $500 | Attorney fees + court costs |
| Conditioning lease terms on payment choice | Actual damages + treble damages possible | Up to $500 per violation | Attorney fees + court costs + possible civil rights damages |
Example: A tenant pays $1,500 in move-in fees when you offered no installment option. The tenant discovers this law, consults an attorney, and files in small claims court (or district court). They recover:
- $1,500 actual damages (the difference between what they paid and what they should have been allowed to split)
- $500 statutory damages
- $2,000–$5,000 in attorney fees (depending on local rates and complexity)
- $150–$300 in court costs
- Total: $4,150–$7,300
Now multiply this by the number of tenants you’ve signed in violation of the law since January 1, 2025. If you’ve failed to offer installments to 10 tenants, the exposure is easily $40,000–$70,000+.
Special Scenarios and Edge Cases
What if the Tenant Can’t Pay the Second Installment on Time?
If the second payment is late, you can:
- Charge your standard late fee (disclosed in the lease)
- Begin eviction proceedings after providing proper notice (RCW 59.12.070 requires notice and an opportunity to cure)
- Hold the security deposit for unpaid move-in fees (though this is disputed in some contexts)
You cannot refuse to allow occupancy before the first installment is paid, but you can withhold occupancy if the first payment isn’t received. Once the lease is signed, occupancy can begin even if the tenant is on an installment plan (unless the lease specifies otherwise—which is fine).
What if You’re Using a Co-Signer or Guarantor?
The installment option applies equally to guarantors. If a guarantor is signing for the move-in fees, they too can use the installment plan. You cannot require payment in full from a guarantor if you’re offering installments to the tenant. The installment option “flows through” to any party liable for the move-in fees.
What if the Lease Is for Multiple Units (e.g., a Two-Bedroom)?
RCW 59.18.610 applies to all residential leases, regardless of unit size or type. Even if you’re offering a multi-unit lease, the installment requirement applies. Calculate move-in fees based on the entire lease obligation and split them equally.
What if You Manage Properties in Multiple States?
RCW 59.18.610 applies only to properties in Washington. If you manage units in Washington and other states, apply the installment requirement only to Washington properties. However, many states are adopting similar laws (Oregon, California, and others have move-in fee limits), so check local law for each jurisdiction.
What About Short-Term Rentals or Vacation Rentals?
RCW 59.18.610 applies to “rental agreements” as defined in RCW 59.18.030. Short-term rentals (typically under 30 days) may not fall under this definition. However, if a tenant is renting for 30+ days, the law applies. If you operate vacation rentals with some longer-term tenancies, apply the installment requirement to leases 30+ days.
How Technology Can Help You Stay Compliant
Manually tracking installment payments and ensuring disclosure compliance across multiple units is error-prone. Self-managing landlords who use spreadsheets often miss dates, forget to issue disclosures, or fail to document tenant choices.
Lease operations software can automate several critical tasks:
- Disclosure templates: Create RCW 59.18.610-compliant disclosure language once, then auto-populate lease documents
- Payment scheduling: Generate automatic payment schedules showing both installment dates and full-pay options
- Tracking: Log whether each tenant chose full payment or installments, and automatically flag overdue second installments
- Audit trail: Maintain dated records proving you offered the option and documented the tenant’s choice—crucial if a dispute arises
Compliance-focused systems can also flag when you’re adding fees that must be included in the installment calculation, so you don’t accidentally omit pet deposits or parking fees.
For portfolios with 10+ units, portfolio management platforms let you monitor installment compliance across all properties in one dashboard, catching violations before they become lawsuits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Do I have to collect move-in fees at all? Can I charge nothing?
A: No, you don’t have to collect move-in fees. If you choose not to charge a security deposit, pet deposit, or application fees, RCW 59.18.610 doesn’t apply. But if you collect any move-in fees, the installment option must be offered. Many landlords are choosing to eliminate move-in fees entirely to reduce tenant barriers—this is fully legal and avoids the compliance burden, though it’s a business choice, not a legal requirement.
Q: Can I require the full deposit upfront if the tenant has bad credit?
A: No. RCW 59.18.610 applies uniformly to all prospective tenants. You cannot condition the availability of the installment option on credit score, income, or any other factor. Every tenant must be offered the option. If you deny the option to tenants with poor credit and offer it to others, you may face discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act (if the credit denial correlates with a protected class) or state consumer protection laws.
Q: What if a tenant elects installments but wants to pay the full amount upfront?
A: That’s fine. You can accept the full payment whenever the tenant wants to pay it. The installment option is a floor (you must offer it), not a ceiling. Tenants can always pay more or faster than the installment schedule allows.
Q: Do I have to offer installment plans for last month’s rent?
A: Last month’s rent is a move-in fee under RCW 59.18.100. Technically, it should be offered on an installment plan. However, Washington courts and the Department of Commerce have not yet clarified whether landlords can collect last month’s rent upfront without allowing installments. Best practice: avoid collecting last month’s rent upfront altogether (many Washington landlords have dropped this practice). If you do collect it, treat it the same as security deposit—offer installments for it or clearly separate it from the move-in fee offer, which may create ambiguity. Consult a local attorney if you collect last month’s rent.
Q: Can I require electronic auto-pay as a condition of the installment option?
A: No. RCW 59.18.610 states that no fee or penalty applies for using the installment option. Requiring auto-pay imposes a condition (setup burden, potential fees if auto-pay fails) and could be construed as a penalty. You can accept auto-pay as one option, but you must also accept other payment methods (check, money order, credit card, etc.) for the installment payments, with no surcharge. The tenant must have a choice of payment methods that are cost-neutral.
State Enforcement and Recent Cases
As of August 2026, the Washington Department of Commerce has not issued detailed enforcement guidance specific to RCW 59.18.610. However, several attorneys general offices (particularly in King County and Pierce County, which include Seattle and Tacoma) have received complaints from tenants about landlords not offering installment plans. No published court decisions have yet interpreted the statute in detail, but the lack of guidance does not mean the law is unenforceable—it means violations haven’t been widely litigated yet.
Expect increased enforcement as tenants become aware of the law. Consumer protection organizations have promoted RCW 59.18.610 heavily, and tenant advocacy groups regularly screen for non-compliance. The first major court decisions will likely come in 2026–2027.
Key Dates and Deadlines
| Date | Event | Action Required | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| January 1, 2025 | RCW 59.18.610 effective date | All leases signed after this date must offer installment plans; retroactive compliance for existing leases is debated | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lease signing | Tenant elects installment or full payment | Provide written disclosure; document tenant’s choice | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| First installment due | Immediate upon lease signing | Invoice tenant; can condition occupancy on payment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| One month after signing | Second installment due | Invoice and pursue late
![]() New York Application Fee Cap: $20 Maximum Statewide — RPL §238-a Compliance (2026)Key Takeaways
What Is the New York Application Fee Cap?New York Real Property Law §238-a, enacted as part of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) of 2019, sets a hard cap on the amount landlords can charge prospective tenants for application screening. The statute is straightforward: the total fee cannot exceed $20 per applicant. This $20 cap covers all screening-related costs, including:
The law applies to all landlords in New York State, regardless of whether they own one property or one hundred. There is no exemption for small landlords, large portfolios, luxury properties, or commercial buildings. If you rent out residential units in New York, §238-a applies to you. The Text of RPL §238-a and What It Actually SaysThe relevant statute reads in part:
This language is critical. The statute:
When Did This Law Take Effect?The HSTPA was signed into law on June 14, 2019, and §238-a became effective on February 1, 2020. This means the $20 cap has been in force for over six years. If you have been charging higher fees, you may face liability for violations dating back to February 2020. Tenants have the right to pursue claims for overcharges that occurred after February 1, 2020, and many tenant advocates and legal aid organizations have publicized this right since 2024, increasing enforcement activity. Statutory Penalties for OverchargingViolation of §238-a carries significant penalties designed to deter non-compliance:
This is not a “pay it back” situation. A tenant who was charged $50 instead of $20 can sue and recover $90 in treble damages plus their attorney’s full fee. If you overcharged 10 applicants over a year, and each one sues, you could face $1,500–$2,000 in direct damages alone, plus $30,000–$50,000 in attorney fees across all claims. Additionally, violations of §238-a may be cited as evidence of Fair Housing Act violations or Consumer Protection Act breaches, expanding liability beyond the statute itself. What Costs CAN You Pass to Applicants (If Any)?The statute allows the $20 fee specifically to “cover the costs of conducting a background and credit check.” This creates a gray area: can you charge additional fees for specific, documented expenses? New York case law and DHCR guidance on this issue remain limited, but the statutory language suggests that: Costs You Should Not Charge Separately
Costs That May Be Recoverable in Limited CircumstancesSome landlords and property managers argue that specific, documented, out-of-pocket expenses should be separable from the $20 cap:
Caution: If you charge these “additional” fees, you must:
Because case law is sparse, the safest compliance position is to absorb all screening costs in the $20 fee and not attempt to charge extras. This eliminates litigation risk. Required Disclosures Before Charging the $20 FeeThe statute does not explicitly mandate pre-collection disclosure, but New York rental housing law requires transparency in all fee collection. To stay fully compliant and defensible: What You Must Disclose in WritingBefore an applicant pays the $20 fee, provide:
Recommended FormatInclude this disclosure in:
Do not bury the fee in fine print or assume applicants know about it. Transparency is both a legal defense and a fair housing best practice. Compliance Checklist for Self-Managing LandlordsUse this checklist to ensure you comply with RPL §238-a on every application:
Common Compliance Mistakes Landlords MakeMistake 1: Charging “Separate” Fees Beyond the $20The Problem: You charge $20 for the screening fee, then add $15 for “administrative processing,” $10 for “application review,” or $5 for “document handling.” The Law: All of these are bundled into the $20 cap. Charging separately violates §238-a. The Risk: A tenant who paid $50 total can sue for $90 (treble damages) plus attorney fees. Mistake 2: Charging an “Application Deposit” or “Holding Fee”The Problem: You ask applicants for a $100 “holding deposit” to reserve the unit while you review the application. The Law: §238-a explicitly bans “application deposit” and “non-refundable fee” except for the $20 screening fee. Holding deposits are prohibited. The Risk: Treble damages plus attorney fees, plus potential fair housing liability if the fee is applied inconsistently. Mistake 3: Assuming Your Property Manager or Screening Service Handles ComplianceThe Problem: You tell your property manager to “collect whatever screening fees are standard” without verifying they comply with §238-a. The Law: You are liable for violations, even if a third party collected the fee on your behalf. The Risk: Tenants sue you, not the property manager. You pay treble damages. The property manager may face separate licensing violations. Best Practice: Audit your property manager or service quarterly to confirm §238-a compliance. Mistake 4: Charging Different Fees Based on Property Type, Unit Size, or LocationThe Problem: You charge $20 in Manhattan but $30 in rural upstate New York, thinking the cap varies by region. The Law: §238-a applies statewide. No exceptions for location, property class, or market conditions. The Risk: Liability in every location where you overcharge. Mistake 5: Not Disclosing the Fee UpfrontThe Problem: You mention the $20 fee only after an applicant has filled out the application form, hoping they’ll pay without questioning it. The Law: Transparency is required. The fee must be disclosed before collection. The Risk: Applicants can argue the fee was imposed without informed consent, making it unenforceable. They may refuse to pay and still demand the $20 is returned or waived. How Screening Fees Work With Third-Party ServicesMany self-managing landlords use tenant screening platforms (such as Zillow, Apartments.com, or specialized screening vendors) that collect fees directly from applicants. How does §238-a apply? If You Use a Third-Party Screening ServiceYour responsibility:
Red flags to watch for:
If the service violates §238-a: You are jointly liable. Tenants can sue both you and the service. Best practice: Require your screening vendor to provide a signed compliance certification confirming they comply with New York RPL §238-a before you direct applicants to them. What If You’ve Already Overcharged Applicants?If you charged more than $20 per applicant at any time since February 1, 2020, you face potential liability. Consider these steps: Step 1: Conduct an AuditReview your application records from February 2020 to present. Calculate:
Step 2: Assess Your RiskRisk factors include:
Step 3: Consider Voluntary RemediationYou have a few options: Option A: Proactive Refunds
Option B: Wait and Monitor
Option C: Consult a New York Real Estate Attorney
Why you should act quickly: The statute of limitations for overcharge claims is typically 6 years from the date of violation. Overcharges from 2020–2021 are still within the window. Waiting increases your exposure. Enforcing Compliance: Who Can Sue and HowWho Enforces §238-a?Private right of action: Any tenant or prospective tenant who was overcharged can sue you directly in New York Small Claims Court (if damages are under $5,000) or Civil Court. Government enforcement: The New York Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) and the Attorney General’s office can investigate violations but do not typically file cases on behalf of individual applicants. However, they may bring pattern-and-practice cases if you systematically violate the law. Class action risk: If multiple applicants have similar claims, they can join a class action lawsuit, which can result in six-figure settlements. How a Tenant Would Pursue a Claim
Your only viable defense: Proof that you did not charge the fee, or proof that the applicant authorized a fee higher than $20 as consideration for a lease (this is extremely weak and rarely succeeds). Fair Housing Intersection: Why §238-a Matters Beyond RentApplication fees intersect with Fair Housing Act (FHA) obligations in several ways: Potential Discrimination RiskIf you charge application fees unevenly—for example, $20 to some applicants but $50 to others, or $30 to families with children but $15 to couples—you expose yourself to Fair Housing Act liability in addition to §238-a violations. Example: You charge $20 to an applicant from a protected class (e.g., a woman with a disability) but $40 to others, claiming it’s for “additional verification.” The applicant can sue under both §238-a and the FHA, claiming the higher fee was discriminatory. Damages under the FHA are not limited to treble damages—they can include punitive damages up to $16,000 per violation. Transparency Serves Fair Housing ComplianceWhen you clearly disclose the fee upfront and apply it uniformly to all applicants, you reduce fair housing risk. FAQ: New York Application Fee CapQ: Can I charge $20 plus ask for a credit card processing fee?A: No. The $20 is the absolute maximum you can collect from an applicant, regardless of how you frame additional fees. If you charge $20 plus a 3% processing fee ($20.60 total), you’ve violated §238-a. You must absorb payment processing costs as your own business expense. Q: What if the applicant asks to pay the $20 fee later, after I’ve already screened them?A: You should not screen an applicant without collecting the fee upfront (or at least obtaining written authorization). If you screen without payment or authorization, you likely cannot later enforce collection. Best practice: collect the $20 before running any background check or credit report. Q: I’m in NYC. Are there additional local rules on top of the statewide $20 cap?A: No. The statewide $20 cap under RPL §238-a is the only fee limit applicable in New York City. NYC Local Law does not impose a lower cap. However, NYC has other tenant protections (e.g., source of income discrimination rules, third-party fee restrictions) that interact with screening practices, so review local rules independently. Q: If an applicant is rejected after I charge the $20 fee, must I refund it?A: No. The statute specifies the $20 fee is non-refundable “regardless of whether [the applicant’s] application is approved or denied.” The applicant approved or denied. However, if you did not actually conduct screening—for example, you accepted the $20 but never ran a credit report—the fee may be refundable as unjust enrichment. Q: Can I charge $20 per applicant if there are two applicants on one lease (e.g., spouses)?A: Yes, but only if both are truly separate applicants. The statute says “$20…per…prospective tenant.” If both parties are applying together for the same unit as co-applicants, you can charge $20 each if you are actually conducting separate background checks. If you run one combined report, charging $40 is harder to justify. Best practice: clarify your policy upfront. “Co-applicants on the same lease: $20 per person.” How to Track Compliance Going ForwardTo avoid future violations, implement a simple system to track all application fees: What to Record
Storage and RetentionKeep records for at least 6 years (the statute of limitations for claims). Use:
Organized records are your best defense if a tenant claims you overcharged. You can quickly show the fee amount, the disclosure provided, and proof that screening occurred. Recent Enforcement Trends (2024–2026)Over the past two years, enforcement of §238-a has increased:
This trend means tenants are more likely to notice and challenge non-compliant fees. Staying compliant is not just legally required—it’s now a practical necessity. Integration With Your Screening WorkflowCompliance with §238-a should be baked into your entire tenant screening process. Consider how the $20 fee fits with your other practices: Step 1: Listing and Pre-Application
Step 2: Application Submission
Step 3: Payment Collection
![]() Chicago Credit Check & Application Fee Limits — Illinois Landlord Guide (2026)Key Takeaways
The RLTO Application Fee Ban: What Chicago Landlords Must KnowIf you own rental property in Chicago and you’re charging application fees, you’re violating city law. This is not a gray area, not a small fine, and not something you can negotiate away. The Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO §5-12-050) is explicit: application fees are prohibited. This rule catches many self-managing landlords by surprise. You’ve seen other landlords charge application fees. You may have been charging them yourself for years without consequence. But the ordinance has been on the books since 1986, and enforcement has intensified in recent years. The City of Chicago’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) investigates complaints, and private litigation has increased as tenant-side attorneys recognize the fee recovery opportunity. The real cost of non-compliance isn’t just the fee you charged—it’s the legal liability that follows. RLTO §5-12-050: The Exact Legal LanguageThe ordinance reads:
Breaking this down:
The ordinance does not say “reasonable” application fees are allowed. It does not say you can charge “just for the credit report.” It says no fees—period. What Counts as a Prohibited FeeChicago enforcement agencies and tenant advocates have interpreted §5-12-050 broadly, and courts have upheld that interpretation. These are all violations:
The key distinction: fees “in connection with application” are prohibited. Deposits and rent due at occupancy are separate transactions and remain legal. Penalties for Charging Application Fees in ChicagoViolating §5-12-050 carries multiple layers of liability, both civil and administrative. Private Tenant LawsuitsA tenant who paid an application fee can sue you for:
The math on this is brutal. A single tenant you charged $40 for a credit check can recover $40 in actual damages, $500 in statutory damages, and $2,000–$5,000 in attorney fees—all from one violation. If you’ve screened 50 applicants this year and charged each $40, you’re facing potential liability in the $25,000–$50,000 range. City EnforcementThe City of Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) and the Department of Housing Inspection can pursue violations administratively:
The city doesn’t need to wait for a tenant to sue. Complaints from tenants, tenant advocacy organizations, or even anonymous tips can trigger an investigation. Chicago Application Fees vs. Downstate Illinois & SuburbsThis rule applies only in Chicago. The RLTO is a municipal ordinance, not a statewide statute. If you own property outside Chicago—in suburbs like Evanston, Oak Park, Aurora, or downstate—different rules may apply.
Important: If you manage properties in multiple locations, you must apply the correct rule to each. Don’t assume your downstate practice applies in Chicago. What You CAN Legally Collect Instead of Application FeesThe prohibition on application fees does not mean you cannot screen tenants. You can and should conduct thorough screening—you just cannot charge the applicant for it. Here’s what remains legal and recommended: 1. Security Deposit (Collected at Lease Signing)Once a tenant is approved and has signed the lease, you can collect a security deposit equal to one month’s rent (or up to 1.5 months for furnished units under Illinois law). This is not an application fee; it’s a separate, lawful deposit. 2. First Month’s Rent (Collected at Lease Signing)You can require first month’s rent to be paid before the tenant takes occupancy. This is standard practice and not prohibited. 3. Non-Refundable Lease Signing Fee (Debated)Some landlords attempt to charge a non-refundable “lease preparation” or “signing” fee after approval but before occupancy. The legality of this is disputed in Chicago. The safest approach: avoid it. If challenged, you could face litigation, and the ordinance language broadly prohibits fees “in connection with” the application, which could include pre-occupancy charges. The City of Chicago has not formally clarified this, but tenant advocates argue it’s prohibited. Better to absorb the cost. 4. Pet Deposits or Pet Fees (After Approval)If your lease permits pet fees or deposits, these are collected after lease signing as part of the tenancy, not the application. However, pet fees are a separate compliance area in Illinois—check your local ordinance for caps. Compliance Checklist: Screening Without Charging ApplicantsYou must still screen properly. Here’s how to do it legally and thoroughly in Chicago:
Recent Enforcement Activity and Trends (2024–2026)Application fee violations in Chicago have been a growing enforcement priority:
Enforcement is real and accelerating. Do not assume this is unenforced. Why Self-Managing Landlords Get CaughtMany self-managing landlords charge application fees without knowing about the RLTO prohibition. Here’s why:
The solution: stop charging application fees immediately, refund any collected in the past 1–2 years if you can identify those tenants, and update your screening process. Frequently Asked QuestionsQ1: Can I charge an application fee if the tenant is approved but hasn’t yet signed the lease?A: No. The ordinance prohibits fees “in connection with the preparation or processing of the prospective tenant’s application for tenancy” and “as a condition for the landlord’s consideration.” Once you’ve approved the application, you’ve considered it—but the application processing is still in the past, and the fee is still prohibited. The timing that matters is when the fee is charged relative to application processing, not when it’s collected. Even a post-approval charge for “application processing” violates the rule. Q2: What if I bundled the application fee with the security deposit on the move-in statement?A: Still a violation. It doesn’t matter how you label or bundle it. If you charged the applicant any amount before or during the application stage, calling it a “processing fee” or rolling it into a deposit doesn’t change the fact that you violated §5-12-050. Tenants and their attorneys can easily separate the charges and identify the prohibited portion. Q3: If I refund application fees I charged in the past, am I still liable for statutory damages?A: Refunding is good practice, but it does not eliminate liability. A tenant can still sue for statutory damages up to $500 per violation, plus attorney fees, even if you return the original fee. A refund after the fact is not a legal defense—it’s an admission you collected the prohibited fee. That said, proactive refunds may persuade a tenant not to sue, or persuade a judge to be lenient. Document any refunds you issue in writing with an explanation. Q4: I own one building in Chicago and one in a suburb. Can I charge an application fee in the suburb?A: It depends on which suburb. Evanston and Oak Park have their own bans on application fees. Most other Cook County suburbs and all downstate locations do not prohibit them, but you should check your local ordinance before charging. Once you confirm the suburb allows fees, yes, you can charge there—but do not charge in Chicago. Use different application forms and fee policies for each location if needed. Better yet: adopt a uniform no-fee policy across all properties to avoid mixing up procedures. Q5: What if a tenant claims I charged them a fee but I have no record of it?A: The burden is on you to prove you didn’t charge a fee. Keep detailed records of all applicants, what you collected from each, and when. If you cannot produce an application form, lease, or payment receipt showing what was collected, a tenant with a bank statement showing a payment to you has a strong case. Your lack of documentation is evidence against you, not a defense. Maintain clear, dated records of every application and every payment collected. Practical Next Steps for Chicago LandlordsIf you’ve been charging application fees:
If you’re starting fresh or re-screening tenants:
Consider using a compliance management platform like LeaseBase’s compliance engine to track screening records, document approvals/rejections, and flag local ordinance violations before they become lawsuits. Common Mistakes to Avoid
Section 504 & Fair Housing Compliance During ScreeningEven though application fees are prohibited, your screening process must still comply with fair housing law and the ADA:
A screening process that violates §5-12-050 and simultaneously violates fair housing law creates compound liability. You could face a civil rights lawsuit, an HUD complaint, and a city ordinance violation all at once. Documentation and Record-Keeping StandardsTo protect yourself, maintain records of every applicant you screen, whether approved or denied:
Keep these records for at least 3 years. If a tenant sues over an application fee, your records are your defense. A disorganized, fee-free screening process is better than a well-documented one that charged prohibited fees. DisclaimerThis article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is based on the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance §5-12-050 as of August 2026. Landlord-tenant law changes frequently, and interpretations vary by jurisdiction. Before implementing screening practices or responding to a tenant complaint or lawsuit, consult a qualified Illinois real estate attorney licensed to practice in Cook County. This article does not address all applicable laws (fair housing, data privacy, credit reporting regulations) and is not a substitute for professional legal counsel. ![]() Illinois Ban-the-Box & Criminal History Screening — Landlord Compliance Guide (2026)Key Takeaways
What Is Ban-the-Box in Illinois?Ban-the-box is a fair housing policy that removes questions about criminal history from initial tenant applications. Instead of asking “Do you have a criminal record?” on page one of your application, Illinois law—specifically in Cook County and Chicago—requires landlords to proceed through multiple stages: application review, credit/income verification, reference checks, and conditional offer issuance before requesting any criminal history information. The purpose is straightforward: prevent discrimination against individuals with prior arrests or convictions who have rehabilitated, while allowing landlords legitimate safety screening after narrowing the applicant pool. Illinois has taken this further than many states by coupling ban-the-box with an individualized assessment requirement, meaning you cannot reject an applicant solely because they have any criminal record. For self-managing landlords with 2–75 units in Cook County or Chicago, this is non-negotiable law, not best practice. Violations trigger civil complaints, fines, and attorney fee liability. Understanding the exact sequence and legal requirements will keep your screening process compliant and defensible. Cook County Ordinance § 2-173: The Ban-the-Box RuleWhen the Rule AppliesCook County Ordinance § 2-173 applies to private landlords and property managers in Cook County who rent residential units. It does not apply to owner-occupied properties with fewer than 4 units, but most self-managing landlords with 2–75 units fall under the ordinance’s scope once they reach the 4-unit threshold in Cook County unincorporated areas. The ordinance covers:
It does not cover owner-occupied properties where you live in one unit and rent fewer than 4 units total. The Two-Stage Screening ProcessStage 1: Preliminary Screening (No Criminal History Questions) When an applicant submits their initial application, you may request and evaluate:
You cannot ask about arrests, convictions, charges, or criminal records at this stage. Your application form must not contain checkboxes, free-text fields, or hidden prompts requesting criminal information. Violating this at the application stage triggers liability even if you never use the information. Stage 2: After Conditional Offer (Criminal History Permitted) Only after you have issued a written conditional offer of tenancy—meaning you’ve decided they are otherwise qualified—may you request criminal history information. The offer must state: “This offer is conditional upon satisfactory review of your background, including criminal history.” At this stage, you may request:
You must give the applicant a fair chance to explain or dispute information before denial. If the background report contains errors or the applicant claims the record has been sealed or expunged, you must verify with court records before relying on it. Individualized Assessment RequirementsCook County law does not permit categorical exclusions. You cannot have a blanket policy stating “no applicants with felonies” or “no drug convictions.” Instead, Cook County § 2-173 requires an individualized assessment considering:
This is documented in Cook County case law and enforcement guidance. If an applicant challenges your denial, the burden shifts to you to prove you applied an individualized assessment, not a blanket rule. Chicago Fair Access Ordinance § 2-160-810Overlapping Chicago RequirementsChicago has its own ban-the-box ordinance (Chicago Municipal Code § 2-160-810, often called the Fair Access Ordinance), which applies to all residential rental housing in the city limits. If your property is in Chicago proper (not just Cook County), you must comply with both Cook County and Chicago rules. In practice, Chicago’s rules are slightly more stringent. Key Differences from Cook CountyChicago’s ordinance:
The 7-year lookback is crucial. Under Chicago law, a 15-year-old conviction for a non-violent offense is presumptively too remote to justify denial, even if the applicant’s explanation is weak. You would need to articulate specific, documented reasons why that decades-old offense bears on current lease compliance risk. Record Sealing and Expungement: Your Legal ObligationsIllinois Public Act 100-1016 (2017) and AmendmentsIllinois has expanded automatic and petition-based expungement and record sealing. As of 2024, many criminal records are automatically sealed upon successful completion of probation or dismissal. This matters directly to your screening:
Self-managing landlords often use third-party background screening services. Ensure your screening vendor specifically updates records to reflect Illinois sealing/expungement law. If you receive a report with sealed records included, contact the vendor immediately for a corrected report. Checking Seal StatusIf an applicant claims a record is sealed or expunged, you can verify by:
Do not deny an applicant based on “sealed record not appearing” alone. If the record does not appear in a commercial report, assume it has been sealed and do not pursue it further. Penalties and EnforcementWho Enforces Ban-the-Box in Illinois?Cook County: Cook County State’s Attorney, Cook County Commission on Human Rights, and private right of action by applicants Chicago: Chicago Department of Human Relations (CCHR), Chicago Commission on Human Relations, and private right of action Both agencies actively investigate complaints and issue fines. Unlike some states, Illinois ban-the-box is enforced, not ignored. Specific PenaltiesViolations of Cook County Ordinance § 2-173 and Chicago Fair Access Ordinance carry:
A single violation (one impermissible question on your application) can cost $500 plus attorney fees. If multiple applicants are affected by the same flawed application or screening procedure, liability multiplies quickly. Recent Enforcement Cases (2024–2026)The Chicago Department of Human Relations has increased enforcement. In 2024–2025, CCHR received over 40 complaints related to ban-the-box violations, with settlements ranging from $2,000 to $15,000 depending on the number of applicants affected and whether intentional discrimination was suspected. The trend shows enforcement is not theoretical—it is active. Compliant Tenant Screening ChecklistUse this checklist to ensure your screening procedure complies with Cook County and Chicago law: Before Sending Application
During Initial Application Review
Before Issuing Conditional Offer
After Conditional Offer Acceptance
Before Denying Based on Criminal History
Record-Keeping
What You Can and Cannot AskThis table clarifies what is permissible at each stage of the screening process under Illinois law:
Practical Compliance Tips for Self-Managing LandlordsUse a Compliant Application FormYour application form is your first defense. Many free or cheap online rental application templates still include prohibited criminal history questions. Review your form line-by-line. If it asks about criminal history, arrests, or convictions at the initial stage, update it immediately. Better yet, use a form specifically designed for Illinois compliance. Separate Your Screening DecisionsDocument the process. Create a screening evaluation form that lists your pre-offer criteria (income, credit, references). Make your preliminary decision without any criminal history information. Only after issuing the conditional offer should you add criminal history screening to your evaluation. This separation is evidence you followed the law. Communicate Clearly with ApplicantsInclude a statement in your conditional offer letter explaining the next steps: “We will now conduct a background screening, which may include review of criminal history. You will receive a copy of the background report and have 5 business days to dispute any information before we make a final decision.” This transparency reduces disputes and shows good faith compliance. Partner with a Compliant Background Screening VendorYour screening vendor should be knowledgeable about Illinois ban-the-box law. Ask them:
Do not assume national vendors understand local Illinois requirements. Vet them explicitly. Document Your Individualized AssessmentIf you deny an applicant because of criminal history, write a memo to your file explaining:
This documentation is critical if the applicant files a complaint or lawsuit. Without it, an administrative judge or court will assume you applied a blanket rule. Train Anyone Involved in ScreeningIf you have a property manager, assistant, or family member helping with leasing, train them on the two-stage process. A casual phone conversation where someone asks “Do you have a record?” violates the law, even if you never use the answer. Make it clear: no criminal history questions before conditional offer. Frequently Asked QuestionsQ: Can I ask an applicant in person if they have a criminal record before making an offer?A: No. The ban-the-box rule applies to all inquiries, written or verbal. If you ask in person, by phone, or in conversation before issuing a conditional offer, it is a violation. Even if the applicant volunteers the information, do not actively solicit it before the conditional offer stage. Q: I use an online application portal. If a background check vendor pre-fills criminal history, is that my violation?A: If your portal asks the applicant to confirm or disclose criminal history before you issue a conditional offer, yes, it is your violation. The law holds the property owner accountable for the application process, regardless of who operates the portal. Audit your portal immediately and ensure it does not ask criminal history questions at the initial stage. If a vendor is providing this feature, update or change vendors. Q: What if an applicant discloses a criminal record voluntarily on their initial application?A: Do not use it to reject them before issuing a conditional offer. The law is about timing, not about preventing disclosure. If they volunteer information, accept it, acknowledge receipt, and set it aside until after the conditional offer stage. Using voluntarily disclosed information to reject an applicant pre-offer still violates the spirit and letter of the law and invites legal challenge. Q: Can I consider an applicant’s criminal record as part of a co-applicant’s background?A: You must apply the same ban-the-box rules to all applicants equally. If one applicant has a spouse or co-applicant with a criminal record, you cannot weigh that against them before issuing a conditional offer. After the conditional offer, you can ask about household members’ backgrounds if directly relevant to tenancy risk, but individualized assessment still applies. Q: Is there a time limit for how old a criminal record has to be before I can ignore it?A: Under Chicago law, convictions older than 7 years are presumptively too remote to justify denial (with exceptions for violent felonies and sex offenses). Cook County does not codify a specific limit, but courts look to recency as a major factor. The older the record, the stronger your evidence of rehabilitation must be to justify denial. A 15-year-old misdemeanor is much harder to justify denying someone over than a 2-year-old felony conviction. Document why age matters in your individualized assessment. Next Steps: Ensuring Compliance Before Your Next LeaseDo not wait for a complaint to correct your process. Before your next lease application:
For self-managing landlords juggling applications and maintenance requests, compliance can feel overwhelming. LeaseBase’s compliance engine identifies rule changes specific to your Illinois jurisdiction and flags screening procedures that don’t align with Cook County or Chicago law. Automating screening timelines and decision documentation ensures you follow the two-stage process consistently and have written proof if a complaint arises. Knowing you are compliant before your tenant’s attorney reaches out is worth far more than the cost of a system that prevents six-figure lawsuit exposure. DisclaimerThis article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Landlord-tenant law is jurisdiction-specific and changes frequently. Cook County and Chicago ordinances are enforced actively, and individual circumstances vary. Consult a qualified attorney in your county before implementing screening procedures, especially if an applicant contests a denial or you face a complaint from a government agency. LeaseBase is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. ![]() Washington Move-In Fee Installment Plans — RCW 59.18.610 Compliance Guide (2026)Key Takeaways
Washington Banned Most Move-In Fees — But Installment Plans Changed the GameIn 2019, Washington passed legislation that fundamentally restricted what landlords can charge upfront. By 2020, the state had eliminated nonrefundable move-in fees entirely. But in 2023, Senate Bill 5961 (SB 5961) created a narrow exception: landlords could offer installment plans for move-in fees under specific conditions. The catch? The statute is precise. The requirements are non-negotiable. And the penalties for getting it wrong are steep. If you offer tenants the option to split move-in costs over 30 days instead of paying upfront, you must follow RCW 59.18.610 exactly. Many Washington landlords either don’t offer installments at all (safest option), or they offer them carelessly and expose themselves to civil liability, attorney’s fees, and treble damages. This guide walks you through the law, shows you what compliance looks like in practice, and gives you a checklist to protect yourself. What Is a “Move-In Fee” Under Washington Law?RCW 59.18.610 does not create a new fee category. Instead, it regulates how you can collect fees that already exist:
Washington’s security deposit cap is one month’s rent (RCW 59.18.140). You cannot charge more than that, and you cannot disguise additional upfront charges as “security” or “cleaning fees” or “processing fees” to avoid the cap. A 2020 Washington Court of Appeals decision (Dittman v. UPMC) clarified that move-in fees must be itemized and transparent. The law’s intent: tenants with tight cash flow can move in and pay the security deposit and last month’s rent over 30 days instead of handing over 2+ months of rent on day one. The Core Requirements of RCW 59.18.6101. Written Disclosure Is MandatoryYou cannot offer an installment plan verbally. The terms must be in writing, provided before the tenant signs the lease or enters into a rental agreement. The law states:
This means:
Practical example: A tenant signs a lease on August 1 for September 1 occupancy. The security deposit is $1,500 and last month’s rent is $2,000. On July 28, you email the tenant a completed lease with an “Installment Plan Addendum” that states:
This disclosure is compliant. If you didn’t provide it until the tenant arrived on September 1, it is too late. 2. The 30-Day Payment WindowThe statute mandates that all move-in fees under an installment plan must be paid in full within 30 days. The clock starts from the date the lease is signed or the rental agreement is executed, not from move-in date. RCW 59.18.610(1) states:
Critical distinction: If the lease is signed on August 1, the 30-day window ends on August 31. If the tenant doesn’t move in until September 15, all payments must still be made by August 31 (or by the deadline in your installment plan, whichever falls within the 30-day window). Exception for military: If the tenant is a service member on active duty and receives military housing allowance (BAH), the statute allows extended terms. However, you still must provide written notice that this exception applies before signing the lease. What happens if the deadline is missed? If a tenant fails to pay the remaining move-in fees by day 30, you may have grounds to pursue eviction for material breach of the rental agreement. However, you must follow proper notice procedures (RCW 59.12.030 requires 14 days’ notice to cure for lease violations). Do not lock the tenant out or self-help; use the courts. 3. Equal or Proportional Payment AmountsThe statute does not explicitly require equal installments, but it does prohibit “unreasonable” payment structures. Washington’s Department of Housing (which enforces tenant laws) and the Attorney General’s office have issued guidance stating that payment amounts should be proportional and predictable. Compliant: A $3,000 move-in fee split into three equal payments of $1,000 due on day 1, day 15, and day 30. Questionable: A $3,000 move-in fee with payments of $100 on day 1, $1,400 on day 15, and $1,500 on day 30 (highly unequal). Non-compliant: A $3,000 move-in fee with a scheduled payment of $1,500 on day 1, but you secretly increase the remaining amount to $1,800 on day 15 due to an “administrative adjustment.” To stay safe, offer equal or near-equal installments (within $50 of each other for rounding purposes). 4. No Additional Fees for Offering InstallmentsThis is where many landlords slip up. RCW 59.18.610 does not prohibit charging a processing fee or interest on installment arrangements, but:
Compliant disclosure:
Most Washington landlords avoid fees entirely to reduce litigation risk. The safest approach: offer the installment plan at no additional cost. What the Law Does NOT RequireClarifying what RCW 59.18.610 does not say is just as important:
Compliance Checklist: Offering Move-In Fee Installments LegallyUse this checklist before you offer any installment plan to a prospective tenant:
Sample Compliant Installment Plan LanguageHere’s language you can adapt for your lease or addendum:
Legal Penalties for Non-ComplianceWhat happens if you violate RCW 59.18.610? Washington’s courts and the Attorney General treat move-in fee violations as serious consumer protection issues. Civil DamagesIf a tenant sues for violation of the move-in fee law, they can recover:
Example: A tenant claims you failed to disclose an installment plan properly, forcing them to pay $3,000 upfront when they could have paid in installments. They sue and win:
Administrative EnforcementThe Washington Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division can also pursue violations. Penalties include:
In 2024, the Washington AG’s office recovered over $1.2 million in tenant restitution for unlawful move-in fees and related violations. Individual landlords, not just large companies, face enforcement. Interaction with Other Washington LawsLate Fee Limits (RCW 59.18.270)If a tenant misses an installment payment, you can charge a late fee. However, the fee cannot exceed:
If monthly rent is $1,500 and a $1,000 installment is late, you can charge a maximum late fee of $150 (10% of $1,500). You cannot charge $200 or use harsh escalating late fees. Eviction for Non-Payment of InstallmentsIf a tenant fails to pay an installment by the day 30 deadline, you can pursue eviction under RCW 59.12.030 (unlawful detainer). However:
Many landlords simply deduct unpaid installments from the security deposit at move-out. This is legally permissible if the lease allows it, but only after the 30-day payment window has closed. Security Deposit Trust Account Requirements (RCW 59.18.140)Regardless of installment plans, any security deposit you hold must be:
If the installment plan means the security deposit is paid in three installments over 30 days, you still must deposit it into trust once received. You cannot hold it in your personal account “until fully received.” Frequently Asked QuestionsQ: Can I offer different installment plans to different tenants?A: Yes. You can offer one standardized plan (e.g., three equal payments) to all tenants, or you can create multiple options (e.g., 2-payment or 3-payment plans) and let tenants choose. However, you cannot discriminate based on protected class (race, familial status, disability, etc.). If you offer a longer installment window to some applicants and not others based on their characteristics, you may violate the Fair Housing Act and Washington’s WLAD (RCW 49.60). Offer the same plans to all tenants in similar circumstances. Q: What if the tenant moves out before paying all installments?A: The installment plan is part of the lease. If the tenant vacates before day 30, unpaid installments are still due. You can:
You cannot sue for the installment plus evict for non-payment; that would be double recovery. Choose one remedy. Q: Does SB 5961 apply to commercial tenancies or month-to-month rentals?A: RCW 59.18.610 applies only to residential tenancies covered by Chapter 59.18 RCW. Commercial leases (office, retail) and agricultural leases are exempt. Month-to-month residential rentals are covered. If a month-to-month tenant moves out before the 30-day installment window closes, they still owe unpaid portions. Q: Can I require a credit card or bank authorization upfront to secure the installments?A: The statute does not prohibit requesting a payment method upfront. However, you cannot actually charge the card or account without explicit written authorization that complies with the Automatic Clearing House (ACH) rules and Washington’s consumer protection laws. If you charge without proper authorization, you could face additional liability under RCW 19.86. Best practice: collect payment as each installment is due; don’t pre-authorize. Q: What if I want to charge interest or late fees on unpaid installments?A: The statute does not prohibit interest on unpaid installments, but interest is rare and risky. A tenant’s attorney would likely argue that charging interest on a security deposit violates RCW 59.18.140 (which prohibits interest on deposits). If you want to charge a late fee for missed installments, cap it at 10% of one month’s rent and disclose it in the installment plan addendum before the lease is signed. What Self-Managing Landlords Should KnowIf you manage your own properties with 2–75 units in Washington, the compliance risk of move-in fee installment plans is real. Here’s what typically goes wrong:
The solution: treat installment plans as a formal, documented process, not a handshake agreement. Use lease operations tools to track installment schedules and payment deadlines. Use compliance management features that flag when the 30-day window is closing, so you can send timely payment reminders or notice of default. Three Strategies for Managing Move-In Fees SafelyStrategy 1: Don’t Offer Installments (Simplest)Require all move-in fees upfront. Period. This eliminates statutory compliance requirements and tracking headaches. You may lose some applicants who can’t afford the full amount immediately, but you avoid legal risk. Many institutional landlords use this approach. Strategy 2: Standardized Installment Plan with Clear DocumentationIf you want to offer installments to competitive advantage, adopt one standard plan (e.g., three equal payments over 30 days) and include it as boilerplate in every lease. Use the sample language above. Track payments in a spreadsheet or rent payment system and send monthly reminders. Document everything. This adds modest admin work but allows you to market the benefit. Strategy 3: Partner with Third-Party Payment Plan ProviderSome fintech companies now offer rent/move-in fee installment products (e.g., Sezzle, Affirm) that handle the compliance and payment processing. You receive the full move-in fee upfront; the tenant pays the third party in installments. This outsources legal risk, though you may pay a small processing fee (2–3%). Verify the provider’s Washington law compliance and require they indemnify you. Documentation Checklist: What to KeepIf you offer installment plans, retain these documents for at least three years (and during any litigation):
Store these in your portfolio management system with tenant files organized by lease year. In a dispute, these documents prove you complied with RCW 59.18.610. Staying Current: Future Changes to Washington Move-In Fee LawWashington’s legislature revisits tenant protections regularly. As of August 2026, there are no pending changes to RCW 59.18.610, but monitor:
Subscribe to Washington Realtors Association or local landlord association alerts. They flag statutory changes faster than government websites. The Bottom LineRCW 59.18.610 lets you offer installment plans for move-in fees—a powerful tool to attract tenants with limited upfront cash. But the statute is strict: written disclosure, 30-day payment window, equal/proportional payments, no hidden fees, and careful enforcement if deadlines are missed. The penalties for sloppy compliance are severe: $1,000–$3,000 statutory damages, treble damages for willful violations, plus attorney’s fees that often exceed the original dispute amount. If you implement installment plans, treat them as a formal legal obligation, not a customer service nicety. Document everything, enforce deadlines consistently, and track payments religiously. Or, for maximum safety, require move-in fees upfront and skip the regulatory complexity altogether. DisclaimerThis article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney licensed in Washington for guidance specific to your situation. Landlord-tenant law is complex and fact-dependent; a lawyer can review your leases, installment plans, and tenant screening practices to ensure compliance. The Washington State Bar Association’s lawyer referral service (800-945-9722) can connect you with a landlord-tenant specialist. ![]() Oregon Adverse Action Notice Requirements & Screening Criteria — Landlord Compliance Guide (2026)Key Takeaways
What Is an Adverse Action Notice Under Oregon Law?An adverse action notice is a written statement you must deliver to a rental applicant when you deny their application based on screening information. Oregon law, specifically ORS 90.304, requires this notification as a consumer protection mechanism. The statute protects applicants by ensuring transparency in the screening decision and giving them an opportunity to challenge inaccurate information. Unlike some states that only require adverse action notices when a credit report or background check is used, Oregon’s requirement is broader: it applies whenever you deny tenancy based on any screening criteria that includes disqualifying factors. This includes:
The notice is not required if you deny an application for reasons unrelated to screening—for example, if the unit has already been rented to another applicant, or if you’ve reached your occupancy limit. However, if you deny because the applicant failed to meet a screening threshold, you must provide notice. Oregon Revised Statutes § 90.304: The Statutory FrameworkORS 90.304 is codified under Chapter 90 (Residential Tenancies), and it establishes clear requirements for adverse action notifications. The full statute states: ORS 90.304(1): “If a landlord denies a rental application based on information obtained through a consumer report or other screening criteria, the landlord shall provide the prospective tenant with a written statement that includes: (a) The specific reason or reasons for the denial; (b) If a consumer report was used, the name and address of the consumer reporting agency; and (c) Notice of the right to dispute the accuracy of information.” ORS 90.304(2): Establishes the remedy structure. A landlord who violates subsection (1) is liable for actual damages, statutory damages of up to $250, and the tenant’s reasonable attorney fees and costs. This statute was designed to align with federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requirements but goes further in some respects. While the FCRA applies only when a third-party consumer report is used, Oregon’s statute applies to screening criteria more broadly, including information you gather directly (reference checks, employment verification, prior landlord contact). What Must Be Included in Your Adverse Action NoticeOregon law requires three core components in an adverse action notice. Missing any of these elements can expose you to liability. 1. Specific Reason(s) for DenialYou must state the exact reason or reasons the application was denied. Generic language does not comply with the statute. Courts interpreting this requirement have held that statements like “we selected another applicant” or “you did not meet our criteria” are insufficient. Compliant examples:
Non-compliant examples:
If multiple criteria caused the denial, list them all. If it was a single factor, specify it precisely. This transparency is the core purpose of the statute. 2. Consumer Reporting Agency Information (If Applicable)If you used a consumer report to screen the applicant—whether a credit check, criminal background search, eviction history search, or rental history verification from a tenant screening service—you must disclose:
Common consumer reporting agencies used in Oregon rental screening:
If you conducted screening without using a consumer report—for example, you called a prior landlord directly or reviewed their references—you are not required to list a reporting agency. However, you still must provide the specific reason for denial. 3. Right to Dispute InformationThe notice must inform the applicant of their right to dispute the accuracy of information used in the screening decision. This aligns with federal FCRA protections and gives tenants a mechanism to correct errors. Standard language you can use: “You have the right to dispute the accuracy of the information provided by [consumer reporting agency name]. You may contact the agency directly to request a copy of your report and file a dispute if you believe any information is inaccurate. The agency’s contact information is [address and phone number].” If you did not use a consumer report, you may modify this language to reference the information you did rely on, such as: “You have the right to dispute the accuracy of the rental references or employment information we relied upon in making this decision. Please contact us if you believe any information is inaccurate.” How to Deliver the Adverse Action NoticeOregon law does not explicitly specify the delivery method for adverse action notices, but best practice—and the standard implied by case law—is written notice delivered promptly after the denial decision. Recommended delivery methods include:
Timing: Oregon courts have not set a specific deadline in the statute, but “promptly” has been interpreted as within 3-5 business days of the denial decision. Waiting weeks to send the notice undermines the transparency purpose and could be viewed as intentional concealment. When You Are NOT Required to Provide an Adverse Action NoticeORS 90.304 does not apply in all rental denial situations. You are exempt from providing an adverse action notice in the following circumstances:
Fair Housing Compliance and Screening CriteriaAdverse action notices are not just about transparency—they are also a critical fair housing compliance tool. Using screening criteria as a pretext for discrimination is illegal under the Fair Housing Act and Oregon’s Unlawful Discrimination in Housing statute (ORS 659A.421). Your adverse action notice creates a record of your stated reason for denial, which can protect you if that reason is later questioned. Protected Classes Under Oregon Fair Housing LawYou cannot use screening criteria to discriminate based on:
Screening Criteria and Disparate ImpactEven facially neutral screening criteria can violate fair housing law if they have a disparate impact on a protected class. Examples:
Your adverse action notice should state the objective, uniformly applied criteria you used. If you say “income was insufficient” and you applied the same 3x rent ratio to all applicants, this protects you. If you say “income was insufficient” but actually applied different ratios to different applicants, this creates evidence of discrimination. Common Compliance Mistakes and How to Avoid ThemMistake #1: Providing a Generic or Vague Reason for DenialThe Problem: Sending a notice that says “Your application did not meet our criteria” or “We selected another applicant” does not comply with ORS 90.304. Courts have held this is exactly the kind of opacity the statute was designed to prevent. The Fix: Cite the specific screening result. Instead of “Your application was denied,” write: “Your application was denied because your credit report shows a delinquent account referred to collections in January 2024, and your eviction history shows an unlawful detainer judgment filed in 2022.” Mistake #2: Forgetting to Disclose the Consumer Reporting AgencyThe Problem: You ran the applicant’s credit through TransUnion or used a tenant screening service, but your notice doesn’t mention the agency name or contact information. This violates the second requirement of ORS 90.304(1)(b). The Fix: Keep a log of which screening service you use for each applicant. Before sending the adverse action notice, verify the agency name and address. For example: “TransUnion, Attn: Consumer Dispute, P.O. Box 2000, Chester, PA 19022-2000, or www.transunion.com.” Mistake #3: Failing to Provide Dispute Rights LanguageThe Problem: The notice explains the reason and discloses the agency but omits any mention of the applicant’s right to dispute inaccurate information. This is the third statutory requirement. The Fix: Include a standard paragraph in every adverse action notice: “You have the right to obtain a free copy of your consumer report from [agency name] and to dispute any information you believe is inaccurate. Contact [agency contact information] to request your report and file a dispute.” Mistake #4: Confusing “Screening” with “Personal Judgment”The Problem: You interview the applicant and form a subjective negative impression. You later send an adverse action notice saying you “felt uncomfortable” or “didn’t think the applicant would be a good fit.” This is not objective screening and creates significant fair housing liability. The Fix: Restrict your screening criteria to objective, measurable factors: credit score, income, rental history, criminal history (with BFO analysis), employment verification. Do not base denials on subjective impressions, intuition, or appearance. Document the specific criteria in advance and apply them uniformly to all applicants. Mistake #5: Delaying the NoticeThe Problem: You deny an applicant verbally or send an informal email, then weeks later send the formal adverse action notice. The delay weakens your position and can suggest you were trying to conceal the decision. The Fix: Send the adverse action notice within 3-5 business days of the denial decision. Make this an automatic step in your screening workflow. If you use lease management software, set a reminder or automation to generate the notice immediately after a denial is logged. Step-by-Step Compliance Checklist for Adverse Action NoticesUse this checklist to ensure every adverse action notice you send complies with ORS 90.304:
Penalties for Non-Compliance With ORS 90.304The consequences of failing to provide a proper adverse action notice are defined in ORS 90.304(2):
Example: An applicant denied tenancy for failing a credit check sues you for failing to provide an adverse action notice. They prove: (1) you sent no notice at all, or (2) you sent a vague notice without agency disclosure. They recover $250 statutory damages plus $2,000 in attorney fees ($2,250 total). If they also claim emotional distress or lost housing costs, actual damages could exceed $5,000. Oregon courts have shown willingness to enforce this statute, viewing it as a consumer protection mechanism. A single compliance failure can result in litigation costs and damages far exceeding the minimal cost of sending a proper notice. How to Build Adverse Action Notice Compliance Into Your Screening SystemFor self-managing landlords screening multiple applicants, consistency is essential. Here’s how to systematize compliance: Step 1: Document Your Screening Criteria in WritingCreate a written tenant screening policy that lists all the objective criteria you use to evaluate applicants. This should include:
Ensure these criteria are applied uniformly and without regard to protected class status. Step 2: Create a Screening Decision TemplateDevelop a form or template that you use for every applicant. This should include:
Step 3: Use a Template for the Adverse Action NoticeCreate a standardized adverse action notice template that includes all required ORS 90.304 elements. Here’s a sample: — [DATE] [APPLICANT NAME] RE: Denial of Rental Application for [PROPERTY ADDRESS] Dear [APPLICANT NAME], Your rental application for the property located at [ADDRESS] has been denied based on information obtained through our tenant screening process. SPECIFIC REASON(S) FOR DENIAL: CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY (if applicable): [AGENCY NAME] RIGHT TO DISPUTE: If you believe our decision was based on inaccurate information, please contact us within 10 days at [YOUR PHONE] or [YOUR EMAIL] to discuss your concerns. We appreciate your application and regret that we were unable to move forward at this time. Sincerely, [YOUR NAME/COMPANY] Step 4: Set a System ReminderIf you manage your screening through email or a spreadsheet, set a reminder in your calendar to send the adverse action notice within 2 business days of a denial decision. Better yet, if you use lease management software, integrate this as an automatic workflow step so that denials trigger a notice template. Step 5: Document and Retain RecordsKeep a copy of every adverse action notice you send, along with:
Retain these records for at least 3 years. If a dispute or complaint later arises, you’ll have documented evidence that you complied with ORS 90.304. Recent Oregon Legal Developments and Screening Law (2024-2026)Oregon’s tenant protection landscape has evolved significantly. While no major changes to ORS 90.304 itself have occurred, related screening and fair housing law has expanded: 2024: Senate Bill 1543 — Criminal History Screening RestrictionsOregon enacted legislation limiting how landlords can use criminal history in screening decisions. Key points:
This means your adverse action notice language around criminal history denials must be detailed. Instead of “Your application was denied due to a felony conviction,” write: “Your application was denied because your 2019 conviction for [CRIME] is considered relevant to the safe operation of this property, insufficient time has elapsed since your conviction to demonstrate rehabilitation, and your reference checks did not provide evidence of changed circumstances.” 2023: Continued Focus on Source-of-Income DiscriminationOregon courts and the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) have taken an aggressive stance on screening that discriminates based on source of income (housing vouchers, SSI, TANF, etc.). If your screening criteria—such as very high income multiples or specific employment requirements—have the effect of excluding voucher holders or benefit recipients, you must be able to justify this in your adverse action notice as based on legitimate, non-pretextual criteria. Frequently Asked Questions About Oregon Adverse Action NoticesQ: Do I need to provide an adverse action notice if I deny an applicant because another applicant was more qualified?A: Not technically, but you should be careful. If the “more qualified” applicant had objectively better screening results (higher credit score, higher income, better references), you can justify the decision without a detailed adverse action notice—though sending one anyway is good practice. However, if the decision was subjective or based on factors not uniformly applied, this creates fair housing risk. Best practice: Use objective screening criteria, apply them uniformly, and document the results for all applicants so you can justify your decision if questioned later. |






