Existing Residents & Background Checks

I have two questions. First, can anyone recommend a good company for doing thorough criminal background checks at a reasonable cost? I’m going to have probably 50-70 to do in the very near future.

My second question is regarding how to deal with existing residents in a newly acquired park…

I just acquired a 56 lot park in need of a turnaround. The bank owned it for 3 years, during which time there have been no rules or rent. I spoke to a former owner and learned that he sold homes for $1000 “to every crackhead he could find” (he was justifiably upset with the bank). There are currently 39 homes in the park. I’ve met many residents and found the majority to be decent people. There appear to be some exceptions, but not many (I’m guessing 4-5 problem sites).

I found a property manager who wants to issue eviction notices to all residents and then make them apply if they want to stay in the park. I understand his desire to ‘clean house,’ but I was planning to go about it differently. I intended to send a letter of introduction to each resident, explaining that if they wish to remain in the park, they must submit an application/resident information form, sign and abide by our rules and lease, and pay their rent on time. The application/info form requests permission to do a criminal background check, which we would do. Anyone with serious crimes would be evicted. I feel this approach would save me from having to send eviction notices to everyone (at $70-$90 each) and would not needlessly upset those we’d want to stay. There are a lot of elderly people in the park and I don’t want to scare them with an eviction letter.

But since I’m new to this, I’m not sure of the best way to handle it. Would you send out a blanket eviction notice and require those who wish to stay to apply? Or send a letter asking them to comply with our requirements and evict those who don’t?

Thanks to everyone who has offered input to my questions thus far. I hope to acquire enough knowledge to be able to answer beginner’s questions in the future.

I can definitely understand your intention to deal with your tenants in the least offensive way possible but the reality is that your state landlord/tenant legislation will likely dictate your options in dealing with this situation. I would recommend that if you have not already done so that you study up on the legislation.

As far as sending the letter you suggest you will likely be able to quickly discover which tenants to evict using this method. Any tenants you see clutching your letter while rolling around on their front lawn in uncontrollable laughter are definitely the ones to evict.:wink:

I’m a newbie too, but my advice would be to not run background checks on your current tenants. The main reason I run background checks in my park is to keep the deadbeats out. The circus has already been let in, so there isn’t a whole lot of value of running background checks now. The bad apples will very quickly distinguish themselves from the good tenants by not paying rent or committing rules violations. Just run your park normally, and be very strict on evicting anyone who is late or repeatedly violates the rules.

I inherited a horrendous tenant who I strongly suspected of vandalizing the property and stealing stuff out of trailers. The problem was self correcting though because 1. He didn’t pay rent and 2. He was terrible to his neighbors and everyone complained about him. I didn’t need to confirm he was a thief to know I needed to evict him.

Anyway, that’s my opinion, some of the more experienced operators might disagree.

I’ve never heard of anyone re-screening existing tenants. You will want to re-paper a new lease and rules (I’m assuming that they are on month-to-month now), and then enact a no pay/no stay policy on rent and a no play/no stay policy on rules. In short order, you will eliminate the bad actors and only have decent tenants left. Screening does a poor job of predicting tenant performance in this business, as what’s really important is the amount of “fight” in the tenant to make rent when they lose their job or have an emergency, as well as an ability to live within rules. Some of my worst tenants began with high credit scores – it only takes one emergency or job loss to blow those scores into oblivion. Let the tenants prove to you who is worthy of staying based on actual performance of paying their rent and behaving.

I am with Frank on this. Our original applications allow for us to screen. Once we get a park, they fill out information sheets, but they do not fill out applications. You can require then to sign paperwork like leases, rules and regs, info sheets etc… The problem tenants will self destruct once you start enforcing rules.

As a side note- Rules apply once they have been signed. If someone does not sign the rules you must go back to your mobile home park act and see what the state says about enforcing rules that are posted, not signed. In some states they must season for 60 days for instance. When you start cracking down be certain your inside what the law allows.

If we post new rules, we ask the manager so submit a photo of the new rules posted on the window or information board. This way if a tenant ever fights you, you can go back to the law, show you compiled, and move on.

Sorry for the delay in updating. This MHP is consuming my life at the moment. I appreciate the input and have waivered on both approaches (screening vs allowing the problem tenants to identify themselves). My most recent trip swayed me toward screening. Since this contradicts that advice here (which I did not have the chance to read before today), I’d like to explain and see if it makes sense in light of new information…

During our most recent trip, I realized the situation is worse than it first appeared. It’s dangerous and we feel that we need to get a handle on it, even if it means backing up (losing tenants) first. I didn’t know this at the time of my last post, but on the day of the closing, there was a drug bust in the Park and the police found a sawed off shotgun, 4 other guns, and evidence that the occupants were manufacturing/selling crack cocaine and ecstasy. I’ve met with two professional property managers who both wanted to manage the place, but not in its present condition. One refused to evict the existing tenants and the other won’t go back until he has a background check on every resident (and these are both retired Navy Officers).

We decided that we needed to take drastic measures. Virtually everyone familiar with the Park (police, city officials, even the Postmaster) all suggested we run criminal background checks. We’re not the least bit concerned with credit scores - only dangerous felonies. After learning more about the Park, I feel this is the only responsible route. I’m going to be out there, as well as my friends and colleagues, and I’m going to be marketing it to families. I could care less about someone’s credit score, but I want to know if someone has been convicted of a dangerous crime.

I also sought the advice of a highly respected attorney who is very familiar with the situation (he foreclosed on the park when the bank took it back). His advice was to send everyone a 60-Day-Notice-to-Vacate, along with an application if they wish to stay. He said I must give 60 Days Notice before I can evict anyone (since there are no leases) and this will have me covered. We can use that 60 days to try to sort out the mess and figure out who can stay (based on applications and behavior during that 60 days).

There are some long-term residents who want to see the Park cleaned up. I think they’ll stick by us. And I’m not sure how many really “bad” ones there are there. With two exceptions, everyone has been friendly and approachable every time we’ve visited. But I was told that more than 2/3 of the people living there came along after the bank foreclosed and there was no management. Reportedly, some have already left because they had outstanding warrants - and the police are now increasing patrols there.

We’ve received overwhelming support from the town and I’ve met several individuals (including one police officer) and a Ministry interested in helping to clean up the Park and repopulate it with approved tenants. But we’re all in agreement that we can’t attract the type of tenants we want in the present condition - and with its current reputation.

Many thanks again for your input. I’ll continue to post as we progress. It’s turning out to be quite an adventure.

Cindy,

Don’t let everyone get you too overly worried. Problem tenants come with every park purchase, and nothing you’re describing is that out of the ordinary. I think you may be going overboard in re-screening all existing tenants. I think you would be better off non-renewing the leases on the few tenants that the police think are a problem, and just hanging in there for 60 days until they’re gone. I’d let an attorney handle those non-renewals so you know they are 100% legally correct and don’t have to deal with the tenants being evicted.

Professional property managers are a bad idea in most cases – particularly the attitude you’ve described. Once you get the few problem people out and things calm down, get a resident to serve as the manager and just build good systems to make that work.

Don’t get railroaded into thinking you’ve got a disaster on your hands, because you don’t. Some people get off on making others freak out – don’t let them do that to you. Your worst case scenario is to pay $35 an hour for an off-duty policeman in a squad car to get the bad guys to behave until they finally are thrown out by the constable. That’s all.

Wow, Frank. Thanks for the reassurance. I admit that I was letting things get to me and there were times I’ve wondered what I got myself into. But this place has so much potential - even the nay-sayers admit that. It’s just been neglected. And there have been some people who told me things that were obviously intended to discourage me because they were 100% false (i.e. one person said the town revoked the zoning and it had to be shut down). While I was there on this most recent trip, I learned that one of the most discouraging individuals has been trying to buy the place himself. It was scheduled to be auctioned March 21 and apparently some people wanted me to back out. I’ve also received emails from people warning me about things that I consider non-issues.

The lawyer advised me to send out a 60-Day Notice to every occupant, along with an application. This has already been done, so in 60 days, I can simply not renew a lease (without giving any reason) for anyone who’s deemed a problem and my bases should be covered legally. I’ll verify this with an attorney before actually evicting, but I’m proceeding exactly as he advised. Depending on the number of evictions that follows, I may be able to have a lawyer handle them. It’s around $400 each for the lawyer to do it or $94-$119 for me to do it - and that includes the Sheriff’s fee. So, if there are a lot, I’ll seek legal advice, but will probably go to court myself. I have a concern with keeping the people out after the eviction, but I’ll have to cross that bridge when the time comes.

I had already requested that everyone submit a copy of their GA Criminal background, which can be obtained at the police station a few blocks away, so we’ll see what that reveals. The people at the police station would not give me any specifics rearding which lots had problems and suggested that I require the residents to submit the report. The woman at the desk said that all other MHPs in the area all require the background checks, but the one I bought never has. I spoke with the woman who runs two of the other parks in town and she confirmed that they do require them - and she knows of at least two people who they denied (violent sex offenders) who moved into my park. But at this point, everything is hearsay.

Prior to buying the park, I requested a CAD report - which details every 911 call made from the park in the past year. There were a total of 29 and none were really concerning. Nothing involved weapons, drugs, or break-ins. That’s one of the reasons I was so shocked by what I learned on my last trip. But perhaps things aren’t as bad as I was led to believe.

My ultimate goal is to follow your suggestion of having someone in the park handle the management/oversight. I’ve spoken with the person from the Mission that’s involved about just such an arrangement. He’s assured me that they work with trustworthy, deserving individuals who need access to low-cost housing. Sounds like it could be a win-win.

Thanks again for helping to set my mind at ease. This probably wasn’t the best park for a first-timer, but it was affordable and has great potential.

frankrolfe Wrote:


Cindy,

Don’t let everyone get you too overly worried.

Problem tenants come with every park purchase, and

nothing you’re describing is that out of the

ordinary. I think you may be going overboard in

re-screening all existing tenants. I think you

would be better off non-renewing the leases on the

few tenants that the police think are a problem,

and just hanging in there for 60 days until

they’re gone. I’d let an attorney handle those

non-renewals so you know they are 100% legally

correct and don’t have to deal with the tenants

being evicted.

Professional property managers are a bad idea in

most cases – particularly the attitude you’ve

described. Once you get the few problem people out

and things calm down, get a resident to serve as

the manager and just build good systems to make

that work.

Don’t get railroaded into thinking you’ve got a

disaster on your hands, because you don’t. Some

people get off on making others freak out – don’t

let them do that to you. Your worst case scenario

is to pay $35 an hour for an off-duty policeman in

a squad car to get the bad guys to behave until

they finally are thrown out by the constable.

That’s all.

Frank is right on the money! We bought our first park and after the sell everyone moved out, I did visit every renter with my packet of rules and just to let them know how safe they are I thought I had rented a home to a policeman, they moved …all of them. I have in the past offered free apartment rent to a state trooper and ended up with two of them, they were worth their weight in gold. Bad tenants do not like inspections of any kind, really they don’t ever want to see you. One or two calls to the police if you smell chemicals or suspect a drug deal going down the drug dealers will run. Get them all out then and your new ad will read new ownership, don’t freak this is just part of the deal. One more then I’ll shut up, if you catch their electric meter red tag and they have children well I don’t think I have to say anymore you can fill in the blanks.