How I filter out 90% of problem tenants before the showing even starts

After hundreds of furnished rentals managed over several years, I’ve ended up identifying a pattern that repeats with disconcerting regularity: the tenant who’s going to be a problem gives themselves away from the very first contact. No need for an in-depth interview. No need for mysterious intuition. You just have to know how to read what’s written. And above all, what isn’t.

What I’m describing here is what behavioral psychology calls signaling theory. I don’t judge people. I judge their ability to respect a contractual framework before it’s even signed. A lease is a reciprocal contract: obligations on both sides. Anyone who treats a housing inquiry like a “swipe” on an app refuses to accept the responsibility that comes with it.

My approach isn’t “mean,” it’s professional. I’m not managing human beings, I’m managing a financial and asset risk. The courts settle nothing in under a year. Insurance doesn’t cover unpaid rent. The CAF (the family-benefits agency) never reimburses damage. Faced with a system that protects landlords poorly, the only effective line of defense is screening up front. And that starts with understanding that a candidate who rushes their initial pitch will also rush their compliance with the lease.

The reciprocity test

Before we even talk about the property, I want to know who I’m dealing with. First and last name, professional situation in two lines. Not because I’m a stickler for procedure. Because this person is going to know my identity, my bank details, and get access to a property that belongs to me. The least they can do is introduce themselves.

The tenant who sends “place still up?” without signing their message treats renting like a Deliveroo order. They don’t understand that they’re requesting access to private property, not a public service. And someone who doesn’t get that at the outset will never grasp the principle of rent, notice periods, or the move-in inventory.

Someone who refuses this basic reciprocity is already refusing the balance of the transaction. If they refuse it at the very first contact, what will they refuse once they’ve moved in?

The three-minute rule

The tenant who always pays is generally the one who, from the very first message:

• Gives their full name
• Explains their professional situation briefly (not a novel, just the facts)
• Asks a concrete question about the apartment, not just the price

The logic behind it is simple: someone who spends three minutes writing a decent message is investing to get this apartment. And someone who invests three minutes at the start will invest three years later.

Conversely, the one who sends “hi its urgent im lookin for a place” will never come back to you with a complete application. They’re looking for an immediate solution to an immediate problem. You’re not a landlord to them, you’re a stopgap.

Phone or messaging: the question of commitment

Absolute rule: it’s up to the candidate to initiate quality contact. I never reply to texts, to private messages on the platforms, or to generic inquiries like “Hello, is your property still available?” If the listing says “Call 06… to arrange a showing,” anyone who sends a private message has already shown that they don’t read the instructions or refuse to follow them.

The serious tenant picks up the phone or sends a structured email. The call signals an ability to express oneself clearly, a willingness for direct contact, and respect for the other person’s time. They own the asymmetry: they’re the one requesting access to my property.

An important nuance in 2026: the channel matters less than the quality and the effort. A formal four-line email that’s clean (full name, situation, concrete question) is worth far more than a fumbling phone call or a “cold” WhatsApp with no introduction.

What counts is the demonstration of effort and seriousness. Plenty of good profiles (tech workers, young professionals, neurodivergent people) prefer flawless writing over the phone. Conversely, terse messages, midnight voice memos, or anything with no introduction at all remain strong red flags: a lack of commitment, a high risk of ghosting and of disregard for the rules later on.

Spelling as a composite signal

Spelling mistakes aren’t an absolute criterion. But they’re one indicator among others. This isn’t linguistic snobbery. It’s a question of the care put into a process that commits several thousand euros over the term of the lease.

Someone who writes “i wanna rent the apartmnt” for a financial commitment running into several thousand euros over the lease doesn’t grasp the scale of what they’re asking for. Or worse: they don’t care. It isn’t their level of education I’m judging, it’s the attention they give to a major transaction.

When these mistakes pile up alongside the lack of an introduction, unjustified urgency, vagueness about the professional situation, and the systematic use of unstructured instant messaging, the signal turns bright red. A message can contain two typos and still be credible if it’s complete, polite, and precise. But a message riddled with errors AND vague AND fired off at 11:47 p.m. over WhatsApp with no signature reveals someone who doesn’t understand that they’re asking for access to a valuable property.

The poisoned false gifts

“I can pay you six months up front in cash”

Nine landlords out of ten see this as a windfall. I see someone who knows full well they won’t pass the standard checks.

A permanent contract (CDI) with clean pay slips never needs to compensate with cash. The person who spontaneously offers several months up front is the one anticipating rejection: a precarious fixed-term contract (CDD), undeclared income, welfare benefits (RSA), patchy temp work, a FICP listing (the central bank’s record of payment defaults).

The problem isn’t the first six months. It’s the seventh. Once moved in, legally protected by the winter eviction moratorium and procedural delays, they stop paying. And there’s nothing more you can do. You traded six months of rent for eighteen months of litigation.

Crucial legal point: if you accept more than two months’ rent in advance, you lose the right to ask for a security deposit. It’s a losing bet across the board: you trade your only real security for a one-off lump of cash that will melt away fast in the face of an eviction proceeding. Empathy is the landlord’s security flaw.

If someone really wants to pay you in advance, let them start by providing a proper application. Pay slips, employment contract, tax assessment. If their file is solid, they don’t need to offer cash. If they offer cash, it’s precisely because their file isn’t.

Urgency as a pressure tactic

“I have to move in tomorrow.” “It’s a matter of life or death.” “I’ll be out on the street if you don’t take me.”

Real urgency exists. A job transfer, a sudden breakup, damage to a previous home. But real urgency always comes with documentation: a transfer order, a divorce ruling, an insurance certificate.

Unjustified urgency, on the other hand, serves to bypass the normal process. Someone pushing to sign fast is trying to keep you from digging into their file. They’re betting on your empathy, your guilt, your fear of leaving someone “on the street” to short-circuit your judgment.

The signal: a tenant who hasn’t planned their housing ahead is either disorganized or in conflict with their previous landlord. Either way, you don’t want them. The ones who end up turning a studio into a dump are often the ones who show up “in an emergency” with no file put together.

The result: you sign in a rush, without checking the income, without asking for a guarantor, without putting together a proper file. And three months later, you understand why they were in a hurry.

The requests that should never be made

Certain requests instantly give away a problematic profile:

“Can I grab the keys to look around on my own?”

No. Never. As long as the lease isn’t signed, the keys stay with me. And even during the showing, I never leave the candidate alone in the unit.

The normal tenant never asks this. Someone who insists either wants to bring along somebody they’d rather you didn’t see (planned overcrowding), or to scope out the property for a third party, or to test whether you’re lax on the basic rules.

“Can you take down the listing now? I’ll sign next week.”

The listing comes down when the security deposit has cleared. Not before. Not on a promise. Not on a verbal commitment. As long as the money isn’t in the account, the apartment stays on the market.

“Can we negotiate the rent / the charges / the term?”

Negotiating before even visiting flips the balance of power. Someone who haggles over the price before knowing whether the place suits them isn’t looking for a home. They’re looking for an opportunity. And you are that opportunity.

The non-negotiable rules

No money, no keys. Ever.

The security deposit (equal to one or two months’ rent excluding charges, depending on the case) must have cleared before any keys change hands. Not promised. Not “transferred this morning” (a bank transfer takes 48 hours minimum). Cleared and available in my account.

The first month’s rent, prorated if moving in mid-month, is paid in full on the day the keys are handed over. Not “next week.” Not “as soon as my CAF payment comes through.” That same day, in full.

This deposit is held for the entire duration of the tenancy. It’s the clearing of that payment that triggers taking the listings down, not the signing of the lease, not the showing, not the verbal promise. As long as the money isn’t there, the apartment stays available and I keep taking applications.

This rigidity filters out a great deal. The one who says “I’ll give you all of that next week, but give me the keys now” immediately reveals that they don’t understand (or refuse to understand) the very principle of a deposit. And the one who doesn’t respect this at the start will respect nothing afterward.

The documents I require every time

The law strictly frames which documents a landlord may require from a prospective tenant. This legal framework is set by Decree no. 2015-1437 of November 5, 2015. Far from excessive formalism, this list is the legal minimum for verifying a candidate’s ability to pay.

I systematically ask for:

1. A valid photo ID: national ID card, passport, driver’s license, or residence permit. During the showing, I discreetly and courteously check that the photo matches the person present; a simple security formality, exactly as in any standard administrative identity check. Someone who refuses to show their ID, or who sends an unreadable scan “by mistake,” immediately reveals a problematic profile.
2. Proof of employment: an employment contract or an employer’s letter stating the position, the pay, the start date, and whether the tenant is on a probationary period or not. Vagueness on this point (“I’m between contracts,” “I’m starting soon”) is an immediate red flag.
3. Proof of income: the last three pay slips and the most recent or second-most-recent tax assessment. Not “I’ll send that to you later.” Not “I forgot to bring them.” These documents must be provided at the showing or immediately afterward if the showing has convinced both parties.

The one who can’t or won’t quickly provide these three basic items is generally eliminated early in the process. And the one who dithers about sending them is already setting up the future delays and dodges.

The guarantor isn’t a formality

I don’t ask for a guarantor every time, but I can require one in addition to the security deposit for certain profiles: fixed-term contract, young professional, self-employed, irregular income.

When I do ask for a guarantor, I check their solvency as rigorously as the tenant’s:

• Photo ID
• Proof of address (an electricity bill, property tax)
• Proof of employment (employment contract)
• Proof of income (last three pay slips, most recent tax assessment)

There’s no way I’ll accept “my uncle will vouch for me” without complete documentation. A guarantor who can’t or won’t provide these documents is legally worthless. It’s a name on a piece of paper, not a real guarantee.

The guarantor I require signs a joint-and-several guarantee deed (acte de cautionnement solidaire). This isn’t a simple guarantee. The difference is crucial: with a joint-and-several guarantee, I can call on the guarantor from the very first missed payment, without even trying to find out whether the tenant can pay or not. No need to prove the tenant’s insolvency. No need to exhaust remedies against them first. The moment a rent payment is missing, I call on the guarantor.

I’m generally willing to consider a Visale guarantee (the free state-backed rent guarantee), which can stand in for a personal guarantor. But never in place of the security deposit. The deposit remains mandatory, whatever the setup.

Never alone, never without a lease

As long as the lease isn’t signed, I never leave the keys with the future tenant. And I never leave them alone during the showing.

This rule seems obvious, but it filters out a great deal. The normal tenant never asks for the keys before signing. They never ask to visit alone. The one who insists on either already reveals their mindset.

During the showing, I stay present from start to finish. Not to keep watch. To answer questions, explain how the heating works, show where the meters are. But also to observe how the candidate behaves in the unit. Do they respect the place? Do they ask concrete questions, or just look around vaguely?

A good tenant asks practical questions: where the trash goes, how the water heater works, whether there’s a labeled mailbox, where the electrical panel is. A bad tenant asks no concrete questions, or else questions that reveal they aren’t planning to stay: “Is there a lot of foot traffic on the street?” “Do the neighbors complain easily?”

The profile of the good tenant

After managing hundreds of rentals, a profile takes shape. The good tenant, the one who always pays, the one who maintains the unit, the one who warns you when there’s a problem, isn’t a matter of luck. It’s a profile you can spot from the very first contact.

They introduce themselves properly

Full name, professional situation in two lines, reason for the search. Not a novel. No self-pity. Just the facts.

“Hello, my name is Jean Dupont. I’m an engineer at Thales in Grenoble, on a permanent contract for three years. I’m looking for a furnished studio for six months as part of a temporary assignment in Saint-Marcellin. Your listing matches my criteria. Would it be possible to visit this week?”

Forty seconds to read. Everything is there. Identity, professional stability, expected duration, availability. This message reveals someone who knows what they’re looking for, who respects the other person’s time, who owns the reciprocity of the exchange.

They ask concrete questions

The good tenant doesn’t only ask the price. They ask what really matters for living in a place: whether charges are included or extra, the type of heating, whether there’s a parking spot, proximity to shops, the length of the notice period.

These questions reveal someone who plans to stay, who anticipates the constraints of daily life, who wants to avoid nasty surprises. Someone who asks “Is the heating electric or gas?” knows they’ll have to pay the bills. Someone who asks “Is there a laundromat nearby?” knows they’ll have to organize their life in this neighborhood.

Conversely, the one who asks no practical questions, or who focuses only on the price, isn’t planning to live there. They’re looking for a temporary solution to a temporary problem. You’re not a home to them, you’re a stopover.

They come prepared

When we set an appointment for the showing, the good tenant arrives with a complete file: ID, proof of income, employment contract, tax assessment. Not “I’ll email it to you.” Not “I didn’t think to bring it.” They have everything, right there, on the spot.

This preparation reveals two things. First, that they take the process seriously. Putting together a complete file takes time, organization, foresight. Someone who makes that effort before even knowing whether they like the place shows they’re genuinely motivated.

Second, that they understand the logic of the transaction. They know you’ll have to verify their ability to pay, that you can’t rent to someone without guarantees, that the file is part of the normal process. They don’t experience it as an intrusion, but as a logical step.

The legality of this method

This approach rests on behavioral and documentary criteria, not on discriminatory grounds prohibited by law (origin, nationality, sex, family situation, physical appearance, surname, place of residence, health status, disability, political opinions, union activities, religion).

It’s based on the repeated observation of correlations between early signals and actual solvency, respect for the contract, and upkeep of the property. Refusing a candidate because they don’t provide proof of income, because they don’t introduce themselves, or because they propose dubious financial arrangements isn’t discrimination: it’s rational asset management.

That said, always keep a written record of your selection and rejection criteria. If a candidate refuses to provide a complete file, note it. If they offer cash with no documentation, document it. If they don’t introduce themselves properly even after a follow-up, archive the exchange. This paper trail protects you against any accusations of discrimination.

Automating the filter: the template message

To save time and filter effectively without spending all day on it, use an automatic or semi-automatic reply that sets the frame from the outset. Here’s an example:

“Hello, thank you for your interest in this property. To arrange a showing, please reply by email with a summary of your situation: type of employment contract, net monthly income, and whether or not you have a guarantor.

No application will be reviewed at a showing without these preliminary details. The complete supporting documents (last 3 pay slips, employment contract, tax assessment) must be presented at the showing.

Best regards.”

The one who doesn’t reply, or who grumbles, is eliminated automatically. This is the “effort filter”: if someone can’t write three lines summarizing their professional and financial situation, they’ll never be able to honor a twelve-month lease.

This message also filters out the profiles who have nothing to provide: no stable employment contract, no regular income, no guarantor to call on. They simply don’t reply, which spares you a pointless showing and an unpleasant confrontation.

What rejecting these rules conceals

Every time a candidate refuses one of these requirements, they reveal something. Not necessarily malicious intent. But a fundamental misunderstanding of what renting is.

The one who refuses to introduce themselves properly doesn’t understand that they’re requesting access to private property. The one who offers to pay in advance without providing a file knows their file won’t pass. The one who demands the keys before signing is testing your ability to hold your rules. The one who negotiates before visiting flips the balance of power.

And the one who racks up several of these signals (no introduction, unjustified urgency, an offer of cash, refusal of direct contact, an incomplete file) isn’t looking for a home. They’re looking for a flaw in your system. The initial failings foreshadow the future behaviors.

Conclusion: up-front screening as the only real protection

Insurance doesn’t cover unpaid rent. The courts settle nothing in under a year. Eviction proceedings are suspended six months a year. The CAF never reimburses damage. And even when you win in court, the bailiff can’t seize anything from someone who has nothing.

Faced with a system that protects landlords poorly, the only effective line of defense is up-front screening. Not by intuition. Not by discrimination. By methodically reading the signals the candidate sends from the very first contact.

Reciprocity refused at the start foreshadows the future imbalance. The process bypassed at the application stage heralds the bypasses to come. Early signals don’t lie.

After hundreds of rentals, I’ve understood one simple thing: the tenant who always pays is the one who invested three minutes in introducing themselves properly at the first contact. The three minutes at the start are worth the three years that follow.

Postscript: This screening method responds to a specific context. Regulatory standards keep multiplying while rents can’t keep pace, making furnished rentals harder and harder to turn a profit on. Meanwhile, administrative recourse remains inadequate when problematic situations arise. In this context, rigor up front isn’t excessive formalism: it’s an asset-protection necessity.