Tenant screening : What the showing really reveals

Monday 20 April 2026.

The first contact filters out 90% of problematic profiles. Anyone who doesn’t introduce themselves properly, who refuses to provide a complete application, or who offers cash with no supporting documents is eliminated before the showing even happens. But the remaining 10%, the ones who made it past the first filter, require observation during the showing itself.

The showing isn’t an administrative formality. It’s a behavioral check that lets you observe how the candidate acts in a space that isn’t yet theirs, how they respect simple rules, how they react to the instructions they’re given.

These observations aren’t a matter of intuition or arbitrary judgment. They’re empirical correlation seen across hundreds of rentals: certain behaviors during the showing statistically predict behaviors during the lease.

Punctuality: the first test of respect for the ground rules

Showing up late without warning is the simplest and most reliable red flag.

Fifteen minutes late with no prior call or text reveals a lack of respect for the ground rules at the very first meeting. If someone can’t let you know they’re running late for a showing they requested themselves, they’ll probably never tell you about problems in the unit either.

Anyone can run late. What’s telling is the absence of courtesy. Someone who calls ten minutes ahead to say “I’m so sorry, I’m stuck in traffic, I’ll be there in twenty minutes” is showing respect. Someone who turns up twenty-five minutes late and just says “Sorry, traffic was bad” with no heads-up is showing that they don’t consider your time to be worth anything.

Observed correlation: in my experience across several hundred rentals, tenants who show up late to the showing without warning very frequently pay their rent late. This isn’t intuition, it’s a behavioral constant.

The victim complex: how they talk about their past

The way the candidate talks about their former landlord or their previous home reveals their ability to acknowledge their own share of responsibility.

Red flags:

“My old landlord was crazy, he’d just show up unannounced”
“He refused to give back my deposit for no reason”
“The court ruled in his favor but it was unfair”
“All my previous landlords had issues”

If everyone is out to get them, they’re usually the common denominator in the problems. The pattern of systematically playing the victim reveals an inability to acknowledge their own responsibility in conflict situations.

By contrast, the good profile will simply say: “I’m looking for something closer to work,” or “My lease is ending,” or “The apartment is too small now.” Factual, no scores to settle, no drama.

The difference: the good tenant explains their situation, the bad one looks for someone to blame.

The questions they ask (or don’t ask)

The kind of questions asked during the showing reveals whether the candidate is picturing themselves there for the long haul or just looking for a temporary fix.

Concrete questions = picturing the long term:

“Are utilities included or extra?”
“Is the heating electric or gas?” (anticipating the bills)
“How long is the notice period?”
“Is there a basement or storage space?”
“Where are the meters?” “How does the heating work?”

These questions show someone who’s anticipating daily life, thinking about recurring costs, wanting to understand their obligations.

No practical questions = red flag

Someone who tours a place without asking a single concrete question about how it works isn’t picturing daily life there. They’re looking for a temporary fix, not a stable home.

Toxic questions:

“Do the neighbors complain easily?” (anticipating they’ll make noise)
“Do you come by to check often?” (wants to know if they’ll be left alone)
“Can I do small renovations without asking?” (already planning changes)

These questions reveal someone who’s anticipating future conflicts and mapping out your weak spots before they’ve even signed.

The impossible negotiator

Someone who starts negotiating the rent before providing any proof of income reveals an early power play.

Typical phrasings:

“The rent is €450 but €380 would be fairer given the neighborhood”
“Could you include utilities?”
“If I sign for two years, will you give me a discount?”

Negotiating before even demonstrating their ability to pay flips the balance of power. A landlord who gives in on the rent amount at the showing will give in on everything else during the lease.

When negotiation is acceptable: after presenting a solid application (a permanent employment contract, stable income, a guarantor), after demonstrating they’re serious, and with something tangible in return (a long-term commitment, quarterly payment).

Never before. Never without proof. Never without something in return.

Premature ownership: respect for the space

Watching how the candidate behaves in a space that isn’t yet theirs reveals how they respect boundaries.

Signs of excessive ownership:

Sits down without being invited to
Opens cabinets without asking
Sets their things down as if already moved in
Touches everything, moves objects around

This lack of distance shows they don’t see your property as something entrusted to them, but as a space they’re already entitled to.

The good profile waits to be invited to sit, asks before touching (“May I open this cabinet to see the storage?”), and keeps a respectful distance.

Documentary consistency

The showing is a chance to quickly check the consistency between the application provided and the person in front of you.

Simple checks:

Does the photo on the ID match the person present?
Is the name on the employment contract identical to the one on the ID?
Does the address they’ve given match the one on the pay stubs?
Does the employer they mention actually exist? (a quick search)

Disqualifying inconsistencies:

Documents that are obviously falsified
An inability to explain factual inconsistencies
A professional profile that totally contradicts the application

Someone who lies on their application before signing will lie about everything during the lease.

The unannounced companions

If they show up as a party of three when renting a studio solo, or bring an animal without having asked permission, they’re testing your limits before they even have the keys.

The good profile always asks: “Can I bring my partner along?” or “I have a cat, is that a problem?” They request permission, they don’t present a done deal.

The surprise companion often foreshadows future undeclared subletting. The animal “just for the showing” will become the permanent animal, even though the lease specifies “not allowed.”

A personal observation grid

Here’s a scoring system I personally use to synthesize my observations. It isn’t an official grid, it’s an indicative tool based on my experience.

Assigning warning points:

Unannounced lateness: 2 points
Systematically playing the victim about past tenancies: 2 points
No practical questions asked: 1 point
Toxic questions (neighbors, oversight): 1 point
Negotiating without a solid application: 2 points
Excessive ownership of the space: 2 points
Unannounced companions: 1 point
Documentary inconsistency: 3 points (disqualifying)

My personal interpretation:

3 points or more: likely rejection
2 points: gray area, needs a closer look
0-1 point: acceptable profile, move to application review

This scoring isn’t scientific, it’s a way of systematizing experience. A candidate at 2 points can turn into an excellent tenant if their application is flawless. A candidate at 4-5 points probably never will, no matter how good their application.

This grid is just a personal memory aid. It never replaces an overall analysis of the application, which remains the main basis for the decision.

The legality of this method

This approach rests on observing objective behavioral criteria: punctuality, the questions asked, respect for the instructions given, documentary consistency. All of these are observable behaviors that are legal to take into account.

What is illegal: refusing on the basis of origin, nationality, sex, family situation, physical appearance, surname, place of residence, health status, disability, political opinions, union activities, or religion.

Observing that a candidate shows up late without warning, negotiates without documentation, or takes over your space without permission are objective facts that reveal behavior, not a judgment about the person.

Recommended record-keeping: after each showing, write down your factual observations. In case of a dispute: “Refused due to: 20 minutes late with no notice, rent negotiation without proof of income, mismatch between the declared address and the pay stubs.”

Facts. Not opinions. Behaviors that are observable and documentable.

Conclusion

The showing finalizes the selection. The first contact eliminates 90%, the showing eliminates roughly another 9%. The remaining 1%, the ones who pass every filter, statistically have far better odds of being a reliable tenant.

These observations aren’t arbitrary judgment. They’re empirical correlation: the candidate who shows up late without warning often pays their rent late, the one who negotiates without documentation will contest every rule in the lease, the one who takes over the space before signing won’t respect boundaries afterward.

In thirty minutes, the showing reveals behavioral patterns that will persist for years. Once you’ve handed over the keys, it’s too late. The showing is your last chance to observe before you decide. Use it methodically.

Postscript: If you’re a tenant and you recognize yourself in the positive profiles described here (punctual, courteous, prepared, respectful of other people’s space), know that you’re a rare commodity. Serious landlords are desperately looking for tenants like you. A complete application, a polished presentation, and respectful behavior at the showing will open far more doors for you than any haggling over the rent.