Tenant references get treated like a formality. You call, you ask if you’d rent to them again, someone says yes, and you move on. But if you’ve ever ended up with the wrong tenant in your property, you already know that a “yes” on a reference call isn’t worth much without context. The whole reference check process is one of the most misunderstood parts of tenant screening for rental property owners — and mishandling it is one of the fastest ways to turn a profitable rental into a money pit.
We manage around 190 properties across Central Indiana, and we’ve been doing this for 16 years. What we’ve learned is that a reference call isn’t really about getting a recommendation. It’s about finding the gaps in the story the application is already telling you.
“$3,000–$8,000+ | cost of a bad placement”
In This Guide
The Reference Call Tells You Less Than You Think
Let’s be real: most landlords giving a reference have one goal. They want the tenant out — cleanly, without drama. So when a current landlord is enthusiastic, responsive, and volunteering information unprompted, ask yourself why they’re working so hard to help this tenant move on.
The most useful references almost always come from *prior* landlords. Not current ones who may still be waiting on the lease to end and have every reason to paint a rosy picture.
We see this play out constantly. One owner we work with shared that before partnering with us, they approved a tenant based on a glowing verbal reference from a current landlord. Within a few months, they discovered the tenant had been chronically late on rent at the previous property — a detail the reference conveniently left out. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a landlord offloading a problem.
Why Checking References Last Is Backwards
Most landlords treat reference checks as the final step before approval. By the time the call happens, they’ve already mentally committed to the applicant. That mental commitment causes people to interpret vague or lukewarm answers charitably, to fill in gaps with optimism.
The smarter move is to treat reference data as a parallel filter, running alongside income verification and background checks — not after them. A weak reference should actually change the outcome of a screening decision, not get explained away after the fact.
That’s a core reason we use Findigs to verify rental history, income, and identity before anyone picks up a phone. When Anne, our leasing agent, reviews an application, she’s not starting from zero on a reference call. She’s cross-checking the reference against data the applicant has already provided. Inconsistencies show up fast.
Using reference data as a final rubber stamp means you’ve already made up your mind. Use it as a filter earlier, alongside income and background checks, and it actually changes outcomes.
What a Glowing Reference Actually Signals
Here’s a contrarian take worth sitting with: a suspiciously enthusiastic reference should raise your antenna, not lower your guard.
If a landlord is vague but polite, that can mean almost anything. But if they’re over-the-top helpful and eager? Start asking sharper questions. Specifically:
- How long was the tenancy, and did they give proper notice before leaving?
- Were rent payments consistently on time, or just mostly on time?
- How did they handle maintenance requests — did they report issues promptly?
- Was there any damage beyond normal wear and tear?
- Would you rent to them again, and if so, under what conditions?
Notice that last question has a follow-up built in. “Would you rent to them again” by itself is nearly useless. The conditions matter. We’ve heard owners describe cases where a landlord said yes, then casually added they’d only do it if the security deposit was higher. That’s a no, dressed up as a yes.
The Fake Landlord Problem Is Real
One anecdote we come back to often — an owner transferred a property into our portfolio after a rough stretch managing it themselves on the Far Eastside. Their previous tenant had given a reference from what turned out to be a family member posing as a former landlord.
The tenant fell behind on rent within 60 days. The owner spent close to three months navigating Indiana’s eviction process with help from Cleveland Lehner Cassidy Attorneys At Law before they got possession back. Indiana eviction proceedings can vary considerably in length, but straightforward cases often resolve within a matter of weeks from filing to possession—though contested or complex cases may take considerably longer., so one bad tenant can mean two or more months of unpaid rent before a legal resolution even starts.
Verifying that a reference is who they claim to be matters. Pull the property address they claim to have managed. Look it up. Confirm the ownership. A five-minute check can eliminate a $5,000 problem.
Indiana has no statewide rent control, which means landlords absorb every dollar of loss from a bad placement — lost rent, legal fees, and turnover costs — with no regulatory ceiling. The math on a single bad tenant placement runs $3,000 to $8,000 or more when all costs are counted.
Pets, References, and the Hidden Damage Gap
Pet screening is its own category, and it’s one where vague references create real financial exposure. A previous landlord who fails to mention pet damage — whether out of laziness or to avoid a difficult conversation with a tenant they want gone — can leave the next owner absorbing the cost.
We had an owner who self-managed a single-family home in Greenwood and accepted a tenant based on a glowing verbal reference from a friend of the applicant. Not a prior landlord. A friend. Within four months, two unauthorized dogs were living in the property. By the time the situation was resolved, the owner was looking at over $1,200 in carpet replacement and odor treatment through Stanley Steemer before the next tenant could move in.
That’s not a worst-case scenario. Flooring and odor remediation costs can run $500 to $2,000 or more depending on the unit. Findigs, combined with required third-party pet screening for all applicants with pets, helps catch the gaps that a polite reference call tends to skip over.
How Structured Questions Change What You Hear
We’ve talked to first-time landlords who felt uncomfortable asking direct questions during a reference call and ended up asking only one thing — “would you rent to them again?” The yes they received didn’t reveal that the tenant paid late most months, generated repeated noise complaints, and left the unit needing professional cleaning.
Structured reference questions eliminate that ambiguity. Instead of open-ended calls, you’re asking specific, consistent questions that produce answers you can actually compare. A few worth adding to your process:
- Payment history: Were payments on time every month, or were there late payments during the tenancy?
- Property condition: Did the tenant maintain the unit, and was there any damage at move-out beyond normal wear?
- Neighbor and noise issues: Were there any complaints from neighbors or other tenants during their stay?
- Early termination: Did they fulfill the lease term, and did they give appropriate notice before leaving?
- Honest close: Is there anything about this tenant I should know that you haven’t mentioned?
That last question matters. It gives a reluctant reference an opening to tell you something they wouldn’t volunteer on their own.
Fair Housing Still Applies to Reference Checks
One thing that doesn’t come up enough in conversations about reference checking — Indiana landlords are generally expected to follow fair housing principles throughout the tenant screening process, including applying consistent, non-discriminatory criteria when evaluating references and other applicant information.. Using reference data inconsistently across applicants can create legal exposure under the Fair Housing Act.
If you disqualify one applicant for a late payment history surfaced in a reference call but approve another with a similar issue, you need a documented, consistent reason for that decision. This is one reason why structured, documented screening through a platform like Findigs matters — not just for accuracy, but for legal defensibility.
One long-term client we work with had approved a tenant based on a single phone reference, without verifying landlord identity or property ownership. That tenant later filed a habitability complaint mid-lease after being confronted about late payments, turning a reference gap into a months-long legal issue. A more structured process from the start would have caught the inconsistencies early.
What to Do When the Reference Raises a Red Flag
Say a reference gives you a lukewarm answer, or the details don’t match what the applicant listed on their application. What then?
A few practical steps:
- Cross-check the rental history. Does the landlord they listed actually own or manage the property the applicant claims they lived at? Property records are public.
- Compare against verified data. If your screening platform has already confirmed rental history, does the reference account match? Contradictions are a red flag worth taking seriously.
- Ask a follow-up call. Give the reference a chance to clarify before making a judgment. Sometimes a vague answer is just a busy landlord who didn’t expect the call.
- Document everything. Whatever you learn, write it down. If your decision is ever challenged, you’ll want a clear record of what you knew and how you weighed it.
We’ve seen re-listing cycles in the Indianapolis market run 30 to 45 days of lost rent when a bad placement has to be unwound quickly. With a consistent vacancy rate around 7.0% across our portfolio, the screening process is a big part of how we keep that number stable.
FAQ
How do you verify that a landlord reference is actually the property owner?
Pull the property address from the application and run a quick public records search to confirm who owns or manages it. If the name doesn’t match who you’re talking to, ask for clarification before you accept the reference as valid. It takes five minutes and can prevent a significant headache.
What if a previous landlord refuses to give a reference or won’t return calls?
A landlord who won’t respond to a reference request is itself a piece of information. It doesn’t automatically disqualify an applicant, but it’s a gap in the story. Use your other screening data — income verification, credit, rental history through a platform like Findigs — to assess whether that gap is acceptable given the full picture.
Can I use reference information to deny an applicant without getting into fair housing trouble?
You can deny based on reference information as long as you apply your criteria consistently across all applicants and document the reasoning. The risk comes when reference data is weighted differently for different applicants without a clear, documented, non-discriminatory rationale. A structured screening process with written criteria protects you here.
How many landlord references should I ask for?
Two prior landlords is generally a reasonable floor. Current landlords are useful but less reliable for the reasons covered above. If an applicant can’t provide two prior landlord references — and doesn’t have a valid explanation like being a first-time renter — that’s worth noting as part of your overall assessment.
Is there anything in Indiana law that affects how I collect or use reference information during screening?
Indiana landlord-tenant law doesn’t specifically regulate reference calls, but fair housing law applies at both the state and federal level. Your screening criteria, including how you interpret reference data, need to be consistent and documented. Working with a property management team that uses standardized processes is one of the most straightforward ways to stay on the right side of that line.
We’ve been thinking about hiring a property manager — does EVERGROW handle tenant references as part of their screening?
We do. Our screening process runs applicants through Findigs for income, identity, and rental history verification, combined with structured reference checks and third-party pet screening where applicable. If managing tenant references on your own feels harder than it should, we’re open to a conversation about how we work.
