• andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The only thing I would change is that the landlord is allowed to ONLY charge their exact cost. But otherwise yeah this is a good idea (having your rental payments show or affect your credit score).

    • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Monthly cost or $10, whichever is less, is better. It means the landlord is incentivized to keep costs down. Even if it costs the landlord $50, they can only charge the tenant $10. If it costs them $5, they can only charge the tenant $5. It’s a ceiling on the cost.

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

        This is a cost to have your rent showing up on the credit report, correct?

        How would the landlord have any control over what they charge?

        • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I assume the landlord uses a service to share rent with the credit report agencies. The landlord can shop around for a cheaper service, or use their cousin who charges $50/tenant but gives the landlord a kickback.

          • andrewta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I think assumptions in this case is a bad idea.

            If the landlord has a realistic way to control the price then that’s one thing but I would want to see how they control that price. Or if they even have any say in it. If the landlord has no say then the landlord should charge exactly their cost.