0
Did they look at the historical credit rating of people with these vouchers. People that are bad with money are bad with money no matter how much they have or the source. That's why all these lottery winners go broke. Did they consider that truth in the case?
The case didn't try to prove whether voucher holders are 'bad with money' — it argued that credit scores measure credit repayment, not rent payment, and the settlement effectively agreed that for voucher applicants that score is not a valid basis to deny housing.
Why it matters: That principle is why SafeRent must now stop scoring Massachusetts voucher applicants on credit history for five years.
- SafeRent's score relied 'in significant part' on credit score and credit history, including non-tenancy debts, but did not consider that the housing authority would pay 73% of Louis's rent.
- Class counsel the National Consumer Law Center said credit scores 'draw on information that has only been tested at predicting repayment of credit obligations' and 'there is no evidence such data is predictive of tenants paying rent.'
- The U.S. Justice Department and HUD filed a statement of interest backing that view, and the court denied SafeRent's motion to dismiss, allowing the Fair Housing Act claim to proceed.
- Under the approved settlement, SafeRent cannot include a score or accept/decline recommendation for voucher applicants in its Affordable Model for five years unless a new score is independently validated by the National Fair Housing Alliance or a similar body.
Room for disagreement
- SafeRent admitted no wrongdoing and settled without a judicial finding of discrimination; the tenant-screening industry still defends credit-based scores as legitimate risk tools, while plaintiffs, DOJ, and HUD argue those scores have never been validated for predicting rent payment.
AI-generated with web search — may be wrong. Check the linked sources.
