In Washington, written rental screening criteria are effectively mandatory. Under RCW 59.18.257, before you access any information about an applicant, you must give written notice of what information will be checked, what criteria may result in denial, the consumer reporting agency you use, and whether you accept comprehensive reusable screening reports. Without that notice you cannot charge a screening fee at all, and you face liability. Strong, written, consistently applied criteria protect owners; vague or unwritten standards create risk.
Washington law treats screening criteria as a required disclosure, not an internal checklist. RCW 59.18.257 says that prior to obtaining any information about a prospective tenant, you must first notify them in writing, or by posting, of four things:
The enforcement mechanism is simple. You may only charge a screening fee, whether for a screening service or your own actual costs, if you provided the notice first. Violations also carry liability of up to $100 plus court costs and attorney fees, and the statute requires a written adverse action notice in a specific format whenever you deny or conditionally approve an applicant.
The question is not whether to have written criteria. It is whether yours are well built. This post covers the criteria themselves; for the full process from application to move-in, see our pillar guide to tenant screening in Washington State.
Good criteria are objective, measurable, and tied to one question: can this applicant pay rent on time and care for the property? Here is how each category should be built.
Most criteria set a minimum ratio of gross monthly income to rent. Washington adds a critical rule: source of income is a protected class statewide under RCW 59.18.255. You cannot refuse an applicant because their income includes a housing voucher, Social Security, or other benefits, and advertising "No Section 8" is illegal.
The statute also changes the math. When an applicant has a voucher or subsidy, you must subtract the subsidy amount from the monthly rent first, then apply your income ratio only to the portion of rent the tenant actually pays. Applying the ratio to the full rent is a violation, and the penalty is steep: up to 4.5 times the monthly rent plus court costs and fees.
Frame credit as a minimum standard plus specific denial conditions, not a vague "good credit required." For example, criteria might state a minimum score, then list the specific conditions that can cause denial or conditional approval, such as unpaid balances owed to a prior landlord or utility, or active collection accounts above a stated threshold.
Specific conditions matter because Washington's adverse action notice requires you to state reasons. "Credit report did not meet posted criteria" is defensible when the criteria are posted and precise. If you want a refresher on what actually drives a score, see our guide to everything you need to know about your credit score.
State what you verify and what disqualifies. Common elements include a stated number of years of verifiable rental history or a qualified alternative, references from prior landlords, and disqualifiers such as an unpaid balance owed to a previous landlord or a documented pattern of late payments. Define how you treat applicants with no rental history, such as first-time renters, so the gap does not become an improvised judgment call.
Handle this category carefully. Screening reports do not always tell the whole story, court records can be incomplete or resolved in the tenant's favor, and the rules around how eviction records may be reported and considered continue to evolve. Keep the written standard general and factual, apply it uniformly, and verify the current state of the law before adopting any hard look-back rule. When an eviction record does surface, confirm the actual outcome rather than relying on a filing alone; a filing and a judgment are very different things.
This is the category where location matters most.
If your criteria address pets, remember that service animals and emotional support animals are not pets under fair housing law. They cannot be denied under a no-pets policy, and you may not charge pet deposits, pet rent, or pet fees for them.
Seattle's First-in-Time ordinance (SMC 14.08) requires landlords to offer the rental agreement to the first qualified applicant who submits a complete application. That makes your written criteria the entire decision. Per the City of Seattle, landlords must:
Under first-in-time there is no "choosing the best applicant." There is only "does this applicant meet the published criteria." If your criteria are vague, you have no lawful basis to pass over anyone; if they are precise, the process runs itself.
Written criteria that you do not follow are more dangerous than having none at all. In a discrimination complaint, your own document becomes the benchmark.
If you waived the income ratio for one applicant and enforced it against another, the difference in treatment is documented in your files, and you will be asked to explain what distinguished the two applicants other than a protected characteristic.
Consistency means the same criteria, the same documents, the same verification steps, and the same thresholds for every applicant on a given property, from the first inquiry to the adverse action notice. It is the single habit that separates defensible screening from risky screening, and it is the core of tenant screening best practices.
Every owner eventually meets an applicant who almost qualifies. The lawful answer is not a one-off exception; it is criteria that already define conditional approval paths in advance.
Washington's adverse action notice format anticipates exactly this. The statutory form includes approval with conditions such as an increased deposit, a qualified guarantor, last month's rent, or an increased monthly rent. Your criteria can mirror those paths: for example, an applicant who falls short of the income ratio but meets every other standard may qualify with a guarantor who meets a stated standard.
Two cautions:
The thresholds below are illustrative examples of standards commonly seen in the market, not Sagareus standards and not recommendations for your property. Set your own numbers with advice appropriate to your situation, then apply them uniformly.
Set the criteria up front, then apply them identically to every single applicant. Consistency is the whole game. The fastest way to a Fair Housing complaint, or a non-paying resident, is making an exception on a gut feeling. Here is how we keep it disciplined:
We screen under the Fair Housing Act, Washington law, and local ordinances, including source-of-income and fair-chance rules. Lawful income like a housing voucher is counted, never penalized.
You get a real, repeatable system, not a hunch. That is what protects your home and your residents.
Not for the same vacancy. Changing standards mid-stream is the textbook fact pattern in a discrimination claim, and in Seattle it also breaks the first-in-time process, since criteria must be published in advance and applied in order. Revise criteria between tenancies, before the listing goes live, not between applicants.
Yes. RCW 59.18.257 applies to a landlord screening one applicant for one unit, the same as a large operator. Without the written pre-screening notice you cannot charge a screening fee, and you lose the documentation that protects you if a denied applicant later claims discrimination.
You forfeit the right to charge any screening fee for that applicant, including your own actual costs, and you can be liable for up to $100 plus court costs and reasonable attorney fees. The larger cost is practical: a denial issued without posted criteria and a compliant adverse action notice is far harder to defend.
Source of income is protected statewide, so criteria cannot exclude voucher holders or subsidy recipients, and income ratios must be applied to the tenant's share of rent after subtracting the subsidy. Penalties run up to 4.5 times the monthly rent plus costs and fees.
This article is general information for Washington rental owners, not legal advice. For decisions about a specific applicant or property, consult a qualified attorney.
Related Sagareus Services: