Screening a tenant from abroad: file, guarantor, delegated viewings

Screening a tenant from abroad comes down to four moves: objective criteria written down before the first application, a complete file required from everyone, a delegated viewing with a written report, and a documented decision. Neither the guarantor nor the video call is decreed at the end of the journey: they belong to the method from the outset. The lease itself is concluded between the owner and the tenant, and its follow-up can be handed to a partner property manager. This guide complements the pillar guide to letting your property from abroad.

On which criteria can you select a tenant?

The lawful criteria can be counted on one hand: solvency, income sufficient and regular for the rent; stability, an employment contract or an established activity; completeness of the file; the quality of the guarantor where there is one. These criteria apply identically to every applicant, and it is this equal treatment that protects the landlord.

For the other side is legal: selecting on origin, nationality, name, appearance, family situation or an assumed disability amounts to prohibited and sanctioned discrimination. From abroad, the temptation of a quick shortlist based on the names received is real, and it is also the riskiest. The remedy is one practice: write your screening grid before publishing the listing, and fill it in for every applicant, without exception.

A simple test validates each criterion: is it tied to the applicant’s ability to pay the rent and to occupy the home over time? If yes, it belongs in the grid. If not, it goes. This filter protects twice: it keeps out prohibited criteria, and it stops the grid drifting towards personal preferences that say nothing about the actual risk. And a grid is only worth what is filled in: the boxes ticked, the notes taken and the dated documents form, laid end to end, the memory of your decision.

What must the application file contain?

The list of documents that may be required is regulated: beyond it, the applicant may refuse to produce. Here is the backbone of a complete file:

• The valid identity document.
• The applicant’s proof of address.
• Proof of income: latest payslips or proof of activity, latest tax notice.
• The employment contract or the promise of hire.
• The latest rent receipt when the applicant has previously rented.
• The guarantor’s file, where applicable, with the same supporting documents.

Two pitfalls mirror each other: requiring more than the law allows, and you expose yourself to a legitimate refusal by the applicant; requiring less, and you deprive your insurer of documents that sometimes condition its cover. If in doubt about a document, ask the insurer before signing, not after. And if the listing runs on the listing platforms, restate the list of documents there: it filters out unprepared applications on its own.

The examination of the documents is itself a matter of method: coherence between the papers, matching names and addresses, income regular from one month to the next, employment contract in force. A file that looks too good, papers perfect yet inconsistent with one another, deserves as much attention as a modest but homogeneous file: vigilance applies to the whole, never to an isolated document.

How do you show the property from abroad?

The viewing is the moment you cannot embody at a distance: someone must open the door. The most efficient organisation groups applicants into a few slots held by the same person, a mandated relative or a trusted third party, who applies the same frame to every viewing: welcome, tour of the property, the applicant’s questions noted, points of vigilance recorded.

This standardised report is then worth exactly what your presence would be: it is the model of the control visit with a photo report, a reliable person travels, observes, documents and reports back to you in writing. Each report is compared with the others: attendance across the slots, applicants’ profiles, recurring questions, signals to explore on a video call. The delegated viewing thus feeds the decision instead of replacing it.

The communication calendar is likewise set from abroad: announce your available slots allowing for the time difference on follow-up exchanges, and set a decision deadline communicated to every applicant. This frame avoids the wear of scattered exchanges and gives every application the same treatment, including in the time devoted to it.

Is a video call with the applicant of any use?

Yes, for three things. Checking the coherence of the project, first: who will occupy the home, for how long, in what professional or family context. Answering legitimate questions, next, about the condition of the property, planned works, the neighbourhood, practical arrangements: a well-informed applicant is a solid future tenant. Gauging seriousness, last: punctuality at the appointment, clarity of answers, documents promised and actually sent.

A few questions serve every interview: who will occupy the home and for how long? Are the income figures backed by the documents produced? Has the prospective guarantor been informed, and is their file ready? Have the questions raised during the viewings found an answer? They measure the coherence of the project without ever touching prohibited criteria.

Two framing rules are enough: the same questions prepared for everyone, and a written report after each interview. The video call completes the file, it never replaces it: a flattering interview without supporting documents remains an interview without proof.

How do you decide at a distance and prove it?

The table below sums up each screening step, what it verifies and the evidence it leaves:

Screening step	What is checked	Evidence kept
File shortlisting	Solvency, stability, completeness	File documents, dated on receipt
Video interview	Coherence of the project, seriousness	Written report, standardised questions
Delegated viewing	Manner at the viewing, questions asked	Viewing report per applicant
Guarantor review	Third party’s solvency and commitment	Guarantor’s file and written undertaking
Final decision	Grid applied to every applicant	Completed grid and decision letter

The decision itself rests on the grid, not on the impression: the chosen applicant is the one who best meets the criteria written at the start. This discipline has an unsung virtue: should a claim of discrimination arise, it is the completed grid, identical for all, that will demonstrate the reality of your method. Deciding at a distance is proven the way managing at a distance is: in writing.

Once the applicant is chosen, the sequence follows: a lease concluded between you and them, through distance-friendly arrangements or via a proxy, a documented check-in inventory, safety nets activated in time. Handing the follow-up to a partner property manager, for receipts, reminders and inventories, is decided on the same day as the selection: the file is warm, the documents are gathered, the mandate is signed in the wake of it. Between the decision and the move-in, the property often deserves a targeted refresh, the subject of the neighbouring article getting the property ready between two tenants. For all letting topics, also browse the Letting & returns category of the journal.

Every property, every market, every application has its singularities, and choosing from another time zone deserves method all the more. The personal study offered by French Realty lets you set your grid and your relays with your dedicated contact, before even publishing the listing.