Free Maine Application Screening Fee Receipt

Maine belongs to a small group of states that answered the application-fee question by removing the fee rather than pricing it. Under 14 M.R.S. § 6030-H a landlord may not charge an application fee, and because it is a prohibition rather than a ceiling there is no compliant version of it at a lower number. What the section preserves is the landlord’s ability to recover the cost of actually screening the applicant: one screening check, charged at what it actually cost, with a copy of that check given to the applicant, and no more than one such charge for the same applicant in any twelve-month period. Those four elements are the whole of the permitted charge, and each of them is a condition rather than a suggestion. In practice the rule reshapes the front end of a Maine vacancy more than the numbers suggest. A landlord who has been charging a flat application fee has to stop, and then decide whether to recover the screening cost at all — because recovering it means producing an invoice-backed figure, delivering the report copy, and keeping a record good enough to answer the question of whether this applicant has already been charged inside the last year. A landlord operating several buildings has to answer that last question across the portfolio, not per property, because the limit follows the applicant. None of that is difficult, but it is different work from writing a number on an application form, and it is the work the statute actually requires. This page describes what the verified rule establishes and is deliberately explicit about where it stops — it does not state a penalty, a refund trigger or a delivery deadline, because the summarized rule does not establish any of those.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a dated PDF you can print, sign and give to the applicant, keeping a copy for your file. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields you leave blank print as a dash so you can complete them by hand.

Watch: Maine Rental Application Fee Receipt explained

▶ Watch overview

The generator above produces a plain record of a Maine screening charge: the parties and the unit, the amount charged with its date and method, what the screening actually cost with its vendor invoice reference, the screening company used, and the outcome. Two duties it does not capture for you, and they are the two that decide whether the charge was lawful: the date and manner in which you gave the applicant their copy of the screening check, and the running twelve-month history that determines whether this applicant may be charged at all. Both need a record of their own. Maine prescribes no form for any of this, so what the generator produces is a landlord’s own record and is not captioned as a statutory form. Deliberately, it prints no permitted-fee figure and no cap: there is no lawful application fee in Maine, and the permitted screening charge is whatever the check actually cost you, which is a number only your invoice can supply. It likewise prints no penalty language and no refund promise, because the verified rule establishes neither. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields left blank print as a dash.

• That no application fee was charged. The section prohibits it outright, so the first thing your paperwork should demonstrate is its absence.
• The actual cost of the screening check. The vendor invoice, or a documented per-check cost under a subscription, is what turns your charge into a permitted one.
• That the amount charged did not exceed that cost. Actual cost is a ceiling, so the two figures on your record should match.
• Which screening check the charge paid for. Name the vendor and the product; a charge that cannot be tied to a specific check is hard to defend as a screening cost.
• That the applicant was given a copy of the screening check. Given, not offered — with the date and the method by which it went out.
• The date that started this applicant’s twelve-month period. The limit runs from a charge, so the date of the charge is the fact you need.
• A portfolio-wide search by applicant, not by property. The limit follows the person across every unit you manage, so a per-vacancy file cannot answer it.
• That the charge was made once, not once per unit applied for. An applicant considering two of your units inside the window is still one applicant.
• Your adverse-action record where a screening report drove a rejection. Federal consumer-report law applies alongside § 6030-H and was not researched from primary sources for this page.
• A note of any local rule you are also meeting. Municipal ordinances were not researched for this page, and Portland regulates rental housing under its own scheme.

• Treating § 6030-H as a cap and charging a smaller application fee. It is a prohibition. There is no compliant application fee in Maine at any amount, so trimming the number solves nothing.
• Renaming the fee an administrative or processing charge. The classification follows what the money pays for, not the label on the line. A charge for handling the application is the banned charge under another name.
• Bundling the screening cost with an administrative amount. A single charge that includes prohibited money is not a permitted screening charge with a minor defect in it — keep the screening cost clean and separate.
• Rounding the screening charge up. Actual cost means the figure the check cost you. The rounded-up portion is money the section does not permit you to take.
• Adding your own time to the screening cost. Reviewing the report is your overhead. The permitted recovery is the cost of the check itself.
• Making the copy of the screening check available on request. The duty is to give it. An applicant who has to ask has not been given it.
• Charging a returning applicant again inside twelve months. The limit attaches to the applicant, so someone you screened eight months ago is screened at your cost this time.
• Charging once per unit when one person applies for two. The applicant is the unit of measurement, not the vacancy, so a second application inside the window is not a second chargeable screening.
• Filing screening records per property. A per-vacancy file cannot tell you whether this applicant was charged at another of your buildings, which is precisely the question the twelve-month limit asks.
• Relying on Maine guidance written before the section was enacted. § 6030-H was added by PL 2023 c. 346, so any template that discusses a reasonable Maine application fee predates the rule that now governs.

No. Under 14 M.R.S. § 6030-H the rental application fee is prohibited. This is the single most important thing to understand about the Maine rule, and it is the point most often reported wrongly, because the great majority of state application-fee rules are ceilings. Maine’s is not a ceiling. It does not tell a landlord how much may be charged for taking and considering an application; it removes the charge.

One qualifier belongs with that answer, because it limits what the ban reaches. § 6030-H bans the fee on an application to enter into an agreement for rental of a dwelling unit, and § 6030-H(1) does not define that term itself — it imports it, providing that “dwelling unit” has the same meaning as in § 6021, subsection 1. There the term covers mobile homes, apartments, buildings or other structures, including the common areas of them, “which are rented for human habitation”. So this is a residential rule: it is the letting for human habitation that the prohibition reaches, and a commercial letting is not within it. That is a qualifier on the ban, not a doubt about it — on a residential letting the prohibition is unqualified, and chapter 710 contains no list of excluded arrangements to work through.

The practical consequence is that there is no compliant version of an application fee in Maine at a lower figure. A landlord who was charging a substantial fee and reduces it to a token amount has not moved from unlawful to lawful. A landlord who charges nothing but keeps a fee line on the application form is advertising a charge it may not lawfully make, which invites the very payment the section forbids — though whether publishing it is itself a breach is not something the verified rule addresses. The practical response to the section is deletion rather than adjustment.

What the section preserves is different in kind from a fee. A landlord may recover the cost of actually screening the applicant — one screening check, charged at what it actually cost, with a copy given to the applicant, and no more than one such charge per applicant in any twelve-month period. That is a cost recovery with conditions attached, not a fee with a price on it, and the distinction runs through everything below.

One screening check, at actual cost. Each of those words is doing work.

One. The permitted charge is for a screening check, singular, on that applicant. It is not an allowance covering however many enquiries you choose to run, and it is not a per-report charge that scales with how thoroughly you decide to look.

Screening check. The money has to be paying for the check. A charge that pays for your handling of the application, your correspondence, your time or the general administration of the vacancy is the prohibited application fee, regardless of how the line is captioned.

Actual cost. The figure is what the check cost you. Where a vendor invoices you a specific amount for a report on this applicant, that amount is your number. Where screening comes as part of a subscription or bundle, the honest figure is your per-check cost under that arrangement, and you should be able to explain how you arrived at it. Actual cost is not the market rate, not the price your most expensive vendor charges, not a rounded figure, and not a number with your time folded in.

Because the ceiling is your own invoice rather than a statutory number, this page prints no permitted amount and no cap. There is no figure to publish. Any Maine template that fills in a dollar amount as the allowable screening charge is guessing at a number only your vendor can supply.

Ask what the money pays for, and answer honestly. If it pays for a screening check on this applicant, it is capable of being a permitted charge. If it pays for anything else connected with receiving or considering the application, it is the banned fee.

Three tests catch nearly every real case. First, the invoice test: can you point to a specific screening cost that this charge recovers, at this amount, for this applicant? If not, it is not a screening cost. Second, the label test, applied in reverse: relabelling changes nothing, so ignore what the line is called and look at what it buys. Administrative fee, processing charge, document handling, paperwork contribution and application review fee are all the same charge wearing different words. Third, the bundling test: if a single charge mixes the screening cost with anything else, it contains prohibited money. Splitting it out after the fact is not an answer, because the applicant was charged the combined figure.

The clean way to draft it is also the simplest. Name the screening vendor, name the check, state the cost you were invoiced, and charge that. A record written in those terms answers the classification question on its face.

Yes, and this is an affirmative duty rather than a right of access. The applicant is to be given a copy of the screening check their money paid for. That is a materially stronger obligation than making it available, holding it for collection, or producing it if the applicant thinks to ask.

Treat delivery as part of the screening step rather than as a follow-up task. The moment you have the report and have reached a decision is the moment the copy should go out, because that is the only point at which it is certain to happen. Send it with the decision, record the date, record the method, and keep whatever proof that method generates — a sent email, a mailing record, a signed acknowledgment if delivered in person.

Two limits of the research behind this page are worth stating here rather than leaving to inference. The verified rule establishes the duty to give a copy but does not state a deadline for doing so, so this page does not assert one; prompt delivery with the decision is prudence, not a timetable this page can attribute to the statute. And the verified rule does not state what happens if the copy is not given — no penalty, no refund trigger, no consequence of any kind was established, and none is asserted here. The sensible reading is that the copy is a condition of a charge the section otherwise prohibits, which is reason enough to discharge it, but the consequence itself is a gap in what this page verified.

Only one such fee may be charged per applicant in any twelve-month period. The unit of measurement is the applicant, and that single fact answers most of the questions landlords ask about it.

A person who applied for one of your units in the spring and applies for a different one in the autumn is the same applicant inside the same window, so there is no second chargeable screening. The same is true where someone applies for two units at once: one applicant, one permitted charge, even though you may end up running the same check against two vacancies. It is also true where the first application went nowhere — the window runs from the charge, not from the outcome.

For a landlord with a single unit this is a small point. For anyone managing a portfolio it is a systems requirement. The question the section asks is whether you have charged this applicant in the last twelve months, and a filing system organised by property cannot answer it. Screening records need to be searchable by applicant across every building you manage, with the date of the charge recorded, or you will eventually charge twice inside the window without knowing you have.

Where the twelve-month limit bites, the screening still happens; it simply happens at your expense. That is the trade the section makes, and it is worth budgeting for rather than discovering at the point of a second application.

A page that only lists duties leaves a landlord to guess at the parts nobody verified, so here is where the research behind this page stops. The rule it works from establishes four things: the ban, the actual-cost screening charge, the copy duty and the twelve-month limit. It establishes nothing else, and the following are all gaps rather than answers.

No penalty was established. The summarized rule states no damages figure, no statutory multiple and no fee-shifting provision for a landlord who charges a prohibited fee, over-charges for screening, withholds the copy or charges twice inside the window. This page does not invent one.

No refund trigger was established. Nothing verified here says the screening charge becomes refundable because the applicant was rejected, because the unit went to someone else, or because the check was never run. Some states have such rules; the Maine rule as verified does not state one.

No criteria-disclosure duty was established. Several states now require a landlord to publish qualification criteria, and some tie the fee to a first-qualified-applicant process. Nothing of that kind was established for Maine here.

Holding deposits were not addressed. Money taken to reserve a unit is a different question from an application fee, and this page verified nothing about it.

No case law was researched for this page, so nothing here reflects how a Maine court has applied the section. No local ordinances were researched either. That matters more than usual in Maine because Portland regulates rental housing under its own municipal scheme; this page did not examine it, and a Portland landlord should assume a local layer exists until they have checked. Other municipalities may regulate too.

Everything above is Maine law about money. Federal law also governs the screening itself, and it was not researched from primary sources for this page — what follows is a general orientation rather than a statement of verified law, and it should be checked before it is relied on.

In broad terms, when a landlord obtains a consumer report on an applicant and then denies the application, charges more, or imposes different terms because of what the report said, federal fair-credit-reporting law requires an adverse-action notice telling the applicant which agency supplied the report, that the agency did not make the decision, and that the applicant may obtain a copy and dispute what it contains. That obligation is independent of § 6030-H. It is worth noticing that a Maine landlord who discharges the state copy duty properly is already doing something adjacent to the federal disclosure regime — but they are separate duties with separate content, and doing one does not discharge the other.

Federal fair-housing law applies to the screening decision itself, prohibiting discrimination on protected grounds in the terms, conditions and availability of housing. Maine has its own human rights framework as well. Neither was researched from primary sources for this page. The practical point for a screening charge is that the criteria you apply, and the consistency with which you apply them, matter at least as much as the mechanics of the fee — charging every applicant the same lawful screening cost while applying different standards to different applicants is not a compliance position.

The charge and the decision are separate questions, and the decision is where most disputes actually arise. What you may look at, how you weigh it, and what a denial requires are covered in our guide to Maine tenant screening laws.

A screening charge is not security, and confusing the two creates a different problem entirely: money taken to secure performance is deposit money, with its own rules on limits, holding and return. See Maine security deposit laws for the money taken at signing.

For the wider framework — notice periods, entry, repairs and the rest of the Title 14 landlord duties that sit around § 6030-H — see Maine landlord-tenant laws.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.