Indiana Tenant Screening Laws: The Landlord and Applicant Guide
FCRA Permissible Purpose · Section 1681m(a) Adverse Action · No Statewide Fee Cap · Statewide Preemption of Local Ordinances · Individualized Criminal-History Review
Indiana tenant screening is governed almost entirely by federal law layered over a deliberately light state framework. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act controls how a consumer report may be pulled and used, the federal Fair Housing Act and the Indiana Fair Housing Act govern discrimination, and Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 does something unusual: it forbids Indiana cities and counties from adding their own screening rules. The Indiana landlords who screen properly almost never face a lawsuit. The ones who skip the consent form or the adverse action notice pay for that shortcut, and the mandatory attorney-fee provisions are what make the bill so large.
This guide walks the whole framework in plain English: the five federal Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements every landlord must meet, why Indiana sets no statewide application-screening-fee cap, the statewide preemption that voids local screening and source-of-income ordinances, why an Indiana landlord may refuse a Housing Choice Voucher, the Indiana Civil Rights Law ancestry protection that the Indiana Fair Housing Act itself does not carry, the 24 CFR 100.500 disparate-impact rule that outlived HUD’s withdrawn 2016 criminal-records guidance, Indiana’s Second Chance expungement rule, the rights every applicant holds, a day-by-day screening workflow, a compliance playbook, real scenarios, and an Indiana-specific set of frequently asked questions.
Because Indiana adds so little on top of the federal baseline, the safest posture for a landlord is written consent, consistent written criteria, and proper adverse action notices every single time, and the strongest position for an applicant is to know exactly which rights federal law confers. Treat every figure here as a starting point and verify the current statute before you screen, charge a fee, or dispute a decision.
Indiana Tenant Screening at a Glance
Primary Authority
FCRA — fifteen U.S.C. section 1681 & Fair Housing Act
Indiana Authority
Indiana Fair Housing Act (Section 22-9.5) & screening preemption (Section 32-31-1-20)
Screening Fee Cap
No statewide cap — fees generally non-refundable, verify
Source of Income
Not protected — a landlord may refuse Section 8
The FCRA Framework in Indiana
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, codified at fifteen U.S.C. section 1681, is the federal statute that governs tenant screening nationwide, and an Indiana landlord must comply with it in full because Indiana adds no competing state screening statute of its own. Getting the federal layer right prevents almost all screening-related liability. Four things sit at the core of a defensible screening file, each one load-bearing — and a fifth step that landlord guides routinely add is not a federal requirement in housing at all.
Permissible Purpose
A landlord has a permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report on a rental applicant under Fair Credit Reporting Act section 604(a)(3)(F)(i), fifteen U.S.C. section 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i) — a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction initiated by the consumer. Clause (F)(ii) covers the review of an existing account, which is what authorizes a report at lease renewal on a sitting tenant. The screening company will require the landlord to certify that purpose before it releases a report. That is the threshold right to obtain the report at all, but it does not eliminate any of the other requirements — it only opens the door to a report the landlord must then handle correctly.
Written Consent
Get the applicant’s written, signed authorization before pulling any report, and keep it — but be precise about where that duty comes from. The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s stand-alone disclosure and written-authorization formality is section 604(b)(2), fifteen U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2), and by its own words it governs a report procured for employment purposes; it is not a housing requirement. A landlord’s federal authority to pull the report is permissible purpose under section 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i), and the consumer reporting agency will contractually require the applicant’s signed authorization and a certification of that purpose before it will release a report. So written consent stays non-negotiable in practice on every rental — through the screening company’s user agreement, and as the cleanest proof of permissible purpose if the pull is ever challenged — and it should be clear, conspicuous, and on its own form rather than buried in the rental application. Indiana adds no separate state consent statute of its own, and this practice applies to every Indiana rental without exception.
Consistent Criteria
Written screening criteria must be applied consistently to every applicant. Inconsistency creates both Fair Credit Reporting Act disparate-treatment exposure and Fair Housing Act liability, because bending the rule for one applicant and not another is powerful evidence of discrimination even where none was intended.
Adverse Action Notice
If information in a consumer report causes any unfavorable outcome — denying the application, requiring a co-signer or guarantor, requiring a larger deposit than another applicant would pay, or charging a higher rent — the landlord has taken an adverse action under Fair Credit Reporting Act section 603(k), fifteen U.S.C. section 1681a(k)(1)(B)(iv), and owes an adverse action notice under section 615(a), fifteen U.S.C. section 1681m(a). That notice is given after the decision. It must state the name, address, and telephone number of the consumer reporting agency that furnished the report; that the agency did not make the decision and cannot explain the specific reasons for it; and that the applicant may obtain a free copy of the report from that agency within sixty days and may dispute anything inaccurate or incomplete in it. If a numerical credit score was used in the decision, section 1681m(a)(2) also requires disclosing the score, its source and date, the range of scores under that model, and the key factors that adversely affected it. The notice may be oral, written, or electronic; the Federal Trade Commission’s guidance for landlords calls written notice the best practice, not a legal requirement. The duty is owed even where the report was not the primary reason for the decision.
Why There Is No “Pre-Adverse Action” Step in Housing
The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes no pre-adverse action step on a landlord. The pre-adverse procedure — give the applicant a copy of the report and the summary of rights before taking adverse action — is section 604(b)(3), fifteen U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3), and that subsection applies by its own words only “in using a consumer report for employment purposes.” Section 1681a(h) defines employment purposes as evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment, or retention as an employee; renting a home is none of those four things. So federal law sets no waiting period between the decision and the notice in housing, imposes no duty to enclose a copy of the report, and imposes no duty to enclose the summary of rights — furnishing that summary is a consumer reporting agency’s duty under section 1681g(c)(2), not a landlord’s. The applicant’s route to the report is the free copy from the agency within sixty days that the adverse action notice itself must describe. Sending the report anyway is a defensible courtesy — HUD has recommended exactly that to public housing agencies, with the denial letter, as a best practice — but it is not federal law, and no federal statute or regulation states any number of days for a housing pre-denial wait.
FCRA sections 616 and 617 penalties
The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes serious penalties, and its two liability sections work differently. Section 616, fifteen U.S.C. section 1681n, makes a willful violation liable for either the consumer’s actual damages or statutory damages of one hundred to one thousand dollars — the statute is a disjunction, not a sum — plus any punitive damages the court allows and the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees. Section 617, fifteen U.S.C. section 1681o, covers negligent noncompliance: actual damages plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, with no statutory-damages floor. Extreme willful conduct can even be treated as a federal offense. The mandatory attorney-fee provision is precisely what makes Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions so aggressive, because the cost of a single dropped step shifts to the landlord.
Takeaway
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act requires permissible purpose under section 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i), consistent written criteria, and an adverse action notice under section 1681m(a) whenever a consumer report contributes to a denial, a larger deposit, a higher rent, or a co-signer requirement. It does not require a pre-adverse notice, a copy of the report, a summary of rights, or any waiting period — that procedure is section 1681b(b)(3), which governs only a report used for employment purposes. Written applicant consent stays non-negotiable in practice, because the screening company requires it and it is the cleanest proof of permissible purpose. An Indiana landlord who does all of that — purpose, consistency, notice — essentially eliminates screening liability. The framework is simple; the penalty for skipping a step, driven by mandatory attorney fees, is comprehensive.
Indiana Application and Screening Fees: No Statewide Cap
Is there a cap on rental application or screening fees in Indiana?
No. Unlike states such as California, Indiana puts no statutory ceiling on what a landlord may charge to screen an applicant, and there is no Indiana statute that limits the amount, requires an itemized receipt, or mandates a refund of any unused portion. Application fees in Indiana are generally treated as non-refundable. In practice, Indiana landlords commonly charge somewhere in the range of thirty to fifty dollars, roughly the cost of the underlying report, but that figure is market custom, not a legal cap. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act is the real constraint: the fee should be tied to a legitimate screening purpose, disclosed before it is collected, and never charged for a report the landlord never pulls.
Any older guide that cites an Indiana “screening-fee statute” — or a specific dollar cap, a receipt rule, or a repair-and-deduct figure — is simply wrong; those rules belong to other states and do not exist in Indiana law. Because Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 also preempts local units from regulating the screening process, an Indiana city or county cannot fill the gap with a local fee cap either. The result is broad landlord latitude on the fee, checked only by federal law, market competition, and the general duty not to use a fee as a tool of discrimination.
No cap does not mean no rules
Indiana sets no fee cap, but a fee that is wildly out of line with the cost of a report, charged and then pocketed without running any report, or applied selectively to applicants of a protected class can still draw a Fair Credit Reporting Act or fair-housing claim. Keep the fee reasonable, disclose it up front, tie it to the real cost of screening, and apply it identically to everyone. A modest, transparent fee is both lawful and a signal to good applicants that your process is professional.
Takeaway
Indiana has no statewide application or screening-fee cap and no receipt or refund statute, and application fees are generally non-refundable. Common practice is roughly thirty to fifty dollars, but that is market custom, not law. Keep the fee reasonable, disclosed, and consistently applied, and verify current law before charging.
Statewide Preemption: Why Indiana Has No Local Screening Ordinances — and What It Does Not Preempt
Can an Indiana city pass its own tenant-screening or source-of-income ordinance?
No, and this is one of the most important and least-understood features of Indiana law. Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 prohibits a local unit — a city, county, or township — from regulating the screening process a landlord uses to approve tenants, from regulating rental rates, and from regulating the broader landlord-tenant relationship, unless the state legislature has expressly authorized it. Any local ordinance that violates this preemption is void and unenforceable. A companion provision, the 2015 House Enrolled Act 1300 — codified at Indiana Code section 36-1-3-8.5 (added by P.L.101-2015, SEC.3), which section 32-31-1-20(a) expressly cross-references — separately bars local governments from adopting or enforcing an ordinance that requires, or would have the effect of requiring, a landlord to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program.
The preemption has a scope limit worth knowing. Subsections (b) and (c) reach only “privately owned real property,” and subsection (a) provides that, “[s]ubject to IC 36-1-3-8.5, this section does not apply to privately owned real property for which government funds or benefits have been allocated from the United States government, the state, or a political subdivision for the express purpose of providing reduced rents to low or moderate income tenants.” So for the ordinary private, unsubsidised rental — the situation most Indiana landlords are in — the preemption is complete. For property carrying a rent subsidy of that kind, section 32-31-1-20 may not apply at all, though the separate voucher-mandate bar at section 36-1-3-8.5 still does.
The practical effect is the mirror image of a state like California. Where California cities have enacted local Fair Chance housing ordinances and source-of-income protections that a landlord must track address by address, Indiana centralizes the rules at the state level and strips its cities of the power to add screening obligations. For an Indiana landlord that means one framework — the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Housing Act plus the Indiana Fair Housing Act — applies statewide, and there is generally no local ban-the-box, fee cap, or voucher mandate layered on top. It also means an applicant who hoped a city ordinance would protect a voucher or limit a criminal-history question usually will not find one in Indiana.
The one thing section 32-31-1-20 does not preempt
Read the preemption for what it says. Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20(c) stops a unit from regulating seven listed aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship — the screening process, security deposits, lease applications, leasing terms and conditions, disclosures, the rights of the parties, and landlord fees — and voids any ordinance that does. Protected classes are not on that list, and a separate part of the Indiana Code affirmatively authorizes local human-relations law: Indiana Code section 22-9-1-12.1(b) provides that “any city, town, or county is hereby authorized to adopt an ordinance or ordinances … to effectuate within its territorial jurisdiction the public policy of the state,” section 22-9.5-4-1(b) lets such a local agency administer the Indiana Fair Housing Act locally, and Indiana Code section 22-2-16-4 expressly says nothing in the local-employment-regulation preemption “shall be construed to prohibit a city, town, or county from adopting an ordinance under IC 22-9-1-12.1 relating to a category or class in addition to the categories and classes described in IC 22-9-1-2.”
That is why both statements on this page are true at once: no Indiana city can cap your screening fee, impose a fair-chance process, or mandate voucher acceptance, and some Indiana cities do add protected classes you must honor. Indianapolis and Marion County (Revised Code chapter 581 — note chapter 581, not the sometimes-cited chapter 296) and Bloomington (Municipal Code chapter 2.21) are the two an Indiana landlord is most likely to meet; both reach the acquisition of housing and both name sexual orientation and gender identity. Confirm the current text with the municipality itself — no Indiana locality’s currency could be established from its own publisher for this guide, and at least one third-party mirror of the Bloomington code stops at a 2019 supplement.
Takeaway
Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 preempts local units from regulating the tenant-screening process, rental rates, and the landlord-tenant relationship, so a conflicting city ordinance is void as to privately owned rentals — subsection (a) can place rent-subsidised property outside the section. Combined with the 2015 House Enrolled Act 1300 on vouchers, this leaves Indiana screening procedure governed by federal law and the statewide Indiana Fair Housing Act, not a patchwork of local rules. It does not preempt local human-relations ordinances, which Indiana Code section 22-9-1-12.1(b) expressly authorizes and which do add protected classes in cities such as Indianapolis and Bloomington — so check the city or county for who is protected, even though the process is statewide.
Source-of-Income Protection and Section 8 in Indiana
Can an Indiana landlord refuse a Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) holder?
Yes. Indiana has no statewide source-of-income protection, so a landlord is free to decline to accept a Housing Choice Voucher, often called Section 8, and participation in the program is voluntary. This is the direct opposite of states like California, where source of income is a protected class and a no-voucher policy is unlawful. Indiana not only declines to protect source of income — it affirmatively removes the option from its cities: the 2015 House Enrolled Act 1300 bars local governments from requiring landlords to participate in Section 8, and Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 preempts any local source-of-income ordinance.
The one limit is that a landlord may not use a voucher as a pretext for discrimination on a class that Indiana or federal law does protect. Refusing every applicant with a voucher is lawful in Indiana; refusing a voucher holder because of race, disability, familial status, national origin, or ancestry, and pointing to the voucher as cover, is not. A landlord who accepts vouchers, meanwhile, must still apply the standard federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and fair-housing rules and should measure income against the tenant’s own share of the rent.
Voucher refusal is lawful, pretext is not
An Indiana landlord may decline Housing Choice Vouchers as a general policy applied to everyone. What the law still forbids is singling out a protected class and using the voucher as a cover story. Apply your criteria consistently, document your reasons, and never mix a voucher decision with a comment about a protected characteristic.
Takeaway
Indiana has no source-of-income protection, so a landlord may refuse a Housing Choice Voucher, and the 2015 House Enrolled Act 1300 plus Section 32-31-1-20 stop cities from mandating participation. The only limit is that a voucher may not be used as a pretext to discriminate on race, disability, familial status, national origin, or ancestry.
Fair Housing Compliance in Indiana
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on seven federally protected classes, and the Indiana Fair Housing Act, codified at Indiana Code section 22-9.5-5-1, mirrors that federal list exactly — the one additional class Indiana recognises in housing, ancestry, comes from a different statute, the Indiana Civil Rights Law at Indiana Code section 22-9-1-2. Screening criteria must be facially neutral, predictive of tenancy success, and consistently applied, and they must not produce a disparate impact on any protected class — a criterion that looks neutral but disproportionately excludes a protected group can still be unlawful.
Federal Protected Classes
The Fair Housing Act protects race and color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status meaning the presence of children, and disability whether mental or physical. Whether the statutory word “sex” also covers sexual orientation and gender identity is now an open federal question. HUD withdrew its February 9, 2021 memorandum applying Bostock v. Clayton County to the Fair Housing Act effective September 25, 2025 (Docket FR-6617-N-01, 91 Federal Register 44867, published July 17, 2026), and withdrew the February 11, 2021 memorandum implementing Executive Order 13988 effective September 17, 2025 (Docket FR-6571-N-01). The statutory text of the Act is unchanged and Bostock was a Title VII employment case, so the withdrawal removes the interpretation HUD had stated without settling the question the other way. Indiana does not settle it either way: the Indiana Fair Housing Act at Indiana Code section 22-9.5-5-1 protects race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability and national origin and adds neither class. Some Indiana municipalities do protect both through local human-relations ordinances, and Indiana Code section 22-9-1-12.1(b) expressly authorizes any city, town, or county to adopt one, so check the city or county: Indianapolis and Marion County under Revised Code chapter 581, and Bloomington under Municipal Code chapter 2.21, are the two an Indiana landlord is most likely to meet, and both reach housing and name both classes. Confirm the current text with the municipality itself, because no Indiana locality’s currency could be established from its own publisher. Outside such an ordinance the unsettled federal question is the whole answer, and the safe course is the same neutral, documented criteria applied to every applicant. Unlike some states, Indiana does not add source of income to this list, so a voucher itself is not a protected characteristic in Indiana.
Indiana’s Added Protection: Ancestry — and Which Statute Carries It
Indiana does protect ancestry — a person’s family lineage, ethnic background, or heritage — beyond the seven federal categories, but not through the Indiana Fair Housing Act. Read Indiana Code section 22-9.5-5-1 and ancestry is not in it: that section protects race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability, and national origin — the same seven the federal Act protects, and no more. The ancestry protection comes from the Indiana Civil Rights Law at Indiana Code section 22-9-1-2, which declares it the public policy of the state to provide equal opportunity for “acquisition through purchase or rental of real property, including but not limited to housing” and to eliminate discrimination based on “race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry.” Both statutes are enforced by the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, whose own published protected-class list names ancestry in housing. The landlord’s obligation is the same either way — only the citation differs — but a landlord or counsel who checks 22-9.5 alone and concludes ancestry is unprotected in Indiana would be reading the wrong statute. Indiana’s Second Chance law, discussed below, separately shields expunged criminal records from use. And while the state does not protect veteran or military status statewide, some Indiana municipalities protect additional categories — including sexual orientation and gender identity — through local human-relations ordinances. That is not a loophole in the statewide preemption: Indiana Code section 22-9-1-12.1(b) authorizes any city, town, or county to adopt such an ordinance, and Indiana Code section 22-2-16-4 expressly contemplates one reaching “a category or class in addition to the categories and classes described in IC 22-9-1-2.” The screening-process preemption at section 32-31-1-20 is a different subject and does not touch it.
Common Indiana Fair-Housing Traps
- Blanket criminal-history bans that auto-reject any record, which can violate the disparate-impact doctrine.
- Rigid credit-score cutoffs applied with no individualized review of the applicant’s full picture.
- Income multipliers that disproportionately exclude single parents, implicating familial status.
- Occupancy limits stricter than reasonable, which can implicate familial status even though Indiana Code section 32-31-8-7 lets a landlord apply a reasonable occupancy standard.
- Using an expunged record, which is unlawful under Indiana’s Second Chance law.
- Inconsistent application of criteria across applicants of different protected classes.
Takeaway
Screening criteria must be neutral, predictive, and consistently applied, and must avoid disparate impact. The Indiana Fair Housing Act (Section 22-9.5-5-1) protects the seven federal classes and adds none; ancestry is protected in Indiana housing by the Indiana Civil Rights Law (Section 22-9-1-2), and the Indiana Civil Rights Commission enforces both. The Second Chance law shields expunged records — but Indiana does not protect source of income.
Criminal-Record Considerations
Indiana has no ban-the-box or Fair Chance housing law and no statewide limit on considering criminal history, so a landlord has broad discretion — but the federal Fair Housing Act still applies, Indiana’s Second Chance law adds a hard state limit on expunged records, and the federal authority for the fair-housing limit changed in 2025.
HUD’s 2016 criminal-records guidance is withdrawn — cite the regulation instead
HUD withdrew its 4 April 2016 criminal-records guidance effective September 25, 2025 (Docket FR-6617-N-01, 91 Federal Register 44867, published July 17, 2026, whose withdrawal table lists thirteen documents), and withdrew the June 10, 2022 memorandum implementing it effective September 17, 2025 (Docket FR-6571-N-01). In HUD’s own words those documents “have been removed from active use and should not be relied upon as authoritative.”
What survives is the regulation. HUD’s discriminatory-effects rule at 24 CFR 100.500, reinstated effective May 1, 2023, is still on the books, and under it a facially neutral policy can be unlawful for its effect even with no discriminatory intent. A blanket criminal-record ban remains squarely exposed: once an applicant shows the policy causes a discriminatory effect, the landlord carries the burden of proving it is necessary to a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest that no less discriminatory practice would serve. The practical advice below has not changed. The attribution has.
What does not survive is the individualized-assessment mandate. Section 100.500 is a burden-shifting litigation standard: it imposes no assessment step, no pre-denial notice and no waiting period. The “individualized assessment before denial” requirement came from the withdrawn guidance. Doing it anyway is prudent risk management and the evidence you would put in front of a factfinder — it is not a federal requirement, and this guide does not call it one.
Section 100.500 is itself the subject of a removal proposal. HUD’s supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (Docket FR-6540-P-02, 91 Federal Register 51416, published August 10, 2026) reopened comment on removing the disparate-impact regulations, with comments due October 9, 2026. That is a proposal only: the rule is in force today.
So the consideration of any record should still be individualized rather than a blanket rule that automatically rejects any applicant with any record — now as risk management and evidence rather than as a HUD mandate. And an arrest that never led to a conviction proves nothing on its own: the Fair Credit Reporting Act at section 1681c(a)(2) already bars a consumer reporting agency from reporting records of arrest that antedate the report by more than seven years, or the governing limitations period if longer.
The Five Assessment Factors
- Nature and severity of the offense. A decades-old shoplifting conviction differs materially from a recent violent crime or manufacturing charge.
- Time since the conviction. More recent offenses carry more predictive weight; very old convictions may have little probative value.
- Evidence of rehabilitation. Consistent employment, completed parole or probation, continuing education, or recovery documentation can rebut the presumption of risk.
- Relevance to tenancy. The offense should bear on the specific risk — violent or property crimes bear more directly than a traffic or minor drug-possession offense might.
- Consistent application. Apply the same analysis to every applicant with any criminal history; selectivity creates disparate-treatment exposure.
Can an Indiana landlord screen on an expunged record?
No. Indiana’s Second Chance law, at Indiana Code section 35-38-9-10, makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of an expunged or sealed conviction, and it directs that a person whose record is expunged be treated as if the offense had never occurred. Expunged records are removed from the public court databases a background check draws on, so a compliant screening report should not show them. A landlord may not deny an applicant, charge more, or impose different terms because of an expunged record — and asking about it, then acting on the answer, is itself a violation. This protection is distinctive to Indiana and is missing from almost every generic screening guide.
The blanket-ban problem
A policy of “we don’t rent to anyone with any conviction” is legally risky even in Indiana, where no state ban-the-box law applies, because 24 CFR 100.500, HUD’s discriminatory-effects rule, treats a blanket refusal as potential disparate-impact discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act — HUD’s 2016 criminal-records guidance was withdrawn effective September 25, 2025, but the regulation it rested on survives. Criminal records disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic applicants, so a blanket ban fails unless the landlord can show it is substantially related to a specific tenancy risk, and that burden is the landlord’s. An arrest that never led to a conviction is weaker still: it proves nothing, and Fair Credit Reporting Act section 1681c(a)(2) bars a screening company from reporting one older than seven years. Work through the individualized factors, exclude expunged records entirely, and document the analysis — not because a federal rule commands it, but because that record is what defends the decision.
Takeaway
Indiana has no ban-the-box housing law, but a blanket ban still risks a Fair Housing Act disparate-impact claim under 24 CFR 100.500. HUD’s 2016 guidance was withdrawn effective September 25, 2025 and section 100.500 imposes no assessment step, so an individualized, documented assessment is now prudent risk management and your best evidence rather than a federal mandate. And Indiana Code section 35-38-9-10 makes it unlawful to screen on an expunged conviction — the applicant must be treated as never convicted.
Eviction Records and Other Report Contents in Indiana
A tenant screening report typically pulls credit, a nationwide eviction-history search, criminal records, and identity and income verification. Two Indiana-specific points shape what a landlord may see and use.
Eviction records are public in Indiana
Indiana does not mask eviction (unlawful-detainer) court records the way some states do — there is no Indiana equivalent of California’s record-masking rule. Eviction filings and small-claims judgments are generally public record and searchable through the Indiana court system, so a screening report can surface both filings and judgments. A careful landlord still distinguishes a mere filing that was dismissed or that the tenant won from an actual money judgment, because a filing alone is a weak predictor and treating it as a proven adverse event invites a disparate-impact problem.
Lookback windows and occupancy
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, most negative items have a seven-year reporting window and bankruptcies a ten-year window; Indiana adds no shorter statewide period, though its expungement law can erase qualifying convictions entirely. On household size, Indiana Code section 32-31-8-7 expressly lets a landlord apply a reasonable occupancy standard, which is a defense against a familial-status claim — but the standard must be genuinely reasonable, not a pretext to screen out families with children.
Takeaway
Indiana eviction and small-claims records are public and screenable, with no state masking rule, but a landlord should weigh a filing differently from a judgment. Federal lookback windows — seven years for most negatives, ten for bankruptcy — apply, and Section 32-31-8-7 allows a reasonable occupancy standard.
Applicant Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Indiana applicants rely primarily on the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, because Indiana adds no separate state screening statute. Understanding these rights matters for applicants who want to contest an inaccurate report and for landlords who want to avoid liability. Applicants can learn to spot problems early using our guide to red flags in a rental application, which cuts both ways.
The Five Core Rights
- Right to a lawful pull. A landlord may obtain the report only with a permissible purpose under section 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i), and in practice the screening company will not release one without the applicant’s signed authorization; the applicant may decline and withdraw the application.
- Right to an adverse action notice. If the report causes any adverse action — rejection, a larger deposit, a higher rent, a co-signer requirement, or other added requirements — the applicant is owed a notice after the decision under section 1681m(a), giving the consumer reporting agency’s name, address, and telephone number, stating that the agency did not make the decision and cannot explain it, and setting out the free-copy and dispute rights. Federal law sets no waiting period and no duty to send the report first.
- Right to a free copy of the report. When an adverse action is taken, the applicant may obtain a free copy of the report from the agency, generally within sixty days.
- Right to dispute inaccuracies. The applicant may dispute inaccurate information with the agency, which must investigate, generally within thirty days, and correct or remove anything it cannot substantiate.
- Right to sue for violations. The Fair Credit Reporting Act authorizes private lawsuits. For a willful violation, section 1681n allows actual damages or statutory damages of one hundred to one thousand dollars — the two are alternatives, not a sum — plus any punitive damages the court allows and reasonable attorney’s fees; for a negligent violation, section 1681o allows actual damages plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Takeaway
Every Indiana applicant has the right to a lawful pull backed by a permissible purpose, an adverse action notice under section 1681m(a), a free copy of the report from the agency, a dispute investigation, and a private lawsuit for violations. These federal rights, plus the Indiana Fair Housing Act and the Second Chance expungement rule, are the backstop against an inaccurate or improperly used screening report.
The Indiana Screening Workflow
A disciplined, day-by-day workflow is what turns the legal requirements into a repeatable process that consistently produces defensible decisions. The exact timing can flex, but the sequence — disclose, consent, report, decide, notice — should not. A fuller walkthrough of each stage lives in our how to screen a tenant step-by-step guide, and the underlying paperwork is covered in our rental application guide for landlords.
| Day | Stage | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Day zero | Application | Standardized application, fee disclosure, and written criteria given to the applicant up front. |
| Day one | Consent form | Signed Fair Credit Reporting Act authorization — standalone, clear, and conspicuous. |
| Day two | Run report | Order through an FCRA-compliant consumer reporting agency and review it against the written criteria, excluding any expunged records. |
| Day three | Decision | Apply the consistent criteria and decide. Federal law sets no waiting period before a denial and no duty to send the report first. |
| Day three | Adverse action notice | If the report drove the denial, a larger deposit, a higher rent, or a co-signer requirement, deliver the section 1681m(a) notice with the decision: the agency’s name, address, and telephone number, that the agency did not make the decision, the sixty-day free-copy and dispute rights, and the credit score and its key factors if a score was used. |
| Day ten | Lease or close the file | Approve and lease, or close the file and retain the criteria, the authorization, and the notice with proof of delivery. The applicant has sixty days to request a free copy of the report from the agency. |
Takeaway
Run screening as a fixed sequence — disclose, consent, report, decide, notice. Give criteria and a fee disclosure up front, get standalone written consent, pull from an FCRA-compliant agency, apply the same criteria to everyone, exclude expunged records, and send the section 1681m(a) adverse action notice after the decision whenever a report drives a denial, a larger deposit, a higher rent, or a co-signer requirement.
Compliant Versus Non-Compliant Screening
✓ Defensible Screening
- Standalone written consent signed before the report is pulled.
- Written criteria shared with applicants up front.
- Same criteria applied to every applicant consistently.
- FCRA-compliant agency with permissible-purpose verification.
- Report copy shared voluntarily — not required of a landlord by federal law, but HUD recommends it with the denial letter.
- Adverse action notice with agency identification and dispute rights.
- Individualized criminal-record review that excludes expunged records.
- Records retained for the statute-of-limitations period.
✕ Liability Exposure
- Oral or implied consent for a credit check.
- No written criteria given to applicants.
- Inconsistent criteria across applicants.
- Non-compliant data sources outside the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- Silent rejection with no adverse action notice.
- Using an expunged record against an applicant.
- Blanket criminal-record bans.
- No retention of consent forms or decision rationale.
Common Indiana Screening Scenarios
The rules become concrete when applied to real situations. Each of the following turns on the same handful of principles — written consent, the adverse action notice, consistent criteria, the absence of source-of-income protection, and individualized criminal review that excludes expunged records. A deeper treatment of the criminal-history piece is in our guide to criminal history in tenant screening.
| Scenario | How Indiana and federal law treat it |
|---|---|
| Report pulled on an oral okay, no signed consent | Not a violation of the FCRA’s stand-alone-consent formality — that rule, section 604(b)(2), is employment-only — but it breaches the screening company’s user agreement and destroys the landlord’s proof of permissible purpose under section 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i) |
| Rejection after a credit check, no notice sent | Fair Credit Reporting Act section 615(a) violation — the section 1681m(a) adverse action notice is mandatory after the decision |
| Landlord declines all Housing Choice Vouchers | Lawful in Indiana — no source-of-income protection, provided it is not a pretext for protected-class discrimination |
| Denial based on an expunged theft conviction | Unlawful — Indiana Code section 35-38-9-10 forbids using an expunged record |
| Auto-rejection for any felony, regardless of age | Disparate-impact problem under 24 CFR 100.500 — a blanket ban with no individualized review |
| City ordinance tries to cap the screening fee | Void as to privately owned rentals — Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20(c) preempts local screening regulation and voids any ordinance that does it; subsection (a) can place rent-subsidised property outside the section |
Screen Every Applicant the Compliant Way
The best defense against a screening claim is a clean, consistent process. Comprehensive credit, income, and eviction-history reports, run through an FCRA-compliant agency with proper consent and adverse action workflows, protect both your decision and your applicant’s rights.
The Indiana Landlord Screening Compliance Playbook
Indiana landlords who follow this playbook virtually never face a Fair Credit Reporting Act or fair-housing claim. The list is short, but every item is load-bearing. Build it into your standard operating procedure and the liability largely disappears.
Disclose the fee and set consistent criteria
Use a standardized application, disclose the screening fee up front even though Indiana sets no cap, and publish written screening criteria you apply identically to every applicant. Keep the fee tied to the real cost of the report.
Get standalone written consent
Obtain written authorization on a standalone form — never buried in the application — before pulling any consumer report. This is not a federal housing mandate: the stand-alone-consent formality at section 604(b)(2), fifteen U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2), is employment-only. The screening company’s user agreement is what requires it, and the signed authorization is your proof of permissible purpose under section 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i). Retain the consent for at least five years.
Use an FCRA-compliant agency and exclude expunged records
Order through an FCRA-compliant consumer reporting agency only, apply the written criteria identically, never use information older than the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows, and never act on an expunged conviction, which Indiana Code section 35-38-9-10 forbids.
Assess criminal history individually and screen neutrally
Never use a blanket criminal ban; work the five factors above and document the analysis against 24 CFR 100.500. You may decline Housing Choice Vouchers in Indiana, but never let a voucher decision become a pretext for protected-class discrimination.
Handle adverse action correctly and retain the paper
When a report drives a denial, a larger deposit, a higher rent, or a co-signer requirement, deliver the adverse action notice required by fifteen U.S.C. section 1681m(a) — after the decision — naming the consumer reporting agency with its address and telephone number, stating that the agency did not make the decision and cannot explain it, and giving the sixty-day free-copy and dispute rights, plus the credit score and its key factors if a score was used. Federal law sets no waiting period and no duty to enclose the report or the summary of rights. Retain notices and proof of delivery, and never retaliate against an applicant who disputes a report.
The compliance payoff is near-zero exposure
An Indiana landlord with consistent written consent, consistent criteria, and compliant adverse action procedures essentially eliminates class-action risk under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a discrimination claim under fair-housing law. The cost is a few extra forms and disciplined record-keeping; the legal protection is comprehensive. For the ranking framework behind who to approve, see our rental application guide for landlords.
Defensible Versus Unlawful: Common Scenarios
✓ Usually Defensible
- Standalone written consent. A signed, conspicuous consent form obtained before any report is pulled, kept on file.
- Consistent neutral criteria. A written credit, income, and rental-history standard applied identically to every applicant.
- Individualized criminal review. Weighing the nature, age, and relevance of an offense against rehabilitation, excluding expunged records, documented for each applicant.
- Proper adverse action. A section 1681m(a) notice after the decision, naming the consumer reporting agency and stating the sixty-day free-copy and dispute rights, whenever the report drove a denial, a larger deposit, a higher rent, or a co-signer requirement.
✕ Likely Unlawful
- Pulling with no permissible purpose. Running a consumer report on someone who never applied to rent from you — section 1681b(f) forbids using or obtaining a report for any purpose it was not authorized to be furnished for. A signed consent form is not itself the federal housing rule, but it is how a landlord proves the purpose was real.
- Silent rejection. Denying an applicant on a report with no adverse action notice or agency identification.
- Blanket criminal ban. Auto-rejecting any record with no individualized assessment.
- Using an expunged record. Acting on a sealed or expunged conviction, forbidden by Indiana’s Second Chance law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a cap on rental application or screening fees in Indiana?
No. Indiana sets no statewide cap on rental application or tenant-screening fees, and there is no Indiana statute that limits the amount, requires a receipt, or mandates a refund. Application fees are generally treated as non-refundable in Indiana. Because Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 preempts local units from regulating the tenant-screening process, no Indiana city or county may impose a fee cap either, so the practical limit is what the market and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act allow. A landlord should still keep the fee reasonable, tied to the actual cost of the report, disclose it before collecting, and never charge for a report that is never pulled. Always verify current law before setting a fee.
Does Indiana require written consent before running a tenant screening report?
Yes in practice, but be precise about the source of the rule. The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s stand-alone disclosure and written-authorization formality is section 604(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2), and by its own words it governs a report procured for employment purposes, so it is not itself a housing requirement. A Indiana landlord’s federal authority to pull the report is permissible purpose under 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i), a legitimate business need in connection with a business transaction initiated by the consumer, and the screening company will require the applicant’s signed authorization and a certification of that purpose before it releases a report. So a clear, conspicuous authorization on its own form is still mandatory in practice on every Indiana rental, and it is the cleanest proof of permissible purpose if the pull is ever challenged. Indiana adds no separate state consent statute of its own. Pulling a report without a permissible purpose is a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation, and skipping the signed authorization breaches the screening company’s user agreement and destroys the landlord’s proof of purpose. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681n a willful violation exposes the landlord to actual damages or statutory damages of 100 to 1,000 dollars, whichever the applicant elects rather than both, and under 15 U.S.C. 1681o a negligent violation exposes actual damages, plus mandatory attorney fees.
Can an Indiana landlord refuse a Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) holder?
Yes. Indiana has no statewide source-of-income protection, so a landlord may decline to accept a Housing Choice Voucher, often called Section 8, and participation in the program is voluntary. Indiana goes further than merely staying silent: the 2015 House Enrolled Act 1300 bars local governments from requiring a landlord to participate in Section 8, and Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 preempts local units from regulating the landlord-tenant relationship, so an Indiana city cannot create a source-of-income protection either. A landlord may not, however, use a voucher as a pretext to discriminate on a protected class such as race, disability, familial status, or ancestry.
Can an Indiana city pass its own tenant-screening or source-of-income ordinance?
No. Indiana Code section 32-31-1-20 prohibits local units from regulating the screening process a landlord uses to approve tenants, rental rates, and the landlord-tenant relationship unless the state legislature has authorized it, and any conflicting local ordinance is void and unenforceable. This is the opposite of states like California, where cities have enacted local Fair Chance housing and source-of-income rules. In Indiana the tenancy framework is centralized at the state level, so a landlord follows the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Housing Act plus the Indiana Fair Housing Act and generally need not track a patchwork of city screening, fee or voucher rules. That is not the whole local picture, and the distinction matters. Section 32-31-1-20 preempts regulation of the tenancy and the screening process. It does not touch local human-relations ordinances, which Indiana Code section 22-9-1-12.1(b) expressly authorizes any city, town, or county to adopt, which section 22-9.5-4-1(b) lets a local agency administer, and which Indiana Code section 22-2-16-4 expressly contemplates covering a category or class in addition to the categories and classes described in Indiana Code section 22-9-1-2. So an Indiana city cannot cap your application fee or impose a fair-chance process, but it can and in places does add protected classes: Indianapolis and Marion County under Revised Code chapter 581, and Bloomington under Municipal Code chapter 2.21, both reach housing and both name sexual orientation and gender identity. Confirm the current text with the municipality itself before relying on it.
How can an Indiana landlord use criminal history in tenant screening?
Indiana has no ban-the-box or Fair Chance housing law and no statewide limit on considering criminal history, so a landlord has broad discretion, but the federal Fair Housing Act still applies. The federal limit lives in HUD’s discriminatory-effects rule at 24 CFR 100.500, reinstated effective May 1, 2023, under which a blanket refusal to rent to anyone with any record can violate the Fair Housing Act for its effect alone, because criminal records disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic applicants and the landlord then carries the burden of proving the policy is necessary to a substantial, legitimate interest that no less discriminatory practice would serve. Note the authority: HUD’s 2016 criminal-records guidance was withdrawn effective September 25, 2025 by Docket FR-6617-N-01, and section 100.500 imposes no individualized-assessment step, so weighing an offense case by case is prudent risk management and defensible evidence rather than a federal requirement. Do it anyway and document it: weigh the nature and severity of the offense, how long ago it occurred, evidence of rehabilitation, and its relevance to tenancy, and apply the same analysis to every applicant. An arrest that never led to a conviction proves nothing, and section 1681c(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act bars a screening company from reporting one that antedates the report by more than seven years.
Can an Indiana landlord screen on an expunged criminal record?
No. Indiana’s Second Chance law, at Indiana Code section 35-38-9-10, makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of an expunged or sealed conviction, and it directs that a person whose record is expunged be treated as if the offense had never occurred. Expunged records are removed from the public court databases a background check draws on, so they should not appear in a compliant screening report, and a landlord may not deny an applicant, charge more, or impose different terms because of an expunged record. This is a distinctive Indiana protection that most tenant-screening guides omit.
What are the protected classes under Indiana fair housing law?
The federal Fair Housing Act protects seven classes: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability. The Indiana Fair Housing Act, at Indiana Code section 22-9.5-5-1, mirrors that federal list exactly and adds nothing to it. Ancestry is protected in Indiana housing by a different statute: the Indiana Civil Rights Law at Indiana Code section 22-9-1-2, which declares equal opportunity for the acquisition through purchase or rental of real property, including but not limited to housing, without discrimination on race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry. The Indiana Civil Rights Commission enforces both statutes and lists ancestry among the protected classes in housing. Indiana’s Second Chance law separately shields expunged records. Some Indiana municipalities protect further categories such as veteran or military status through local human-relations ordinances. Whether the statutory word sex also covers sexual orientation and gender identity is now an open federal question. HUD withdrew its February 9, 2021 memorandum applying Bostock v. Clayton County to the Fair Housing Act effective September 25, 2025 (Docket FR-6617-N-01, 91 Federal Register 44867, published July 17, 2026), and withdrew the February 11, 2021 memorandum implementing Executive Order 13988 effective September 17, 2025 (Docket FR-6571-N-01). The statutory text of the Act is unchanged and Bostock was a Title VII employment case, so the withdrawal removes the interpretation HUD had stated without settling the question the other way. Indiana does not settle it either way: the Indiana Fair Housing Act at Indiana Code section 22-9.5-5-1 protects race, color, religion, sex, familial status, disability and national origin and adds neither class. Some Indiana municipalities do protect both through local human-relations ordinances, and Indiana Code section 22-9-1-12.1(b) expressly authorizes any city, town, or county to adopt one, so check the city or county: Indianapolis and Marion County under Revised Code chapter 581, and Bloomington under Municipal Code chapter 2.21, are the two an Indiana landlord is most likely to meet, and both reach housing and name both classes. Confirm the current text with the municipality itself, because no Indiana locality’s currency could be established from its own publisher. Outside such an ordinance the unsettled federal question is the whole answer, and the safe course is the same neutral, documented criteria applied to every applicant. Screening criteria must be facially neutral, predictive of tenancy success, applied consistently, and must not produce a disparate impact on any protected class.
Does an Indiana applicant get a copy of the screening report if rejected?
Not from the landlord, and not before the decision. When a landlord takes an adverse action based even in part on a consumer report, 15 U.S.C. 1681m(a) requires an adverse action notice after the decision. The notice must give the name, address and telephone number of the consumer reporting agency that furnished the report, state that the agency did not make the decision and cannot explain the specific reasons for it, and tell the applicant that a free copy of the report may be obtained from that agency within 60 days and that anything inaccurate or incomplete may be disputed. If a credit score was used in the decision, 1681m(a)(2) also requires disclosing the score, its source and date, the range of scores under that model, and the key factors that lowered it. The notice may be oral, written or electronic; the Federal Trade Commission calls written notice the best practice rather than a legal requirement. There is no federal pre-adverse action step in housing. The procedure that requires giving the applicant a copy of the report and the summary of rights before taking adverse action is 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3), which applies by its own words only in using a consumer report for employment purposes, and 1681a(h) limits employment purposes to evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee. Federal law sets no waiting period, no duty to enclose the report and no duty to enclose the summary of rights, which is the reporting agency’s duty under 1681g(c)(2). No federal source states any number of days. Sending the report early is a defensible courtesy, and HUD recommends it to public housing agencies with the denial letter, but it is not a requirement. Skipping the adverse action notice is a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation, and a higher deposit or added condition driven by the report is also an adverse action.
How long can an Indiana tenant screening report reach back?
Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, most negative items on a consumer report have a seven-year reporting window, while bankruptcies may be reported for ten years. Civil judgments, paid tax liens, and most collection accounts fall under the seven-year rule. Indiana adds no shorter statewide lookback, but its Second Chance expungement law can remove qualifying convictions from the record entirely. A landlord should never base a decision on information older than the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows, and an applicant can dispute stale or inaccurate items with the consumer reporting agency, which must investigate, generally within thirty days, and correct or delete anything it cannot verify.
Where can an Indiana applicant file a fair housing complaint?
An applicant who believes a screening decision was discriminatory can file with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission at the state level, which enforces the Indiana Fair Housing Act, or with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development at the federal level, reachable at one eight hundred six six nine ninety-seven seventy-seven. Both agencies investigate housing discrimination complaints, and there are filing deadlines, so a complaint should be made promptly. A tenant may also raise a fair-housing or Fair Credit Reporting Act violation as a claim or defense in court, where damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees may be available.
What penalties apply for tenant screening violations in Indiana?
The exposure is mostly federal. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a willful violation makes the landlord liable under 15 U.S.C. 1681n for either actual damages or statutory damages of one hundred to one thousand dollars per violation, not both, plus any punitive damages the court allows, a negligent violation carries actual damages, and both carry mandatory attorney fees, which is what drives class actions. Under the Fair Housing Act and the Indiana Fair Housing Act, a discrimination finding can bring actual damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees, and repeat federal violations can carry escalating civil penalties above one hundred thousand dollars plus injunctive relief. Because the attorney-fee provisions shift the cost to the landlord, a single dropped consent form or missing adverse action notice can become expensive.
What is the best way to screen tenants in Indiana?
A defensible Indiana screening process combines a standardized application and clear fee disclosure, a standalone written consent form, an FCRA-compliant consumer reporting agency, written criteria applied consistently, credit and income verification, rental-history and eviction checks, an individualized criminal-history assessment that excludes expunged records, and a 15 U.S.C. 1681m(a) adverse action notice after the decision whenever a report drives a rejection, a larger deposit, a higher rent or a co-signer requirement. Our how to screen a tenant step-by-step guide walks each stage in order, and following that sequence keeps the process both predictive of a good tenancy and compliant with Indiana and federal law. Verify the current statute before you rely on any single figure here.
FCRA-Compliant Indiana Screening Without the Headaches
Get comprehensive credit, income, and eviction reports on every applicant — with automated consent, compliant adverse action workflows, and complete audit trails. Zero monthly fees; pay only per report.
Related Indiana Guides and Resources
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.
