Emotional Support Animals

Spotting Signs of Fraud

Overview:

This briefing document summarizes the key themes and important information presented in the PetScreening article “Spotting the Signs of ESA Fraud.” The article addresses the increasing trend of individuals attempting to fraudulently pass off their pets as assistance animals (Emotional Support Animals – ESAs) to avoid pet fees and restrictions in rental housing. It highlights the importance of a thorough review process for accommodation requests, outlines potential red flags indicative of fraud, and clarifies the legal distinctions between pets, service animals, and support animals under HUD guidelines.

Main Themes and Important Ideas:

• Increased Accommodation Requests and Potential for Fraud: The article notes a rise in assistance animal accommodation requests as more communities become pet-friendly. This increase has led to a corresponding rise in individuals attempting to fraudulently classify their pets as assistance animals to bypass pet policies.
• “As more and more communities allow pets onsite, most operators are seeing an uptick in assistance animal accommodation requests. It’s no secret that there are bad actors trying to pass their pets off as assistance animals to circumvent pet fees and restrictions.”
• Importance of a Thorough and Consistent Review Process: Due to the prevalence of potentially fraudulent requests, the article emphasizes the critical need for property operators to implement a robust and consistent review process for all accommodation requests.
• “This is why having a thorough and consistent review process of each accommodation request is paramount.”
• High Rate of Insufficient Documentation: PetScreening’s data reveals that a significant portion of accommodation requests lack sufficient documentation according to HUD guidelines. While not always indicative of fraud, it highlights the challenges in verifying legitimate needs.
• “In over 450,000 reasonable accommodations requests already reviewed by PetScreening, nearly 60% were returned to the animal owner as insufficient. In other words, the accommodation request did not meet HUD’s 2020 Assistance Animal Notice guidelines.”
• Distinguishing Insufficient Documentation from Fraud: The article clarifies that insufficient documentation doesn’t automatically equate to fraud. However, it outlines specific “tell-tale signs” that should raise suspicion.
• “It’s important to note that when a request is deemed insufficient, that definitely doesn’t always equate to fraud — although there are a few tell-tale signs to look for when determining the legitimacy of such requests.”
• Key Indicators of Potential Fraud: The article identifies specific red flags that may suggest fraudulent activity:
• Healthcare provider questioning the validity of their signature.
• Apparent alterations to the date on supporting documentation.
• Inconsistencies in names within the documentation.
• “For instance:
• If a healthcare provider questions the validity of his/her signature
• If the date on the supporting documentation appears to have been altered
• If a name in the supporting documentation appears to have inconsistencies”
• Rights of Housing Providers in Suspected Fraud Cases: The article asserts that housing providers have the right to seek additional information and exercise caution when reviewing suspicious requests, including the possibility of denial.
• “In the event that you encounter any of these “ifs” or other indicators that seem questionable during your review of an assistance animal request, additional expertise and diligence during the review process is likely warranted. Fraud is a very serious matter and, if suspected, you should navigate this cautiously and carefully. It is well within your rights to seek additional information during the review process before making a final determination of the request which may include the denial of the accommodation request.”
• Difference Between Pet-Friendly Policies and Assistance Animal Requirements: The article emphasizes that allowing pets and accommodating legitimate assistance animals are distinct. Pet fees and restrictions applicable to pets cannot be applied to approved assistance animals.
• “Note that there is a difference between being pet-friendly and permitting assistance animals in a community. When allowing pets on property, operators can charge pet fees and impose restrictions, but those fees and restrictions cannot be applied to legitimate and approved assistance animals.”
• Impact of HUD Guidelines on Breed and Size Restrictions: If an assistance animal request meets HUD/FHAct guidelines, housing providers cannot prohibit the animal based on breed, size, or other characteristics typically applied to pets. This is often a primary motivation behind fraudulent requests.
• “Furthermore, if the reasonable accommodation request for the assistance animal is determined to meet the HUD/FHAct guidelines, then a housing provider cannot prohibit animals based on breed, size or any other characteristic. These pet-related restrictions are often the motivation behind many of the fraudulent requests.”
• Distinction Between Service Animals and Support Animals (ESAs): The article highlights the bifurcated categories under HUD’s updated Assistance Animal Notice:
• Service Animals: Limited to dogs performing specific tasks, and no documentation can be required.
• Support Animals: May include various animal types, and documentation from different healthcare professionals is permissible, making fraud detection more challenging.
• “Under HUD’s updated Assistance Animal Notice, “assistance animals” have been bifurcated into two distinct categories: service animals and support animals. For support animals, several types of animals may qualify and documentation from a variety of healthcare professionals is permissible. That makes the task of differentiating legitimate vs. fraudulent support animal requests more difficult. Service animals are limited to dogs only and the review inquiry process is significantly more narrowly tailored than that of support animals. One of the most notable differences is that no documentation can be required for a service animal.”
• Importance of Due Diligence and Vigilance: Property operators must exercise due diligence and vigilance to effectively identify insufficient or fraudulent assistance animal requests.
• “In the end, due diligence and vigilance on the behalf of operators is integral to identifying insufficient or fraudulent requests.”
• Benefits of Third-Party Verification: Utilizing third-party services like PetScreening can alleviate the burden of verification from onsite teams, freeing up their time and mitigating risks.
• “And by enlisting a third-party to verify assistance animal requests, operators remove the additional workload of authentication and verification from onsite teams, freeing them up for other important tasks.”
• Mandatory Accommodation of Legitimate Requests: Regardless of a property’s general pet policy, legitimate assistance animal requests must be honored.
• “But when it comes to assistance animals, operators must honor the legitimate requests regardless of their stance on pets.”
• Challenges and Time Commitment of Reviewing Requests: Identifying fraudulent requests requires significant consistency, diligence, and time for onsite teams.
• “However, identifying the bad actors trying to pass their pets off as assistance animals is something that requires an immense amount of consistency, diligence and time. Onsite teams should not be bogged down with the challenges and complexities of reviewing accommodation requests for assistance animals.”
• Overall Benefits of Effective Review Processes: Implementing thorough and effective review processes helps save time and money, mitigate pet and animal-related risks, and create a more responsible environment for all residents.
• “Finding the right solution to complete the review process thoroughly and effectively will not only provide team members more time and save operators money, it will also help mitigate pet and animal-related risks while creating a more pet and animal-responsible experience for all residents in a community.”

Conclusion:

The PetScreening article underscores the growing challenge of ESA fraud in rental housing. It emphasizes the necessity of a rigorous and consistent review process for all assistance animal accommodation requests. By understanding the differences between pets, service animals, and support animals, being aware of potential red flags, and recognizing their rights in the review process, housing providers can better identify and address fraudulent claims while ensuring they comply with Fair Housing regulations for legitimate assistance animals. Utilizing third-party verification services can further enhance efficiency and reduce the burden on onsite staff.

https://www.petscreening.com/blog/spotting-the-signs-of-esa-fraud