Washington Rental Application Form
RCW 59.18.257 sets no dollar figure on a Washington screening charge. The ceiling is the landlord's actual cost of obtaining the background information, and that amount may not exceed the customary costs charged by a screening service in the general area. The right to charge anything at all is conditioned on having first given a written or posted notice naming the information to be accessed, the criteria that may result in denial, and the consumer reporting agency.
Find out where you stand in Washington
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
The ceiling on a Washington screening charge is fixed by the landlord's own invoice and by what screening companies nearby already charge, because no dollar figure appears in the statute. RCW 59.18.257(1)(b)(ii) says that a prospective landlord conducting its own screening of tenants may charge its actual costs in obtaining the background information, and that the amount charged may not exceed the customary costs charged by a screening service in the general area. The statute then tells you what those actual costs include: costs incurred for long distance phone calls and for time spent calling landlords, employers and financial institutions. Where the landlord buys a third-party report instead, RCW 59.18.257(1)(b)(i) lets it charge the prospective tenant for the costs incurred in obtaining that report. Both halves of that subsection share the same opening condition, and the condition is the part worth reading twice: the landlord may charge only if it provided the information required by subsection (1)(a). That makes the Washington notice a precondition of the charge rather than a separate courtesy. Before obtaining any information about a prospective tenant at all, the landlord has to notify the applicant, in writing or by posting, of four things: what types of information will be accessed to conduct the tenant screening, what criteria may result in denial of the application, the name and address of the consumer reporting agency if a consumer report is used together with the applicant's rights to a free copy in the event of a denial or other adverse action and to dispute the accuracy of what the report says, and whether or not the landlord will accept a comprehensive reusable tenant screening report. A violation of that subsection carries liability of up to one hundred dollars, and the prevailing party may also recover court costs and reasonable attorneys fees. At the other end of the process, if the landlord takes an adverse action it has to hand the applicant a written adverse action notice that states the reasons for it, in a format substantially similar to the one printed in the section itself. This has been the shape of Washington law since 2016, and the Legislature's own code publication is current through the 2026 session. So the useful Washington question is not how much, but whether the notice came first, because that is what decides whether the charge was permitted at all.
Key Things to Know
- 1
Two ceilings sit on a Washington screening charge and neither of them is a dollar figure. RCW 59.18.257(1)(b)(ii) limits a landlord who conducts its own screening to its actual costs in obtaining the background information, and adds that the amount charged may not exceed the customary costs charged by a screening service in the general area. The statute names part of what the actual costs cover: long distance phone calls, and time spent calling landlords, employers and financial institutions. A charge has to clear both benchmarks, so a locally typical price is not a defense for a landlord whose own cost was lower, and an unusually high own cost is not a defense either. This is the text as it stands for 2026, unchanged since 2016.
- 2
The notice is a condition on charging, not a duty sitting beside it. Both branches of RCW 59.18.257(1)(b) begin the same way: the landlord may charge for a tenant screening report, or may charge its actual costs of its own screening, only if the prospective landlord provides the information as required in (a) of this subsection. That subsection (1)(a) notice has to be given, in writing or by posting, prior to obtaining any information about a prospective tenant. Under RCW 59.18.257(3) a landlord or prospective landlord who violates subsection (1) may be liable to the prospective tenant for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars, and the prevailing party may also recover court costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
- 3
A denial has to arrive in writing with its reasons attached. RCW 59.18.257(1)(c) provides that if a prospective landlord takes an adverse action it shall provide a written notice of the adverse action to the prospective tenant that states the reasons for the adverse action, and that the notice must contain the required information in a substantially similar format to the checkbox form the section prints out. The section also folds in any additional information required under chapter 19.182 RCW, the Washington fair credit reporting chapter. The duty is the landlord's own and does not depend on the applicant writing in to ask why.
- 4
Washington makes the landlord answer the reusable-report question, not say yes to it. The duty is disclosure. RCW 59.18.257(1)(a)(iv) puts the answer in the pre-screening notice, and RCW 59.18.257(2) requires any landlord who maintains a website advertising a rental or serving as a source of information for current or prospective tenants to include a statement on the property's home page stating whether or not it will accept a comprehensive reusable tenant screening report. Saying yes has a price: the landlord may still access its own tenant screening report so long as the prospective tenant is not charged for it. The 2012 policy finding behind the regime states the problem it was aimed at, which is that applicants who apply for housing with multiple housing providers pay repeated screening fees for successive reports containing essentially the same information.
- 5
What Washington does not require is as load bearing as what it does. There is no duty to refund an unused screening charge, no duty to itemize the actual screening cost to the applicant, and no duty to give a receipt for the screening charge. The receipt duty that does exist in the chapter belongs to a different charge, and RCW 59.18.253(4)(b) draws the line in terms: a fee or deposit to hold a dwelling unit or secure that the prospective tenant will move into a dwelling unit does not include any cost charged by a landlord to use a tenant screening service or obtain background information on a prospective tenant. So in Washington the applicant's leverage over the amount is the actual-cost and customary-cost ceilings, not a refund clock.
- 6
Two neighbouring pre-lease charges are regulated where the screening charge is not. Under RCW 59.18.253(1) it is unlawful for a landlord to require a fee or deposit from a prospective tenant for the privilege of being placed on a waiting list to be considered as a tenant. Under RCW 59.18.253(2) and (3), a landlord who charges a fee or deposit to hold a unit after it has been offered to the applicant must provide a receipt together with a written statement of the conditions, if any, under which the fee or deposit may be retained, immediately upon payment, and the charge may not exceed twenty five percent of the first month's rent. A violation runs to the amount charged plus up to two times that fee or deposit, plus costs and fees. If a tenant-based rental assistance inspection does not happen within ten days of collection, or a longer agreed period, the landlord may say the unit will no longer be held and must then promptly return the money.
- 7
Two statewide rules limit what a Washington application may do with the information it collects, and both are written as restrictions on the landlord. RCW 59.18.255(3), in force since September 30, 2018, provides that if a landlord requires that a prospective tenant have a certain threshold level of income, any source of income in the form of a rent voucher or subsidy must be subtracted from the total of the monthly rent prior to calculating if the income criteria have been met; subsection (4) sets civil liability at up to four and one-half times the monthly rent plus costs and fees. RCW 59.18.580, in force since January 1, 2014, bars a tenant screening service provider from disclosing an applicant's or household member's status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, and bars a landlord from refusing to enter into a rental agreement on that basis.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Rental Application Form in Washington, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Rental Application Form guide walks through them.
Open the Rental Application Form guideCustomize your Rental Application Form Template with DocDraft
Washington Requirements for Rental Application Form
The Screening Charge, Measured Against Two Ceilings
RCW 59.18.257(1)(b)(ii) provides that if a prospective landlord conducts his or her own screening of tenants, the prospective landlord may charge his or her actual costs in obtaining the background information, and that the amount charged may not exceed the customary costs charged by a screening service in the general area. The statute names part of what those actual costs cover: costs incurred for long distance phone calls and for time spent calling landlords, employers and financial institutions. Where a third-party report is bought instead, RCW 59.18.257(1)(b)(i) permits a charge for the costs incurred in obtaining that tenant screening report. There is no dollar figure in the section. This is the text in force for 2026, unchanged since 2016.
The Notice That Has to Come Before Any Information Is Obtained
RCW 59.18.257(1)(a) requires that prior to obtaining any information about a prospective tenant, the prospective landlord shall first notify the prospective tenant in writing, or by posting, of four things: what types of information will be accessed to conduct the tenant screening; what criteria may result in denial of the application; if a consumer report is used, the name and address of the consumer reporting agency and the prospective tenant's rights to obtain a free copy of the consumer report in the event of a denial or other adverse action and to dispute the accuracy of information appearing in it; and whether or not the landlord will accept a comprehensive reusable tenant screening report. Both branches of RCW 59.18.257(1)(b) permit a charge only if that notice was provided, so the notice is a precondition of charging. RCW 59.18.257(3) sets liability for a violation of subsection (1) at an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars, with court costs and reasonable attorneys fees recoverable by the prevailing party.
The Reusable Report Answer, in the Notice and on the Home Page
Washington compels an answer rather than an acceptance. RCW 59.18.257(1)(a)(iv) puts the answer in the pre-screening notice. RCW 59.18.257(2) adds that any landlord who maintains a website advertising the rental of a dwelling unit or serving as a source of information for current or prospective tenants must include a statement on the property's home page stating whether or not the landlord will accept a comprehensive reusable tenant screening report made available by a consumer reporting agency, and that a landlord who indicates its willingness to accept one may access its own tenant screening report as long as the prospective tenant is not charged for it. RCW 59.18.030 defines the qualifying report: prepared by a consumer reporting agency at the direction of and paid for by the prospective tenant, made available directly to the prospective landlord at no charge, and containing all of a consumer credit report prepared within the past 30 days, criminal history, eviction history, an employment verification, and address and rental history. Added by the 2016 act.
The Written Adverse Action Notice, Stating Reasons
RCW 59.18.257(1)(c) provides that if a prospective landlord takes an adverse action, the prospective landlord shall provide a written notice of the adverse action to the prospective tenant that states the reasons for the adverse action, and that the notice must contain the required information in a substantially similar format to the checkbox form printed in the section, including additional information as may be required under chapter 19.182 RCW. The trigger is any adverse action rather than a flat denial, the notice is owed without the applicant asking for it, and the reasons stated here are meant to line up with the criteria already published under RCW 59.18.257(1)(a)(ii). This duty dates to the 1991 act and is unchanged.
What Washington Does Not Require: Refund, Itemization or Receipt
Chapter 59.18 RCW imposes no duty to return an unused screening charge, no duty to itemize the actual screening cost to the applicant, and no duty to give a receipt for the screening charge. The words refund, itemize and receipt do not appear in RCW 59.18.257, and no other section caption in the chapter reaches the refunding or itemizing of an application or screening fee. RCW 59.18.253(4)(b) marks the boundary: a fee or deposit to hold a dwelling unit or secure that the prospective tenant will move into a dwelling unit does not include any cost charged by a landlord to use a tenant screening service or obtain background information on a prospective tenant. An applicant's handle on the amount in Washington is the actual-cost and customary-cost ceilings, not a refund clock.
No Waiting List Fee, and a Receipt for Any Holding Deposit
RCW 59.18.253(1) provides that it shall be unlawful for a landlord to require a fee or deposit from a prospective tenant for the privilege of being placed on a waiting list to be considered as a tenant for a dwelling unit. RCW 59.18.253(2) permits a fee or deposit to hold a unit after it has been offered to the applicant, but requires the landlord to provide a receipt together with a written statement of the conditions, if any, under which the fee or deposit may be retained, immediately upon payment. RCW 59.18.253(3) caps that charge at twenty five percent of the first month's rent, and the section sets liability at the amount charged plus up to two times the fee or deposit, with costs and fees. Under RCW 59.18.253(4)(c) no part may be withheld if the unit fails a tenant-based rental assistance program inspection, and if the inspection has not occurred within ten days of collection or a longer agreed period the landlord may notify the applicant that the unit will no longer be held and must then promptly return the money. Last amended by the 2020 act.
How a Rent Voucher Is Counted Against an Income Threshold
RCW 59.18.255(3), in force since September 30, 2018, provides that if a landlord requires that a prospective tenant or current tenant have a certain threshold level of income, any source of income in the form of a rent voucher or subsidy must be subtracted from the total of the monthly rent prior to calculating if the income criteria have been met. Subsection (4) provides that a person in violation of the section shall be held liable in a civil action up to four and one-half times the monthly rent of the real property at issue, as well as court costs and reasonable attorneys fees. The rule bears directly on the income block of a Washington application: the figure the threshold is applied to is the rent net of the voucher, not the contract rent.
Survivor Status Is Off Limits to the Screening Service and the Landlord
RCW 59.18.580, in force since January 1, 2014, provides that a tenant screening service provider may not disclose a tenant's, applicant's or household member's status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, and may not knowingly disclose that a tenant, applicant or household member has previously terminated a rental agreement under RCW 59.18.575. The same section provides that a landlord may not terminate a tenancy, fail to renew a tenancy, or refuse to enter into a rental agreement based on that status. Civil damages are available along with costs and fees. The duty runs against the screening vendor as well as the landlord, which matters on a document whose background check is usually outsourced.