Corporate landlord abuse refers to harmful, exploitative, or unlawful practices by large, investor-owned property management firms that control thousands of housing units.
- Aggressive evictions: Filing cases for minor infractions or late payments to clear units for higher rents.
- Unlawful rent increases: Inflating rents or adding hidden fees beyond legal limits.
- Deceptive practices: Using intimidation or misinformation to force tenants to vacate.
- Avoiding accountability: Hiding ownership behind layers of LLCs.
- Neglecting maintenance: Allowing properties to deteriorate.
Forms of Corporate Landlord Abuse
Based on my six years renting from Brookfield Properties, I personally experienced multiple forms of corporate landlord abuse. These behaviors reflect a broader national pattern documented by scholars, courts, and regulators.
1. Systemic Overcharging and Fabricated Balances
Brookfield’s automated billing system routinely produced inflated balances, then back-dated late fees onto charges that were never owed in the first place. These “errors” were often repeated annually around lease renewal time.
2. Unauthorized Electronic Withdrawals
Their payment platform attempted to withdraw inflated balances from my bank account—violating the lease, violating the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and ignoring the actual rent amount set by the housing authority.
Corporate agents then issued notices to vacate even though payments were current, only to later remove these entries without explanation.
3. Retaliation and Credit Coercion
After I reported the errors, Brookfield retaliated by fabricating a new debt, attempting to leverage the fear of eviction and credit damage to force payment. This pressure tactic is a hallmark of modern corporate landlord abuse.
4. Violations of Federal Housing Law
Under HUD rules (24 C.F.R. § 982.451), an owner may not request or collect rent above the tenant’s approved share and must return any excess immediately.
Brookfield’s conduct directly conflicts with these federal requirements governing HUD-VASH and Section 8 housing.
5. Automation Without Accountability
Brookfield relies on malfunctioning billing systems (including BILT and Conservice) that miscalculate, duplicate, or misapply charges.
Instead of correcting the problems, they attribute everything to “system errors” while still holding tenants responsible. Automation becomes a shield that eliminates human accountability but amplifies harm—especially for low-income, elderly, and disabled tenants.
6. A Recognized National Pattern
Scholars and courts have already identified this type of conduct:
-
A Harvard Law Review essay calls it “unchecked property-manager abuse,” where privatized managers exploit weak oversight and automated systems, leading to overpayment, improper evictions, and financial harm to elderly and disabled tenants.
-
A class-action lawsuit in Washington, DC alleges that Brookfield Properties used deceptive utility billing practices and excessive application fees.
In Summary
Corporate landlord abuse occurs when large real-estate corporations use scale, automation, and control over essential housing to extract unlawful payments, retaliate against tenants who assert their rights, and evade meaningful oversight.
More Information
- Download Rise of the Corporate Landlord – The institutionalization of the single-family rental market and potential impacts on renters – Right to the City Alliance.
- Download Tools for Tackling Corporate Landlords -State and local policy options for mitigating the impact of private equity on renters.
Michael Stuart is one of the extraordinarily rare individuals who sits at the intersection of military discipline, real-estate insight, advanced technology expertise, corporate executive experience, and lived understanding of HUD-VASH housing systems.