How would you screen applicants consistently for a 5-bed Copenhagen flat?

[planTheGate]

I’m reviewing applicants for a 5-bed new-build flat in Copenhagen. Income, references and credit history each favour a different person, so choosing whichever story feels strongest would be inconsistent.

Which objective criteria have genuinely helped predict payment reliability and tenant retention? I’m also interested in rules that sound reassuring but reveal little. I want a fair, lawful process that accounts for vacancy time, turnover cost and deposit handling—not reassurance that the Copenhagen market will solve everything.

 

[alba_finance]

I’d give most weight to verified ability to meet the rent, then use the same factual questions for every previous landlord: payment timing, length of tenancy, notice given and documented property condition. A glowing general reference is less useful than consistent answers.

One missing fact: will this be one household or several adults sharing? That affects what you need to establish about responsibility for rent and maintenance, subject to the tenancy arrangement permitted locally.

 

[EliFable]

Landlord references are useful, but they are a weak foundation for the whole decision. A person with little rental history may still pay reliably, while a poor reference can arise from a dispute unrelated to rent.

I would prepare the scorecard before comparing applicants: verified affordability, complete and consistent documents, relevant payment evidence where it may lawfully be considered, likely tenancy duration and factual answers from referees. Use the same weighting and record the reason for the choice. The proposed arrangement also matters—one household and several sharing adults may present different responsibility and retention risks. Separately, verify Copenhagen requirements for deposits, notices and market rent; careful screening will not correct unsuitable lease terms.