Back to Home

For Property Managers

Know your tenants.No phone tag.

AI-powered reference calls to previous landlords, employers, and personal contacts. Get real answers about tenant reliability -- automatically.

The Problem

Manual Reference Checks Don't Scale

Property managers waste hours chasing down landlord references, only to get vague, unreliable answers.

Phone Tag with Landlords

Previous landlords are busy. Voicemails go unreturned, delaying move-ins and costing you revenue on vacant units.

Inconsistent Questions

Different leasing agents ask different questions. Without standardization, you can't compare applicants fairly or defend your decisions.

Costly Bad Tenants

A single eviction can cost $3,500-$10,000 in legal fees, lost rent, and property damage. Poor references go undetected until it's too late.

Compliance Risk

Fair housing laws require consistent treatment of all applicants. Unstructured phone calls create liability when screening isn't documented.

Screening Methods

Are we a fit for your screening process?

Here's how Reffem compares to alternative approaches for tenant screening.

Manual Calls

Best for: Personal touch

Nothing beats a human conversation for building rapport with previous landlords.

Strengths:

  • Human intuition and rapport
  • Completely flexible questioning
  • Personal relationship building
Reffem

Best for: Depth + Speed

AI-powered conversations that get real landlord insights without the scheduling headaches.

Strengths:

  • Deep insights, zero scheduling
  • Fair-housing-compliant consistency
  • 24/7 availability, 20+ languages

Credit Check Only

Best for: Basic verification

Fast automated results for credit history and eviction records, but misses the human story.

Strengths:

  • Fast automated results
  • Standardized scoring
  • Widely accepted baseline

Simple Process

How It Works

1

Add Your Applicant

Takes 30 seconds

Enter the applicant's name and their references -- previous landlords, employers, or personal contacts. We handle everything from there.

2

AI Calls References

Available 24/7

Reffem calls each reference at a convenient time, asking property-specific questions about rent payment, property care, noise, and lease compliance.

3

Review the Report

Ready in minutes

Get a detailed report with recordings, transcripts, risk flags, and a tenant reliability score. Make confident leasing decisions.

Why Reffem

Why Property Managers Choose Reffem

Purpose-built for the unique challenges of tenant screening at every scale.

Reduce Evictions

Catch red flags before signing the lease. Our AI probes deeper on vague answers about rent payment and property damage history.

Fill Units Faster

No more waiting days for reference callbacks. AI completes checks in hours so you can approve applicants and reduce vacancy time.

Consistent and Fair

Every applicant gets the same questions asked the same way. Documented, compliant, and defensible screening for fair housing.

24/7 Availability

References complete the call on their own schedule -- evenings, weekends, any time zone. No phone tag, no scheduling.

Recorded and Transcribed

Every reference call is recorded with consent and transcribed. Full audit trail for dispute resolution or compliance review.

Works at Scale

Whether you manage 50 units or 5,000, Reffem handles unlimited concurrent reference checks without adding headcount.

Hear How Reffem Digs Deeper

This employment reference check demonstrates how our AI probes past vague answers to uncover real insights. The same conversational depth applies to landlord and tenant references.

Sample Reference Interview

Example: Senior Software Engineer

0:43 / 0:00

Starting at Key Moment: Watch how Reffem challenges a surface-level answer.

Reffem0:00

Good afternoon, Avery. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. As you know, we're speaking about Michael, who's being considered for a senior software engineer role here. We really appreciate you sharing your insights.

Reference0:11

Of course, Jordan. Happy to help. Michael reported directly to me for three years, right up until I moved to a different department last quarter.

Reffem0:18

That's perfect. Well, to start then, how would you describe Michael's work ethic and his reliability?

Reference0:24

Michael was exceptionally reliable, especially when we were up against a really high stakes deadline. I remember a critical API migration project last year. The deadline was a hard two weeks. And Michael consistently stayed late without anyone asking just to make sure all the integration points were perfect. That was typical of him.

Reffem0:43

That's great context. So could you provide some specific examples of Michael's key strengths and maybe just importantly some areas for development you noticed?

Reference0:52

His key strength is definitely his technical depth, specifically in backend system architecture, database optimization—just brilliant. Where he had some room for development was sometimes prioritizing technical purity over practical speed.

Reffem1:07

Could you elaborate on that? I mean, if he's optimizing something, why is that a development area?

Reference1:12

Sure. There was one time Michael spent three full days optimizing a single database query. And technically, the code was beautiful. It was perfect. But that query only ran once a month for a report. A quick 30-minute fix would have been fine, and it would have freed him up for customer-facing features that were urgent. It just showed a little bit of a disconnect from the immediate business needs.

Reffem1:35

I see. That really helps frame his decision-making. OK, how did Michael handle challenging situations or, say, conflicts within the team?

Reference1:44

Michael tends to avoid interpersonal friction. He's not a confrontational person. When we had a big disagreement with the design team over a new feature, Michael actually stepped in as a sort of technical mediator. Instead of arguing, he just compiled all this detailed documentation that showed, with data, the complexity of what they were asking for. He used data to resolve the conflict.

Reffem2:04

Did that require him to step out of his comfort zone a bit to manage personalities?

Reference2:08

It did, yeah. He's not naturally outspoken, but he saw that an objective voice was needed. And the document itself kind of diffused the whole situation so the teams could focus on a solution instead of being frustrated with each other.

Reffem2:24

Right. OK, next. Did Michael effectively meet deadlines and manage his workload?

Reference2:29

For big complex projects, absolutely. Like that API migration I mentioned, he was fantastic. But for the smaller, more routine maintenance tickets, the less exciting stuff, he sometimes needed a nudge to close those out after a big project was done.

Reffem2:42

So he needed a little more accountability for the more mundane tasks.

Reference2:45

A little bit, yeah.

Reffem2:47

Got it. And how well did Michael collaborate and communicate with his teammates?

Reference2:50

Within the engineering team, collaboration was really strong. He's great at asynchronous communication—detailed code comments, pull request reviews, very proactive on Slack. He was a bit less vocal in big cross-departmental meetings, tended to only speak up when asked directly.

Reffem3:08

OK. And can you comment on Michael's ability to adapt to change? A sudden shift in project scope, for example.

Reference3:15

Oh, technically, he adapted incredibly well. When our whole infrastructure pivoted from one cloud provider to another, Michael immediately took the lead on learning the new tool set. He didn't even have to be asked. He just embraces technical change.

Reffem3:28

What ways did Michael demonstrate leadership skills or take initiative on your team?

Reference3:33

Michael's initiative was very focused on technical growth. He noticed that our new hires were taking a long time to get up to speed. So completely on his own, he designed and documented a full onboarding curriculum for junior engineers.

Reffem3:45

Wow.

Reference3:45

And that curriculum, I mean, it significantly cut down the time it took for new people to become productive.

Reffem3:51

That's a very concrete example of initiative. Did Michael display strong problem solving and critical thinking skills?

Reference3:58

Absolutely. When a mission critical service failed last spring—I mean, immediate customer impact—Michael was the one who diagnosed it. He figured out it wasn't our code, but a really obscure dependency issue from an external update. He isolated the fix and had us back online in under an hour. He's a true troubleshooter.

Reffem4:16

That shows incredible thinking under pressure. OK, just a couple more. How did Michael handle feedback and constructive criticism?

Reference4:23

Very professionally. After we talked about him being more proactive in those cross-functional meetings, he immediately scheduled weekly syncs with the product managers to make sure his work had visibility. He wasn't defensive at all. He just wanted to fix it.

Reffem4:37

Avery, thank you. These examples are incredibly helpful. So the ultimate question. Given the opportunity, knowing this role is very technical and back-end focused, would you rehire Michael?

Reference4:47

Yes. I would absolutely rehire Michael for a role that plays to his technical depth and his problem-solving skills. I would just also make sure that role had a project manager to help with prioritizing some of those smaller routine tasks.

Press play to follow along with the transcript.

$7,500

Average Eviction Cost

85%

Reference Response Rate

< 24h

Average Turnaround

3x

Faster Than Manual Calls

Frequently Asked Questions

Start Screening Smarter Today

Join property managers using AI to make faster, more informed leasing decisions. Get your first tenant reference check free.