Emotional support animal (ESA) accommodation requests are one of the most common—and most misunderstood—issues housing providers face today. As these requests continue to increase across the country, so do concerns about fraud, particularly involving online ESA letters.
We sat down with Logan Miller, co-founder of Our Pet Policy, to break down the growing problem of ESA letter fraud and how sting operations are helping to expose unethical providers. Let’s go over the critical lessons for housing providers, property managers, and compliance professionals.
Table of Contents
The Financial and Operational Impact of ESA Fraud
While ESAs are a recognized form of accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, the system is increasingly being abused. Renters can now purchase ESA letters online for as little as $99, complete with a money-back guarantee, and use them to bypass pet fees, deposits, and breed or weight restrictions. The financial motivation is clear: a tenant can save hundreds to thousands of dollars over a lease term by presenting an ESA letter, whether or not it’s legitimate.
But this comes at a cost to housing providers. Logan shares that the founding of Our Pet Policy was based on his personal experience of an elderly couple whose unit was destroyed after their adult son moved in with two untrained dogs and a questionable ESA letter. The damage forced the original tenants to move out, and the property was left with thousands of dollars in repairs. Unfortunately, this scenario is far from uncommon.
Fraudulent ESA claims can also lead to increased liability, complaints from other residents, and strained relationships with residents who follow the rules.
Understanding HUD Guidelines and the Problem with Online Letters
HUD guidance allows housing providers to request reliable documentation when a disability or disability-related need is not apparent. However, what counts as “reliable” is often misunderstood.
Many ESA letters from online providers fail to meet HUD’s standard. Some don’t establish a legitimate disability-related need. Others are generated with minimal contact—sometimes a three-minute phone call or questionnaire—and lack any established patient-provider relationship. These red flags suggest the provider is not in a position to verify a medical condition or recommend a treatment plan, which makes the letter unreliable.
HUD has been clear: documentation from an online source that lacks a personal relationship with the resident is not automatically reliable. Still, many housing providers are unsure how to respond without risking a fair housing complaint.
How Sting Operations Are Holding Providers Accountable
To combat this issue, ‘Our Pet Policy’ has developed a system that tracks and verifies ESA letter sources. Their team regularly purchases letters from known fraudulent websites, documents the process, and submits findings to professional licensing boards.
In some cases, healthcare providers have been fined, placed on probation, or had their licenses revoked for unethical practices. One provider was found to be issuing more than 1,700 ESA letters per month, generating over $1.5 million annually,just from selling letters online.
These sting operations help expose a key point: the fraud isn’t just happening at the tenant level. Some licensed providers are knowingly abusing the system, and without intervention, the cycle continues.
How Property Managers Can Protect Themselves
Given the high volume of ESA requests and the legal risks involved, property management teams need a plan. Here are a few key steps:
- Have a clear, consistent process for evaluating ESA requests that follows HUD guidelines.
- Know what to look for. Certificates and registration cards are not legitimate documentation. Be cautious of form letters from websites using the same template across states.
- Ask for more information when appropriate. If a letter appears suspicious but the resident may still have a valid need, offer them a chance to provide reliable documentation. Denying a request too quickly can trigger a fair housing complaint.
- Document everything. Keep a paper trail of communication, verification steps, and outcomes.
- Train your team. Everyone handling ESA requests should be trained on reasonable accommodation requirements and how to handle questionable documentation.
Some housing providers opt to work with third-party services like Our Pet Policy, which specializes in verifying letters and staying up to date with evolving legal standards.
The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters
Beyond legal compliance and property protection, there’s a human element. Abuse of the ESA process damages the credibility of legitimate assistance animals. Residents with verified disabilities may face extra scrutiny, unfair stigma, or denial of necessary accommodations because of others’ dishonesty.
Fraud also creates ripple effects: increased costs for responsible pet owners, more frequent turnover, and strained community relations. When properties absorb the cost of damages and cleanup, those expenses are often passed on to other residents.
By addressing the problem at its source, fraudulent providers and unreliable documentation, housing providers can support residents who genuinely need accommodations while maintaining fair housing compliance.
Final Thoughts
Emotional support animal requests will continue to be a challenging area for property management. The goal is not to create roadblocks for residents with legitimate needs, but to build a process that filters out abuse and supports fairness.
With consistent policies, proper training, and a willingness to vet questionable documentation, housing providers can better manage ESA requests without falling into legal traps—or becoming victims of fraud.
For more insights or to explore verification services, visit ourpetpolicy.com.
You may also like:
- ESA Letters and Sting Operations: Exposing Online Fraud
- VAWA Certification: What Can Landlords Legally Request?
- Navigating Fair Housing During Federal Cuts: Essential Guide for Property Management
- Maintenance Staff Discrimination by Residents? Know Your Fair Housing Duties
- Fair Housing and Senior Housing: What’s Allowed?