A folder with dozens of complete application documents looks thorough. For a comprehensible letting decision it is often less clear than a clearly regulated process. What matters is when which information is actually needed, who checks it and when a procedure is completed. Data protection and good organisation can be considered together.
Set the process before the first enquiry
Describe the flat, the planned start of the tenancy and the factual prerequisites for the intended use as clearly as possible. Organise viewing times and determine who answers enquiries. If several people are involved, not all should independently request different documents. A central case list reduces misunderstandings.
Our editorial recommendation: Use a short internal process description instead of a blanket list of all conceivable proofs. It should set out the steps appointment, concrete interest, selection, contract and closing of the remaining applications. A responsible person is named for each step. This prevents an old email template from being used out of convenience to request unnecessary data.
The current standard is phase-based
In version 2.0 of its guidance, the Data Protection Conference describes three phases from the viewing to the selection of a specific contracting party. Collected information must be necessary for the respective purpose. A blanket consent should not serve to legitimise an unnecessarily extensive self-disclosure. The attached model approach must be adapted to the actual letting case. [DE-DSK]
Apply this logic to your procedure: first you need the information for organising the appointment, later, if necessary, the information for the concrete contractual decision. A later possible use does not automatically justify collecting everything at the first contact. Special forms of housing and funding conditions can trigger additional checks; they belong in an expressly appropriate variant.
Reduce documents to a concrete question
If you request a proof, first formulate internally what it is supposed to answer. Then check whether less extensive information serves the same purpose. A document with many private details should not be preferred out of habit. Communicate externally what is needed and how the documents will securely reach the responsible office.
Example, fictitious: Two people manage the letting. The owner carries out the selection, a second person only organises appointments. Both do not automatically need access to the same proofs. The appointment list therefore contains the required contact details and the processing status; separate proofs remain with the person responsible for them. A jointly used open cloud folder would not be a good default for this.
Separate selection criteria and gut feeling
Define factual, permissible and tenancy-related criteria. Note actual information without derogatory comments or unsubstantiated assumptions. A comprehensible decision does not arise from as many private details as possible. Also consider the legal limits of selection; this article does not replace an examination of discrimination or data protection issues.
Avoid a point score that treats unclear information as established facts. If a relevant proof is missing, mark the question as open and clarify it in the appropriate process step. A final decision should be based on the documented status. If this changes, update the case instead of continuing to run parallel contradictory lists.
After selection the purpose changes
For the selected contracting party the required contractual details are prepared. For an agreed cash deposit for residential accommodation, § 551 BGB regulates, among other things, the limit to three months' rent without itemised operating costs, the right to three monthly instalments and the separate investment from the assets of the renting party. Deviations to the detriment of the tenant are invalid to that extent. [DE-551]
These rules show why selection, contract and payment organisation are separate tasks. A positive decision does not justify an arbitrary expansion of data collection. Also check who needs access to the contract file after completion and how unnecessary copies can be avoided.
Consciously close remaining cases
Answer open applications, withdraw consents that are no longer required and establish a justified retention and deletion process. There is no universally promised blanket period here: purpose, possible claims and the concrete data set must be taken into account. A manageable, documented procedure is more practical than a permanently growing archive of all applications.