What would have been a more effective response?
Many very clearly articulated the nature of these lease/rent options and it did not matter.
Britttany, instead asks Kandy, "Where's it at?"
Are we to be resigned to the fact you can not protect people from themselves?
Should instead, these questions be diverted into a false consultation situation?
Are there OTHER legitimate reasons for a buyer to consider lease-to-own other than circumventing credit requirements?
Could they simply be looking to switch to a rent only program?
Perhaps, comments from real estate professionals is interpreted as, "They only want to 'sell' homes and have no knowledge of other options." Does the message of warning require some connection to a solution other than fix your credit?