Renting - "no children" discrimination

JustJewels

Hi all,

I'm posting about this issue which makes me quite angry. Having had to move for job reasons, from an owner occupied flat to a rented one, I was appalled to discover that it is legal for landlords to advertise properties and have a "no children" policy. My poor baby wasn't even born yet and already he was facing discrimination!

Now I am renting an unsuitable flat because it was the only one where the landlord said ok to kids.

I can understand a no pets policy, but a no children policy I find very hard to stomach. Children are people too! As a landlord myself, I understand a landlords concern over damage to their property, but no-one even gave me an option to offer, for example, a larger deposit to cover potential damage.

In this current economic climate of low housing affordability and shortage of social housing, I think the government should legislate that landlords cannot discriminate against renters just cos they have kids.

I think it's reflective of this country's bad attitude towards children. America does many things badly, but at least they have a Fair Housing act which makes no kids policies illegal - and no, I'm not American, just using that as an example.

Rant over

JJ

barnaby-bear

JustJewels wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm posting about this issue which makes me quite angry. Having had to move for job reasons, from an owner occupied flat to a rented one, I was appalled to discover that it is legal for landlords to advertise properties and have a "no children" policy. My poor baby wasn't even born yet and already he was facing discrimination!

Now I am renting an unsuitable flat because it was the only one where the landlord said ok to kids.

I can understand a no pets policy, but a no children policy I find very hard to stomach. Children are people too! As a landlord myself, I understand a landlords concern over damage to their property, but no-one even gave me an option to offer, for example, a larger deposit to cover potential damage.

In this current economic climate of low housing affordability and shortage of social housing, I think the government should legislate that landlords cannot discriminate against renters just cos they have kids.

I think it's reflective of this country's bad attitude towards children. America does many things badly, but at least they have a Fair Housing act which makes no kids policies illegal - and no, I'm not American, just using that as an example.

Rant over

JJ

It's pretty standard where I'm located.

I think the reasons are not so much damage but the risk of having to push for eviction to get the property back. People with kids are likely to want stability and to get social housing in many areas you have to force your LL to evict you formally (or else intentionally homeless) to be eligible, courts are also slower and more reluctant to grant evictions on those with children. So for a LL there's a financial risk to recovering the property if he allows kids. If a LL is likely to want to move back in or cash in the investment statistically it can be a lot harder and more expensive if kids involved.

carpetbelly

People with kids are likely to want stability and to get social housing

That's quite a poor generalisation though. I mean, the misses has kids (I do not) yet we wouldnt think about social housing as we can afford what we have. I know plenty of others with children as well, and surprisingly most of them either rent privately or own their own home. Social housing should be just that, for people in need. Not everyone with children aim for this.

But to the OP, I feel for you. I personally have never seen that clause while looking for rented homes previously and I think it's disgusting. Penalising people for having children!?! The shame.

barnaby-bear

JustJewels wrote: »

In this current economic climate of low housing affordability and shortage of social housing, I think the government should legislate that landlords cannot discriminate against renters just cos they have kids.

ASTs allow notice to be served at two months notice for no reason whatsoever, a LL may prefer one tenant because of 'the nature of their job', 'their previous references were better', 'the length of time they plan to stay suits him better'.... you can legislate all you like but as with employment law you can always find a legal reason to prefer one candidate over another...

poppy10_2

JustJewels wrote: »

I can understand a no pets policy, but a no children policy I find very hard to stomach. Children are people too!

Messy people, who poop everywhere and draw on the walls. If I were a landlord I wouldn't rent to people with children. It's entirely the LL's prerogative.

JustJewels

poppy10 wrote: »

Messy people, who poop everywhere and draw on the walls. If I were a landlord I wouldn't rent to people with children. It's entirely the LL's prerogative.

Hi poppy10, I agree with you, it certainly is currently the landlords prerogative as to who they rent their property to, and also I agree, children can be messy. That's why I would have been happy to offer a larger deposit or agree to a cleaning clause etc.

This experience has brought home to me the fundamental importance of housing to everyone. I think housing policy needs to be changed, or we end up in the situation where we are now, where people on benefits, or workers with children, are excluded from a large part of the private rental sector. Which just puts even more pressure on social housing, and on costs to everyone.

This is another reason why I prefer being an owner occupier rather than a renter - no estate agent is going to say to me, we're not gonna sell you this house because you have kids! Therefore again, more people like me would want to be owners because of reasons such as this, and more pressure on house prices. It's crazy.

JJ

barnaby-bear

carpetbelly wrote: »

That's quite a poor generalisation though. I mean, the misses has kids (I do not) yet we wouldnt think about social housing as we can afford what we have. I know plenty of others with children as well, and surprisingly most of them either rent privately or own their own home. Social housing should be just that, for people in need. Not everyone with children aim for this.

But to the OP, I feel for you. I personally have never seen that clause while looking for rented homes previously and I think it's disgusting. Penalising people for having children!?! The shame.

Most people without kids won't be eligible for social housing so this scenario less likely to arise and if it does there isn't the issue of courts being lenient with those with kids.... it's not that most people with kids will do this just that this expensive difficult issue for LLs arises mostly with people with kids (even if it's a small %)...

barnaby-bear

JustJewels wrote: »

Hi poppy10, I agree with you, it certainly is currently the landlords prerogative as to who they rent their property to, and also I agree, children can be messy. That's why I would have been happy to offer a larger deposit or agree to a cleaning clause etc.

This experience has brought home to me the fundamental importance of housing to everyone. I think housing policy needs to be changed, or we end up in the situation where we are now, where people on benefits, or workers with children, are excluded from a large part of the private rental sector. Which just puts even more pressure on social housing, and on costs to everyone.

This is another reason why I prefer being an owner occupier rather than a renter - no estate agent is going to say to me, we're not gonna sell you this house because you have kids! Therefore again, more people like me would want to be owners because of reasons such as this, and more pressure on house prices. It's crazy.

JJ

So you've stated the problem and the consequences but your solution is 'housing policy should change' -

HOW? Some good ideas would be welcome.

Clearly banning LLs who won't take kids from saying so won't change anything since it'll just involve lots of people wasting their time applying for places where the LL will find a reason not to take them... so what do you actually suggest...

OrkneyStar

I can understand your point OP, however I think it is the landlords perogative. Try not to take it too personally as he was not discriminating against your child/bump in particular, just ANY child! I have a 13 month old and although he makes a mess (understatement :eek: !) he has not done any lasting damage YET however! Some tenants, with our without child(ren) can leave terrible messes. A single person or couple might have more potential to cause damage as they have no children to stop them having mad parties etc. In some ways I feel sorry for landlords cos so much legislation is pro-tenant nowadays!
I wish you well with the new arrival and hope you find somewhere you are happy in.

carpetbelly

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Most people without kids won't be eligible for social housing so this scenario less likely to arise and if it does there isn't the issue of courts being lenient with those with kids.... it's not that most people with kids will do this just that this expensive difficult issue for LLs arises mostly with people with kids (even if it's a small %)...

A very valid point so yes, can see your arguement. And yes, I can see it's obviously every LL choice of who rents their property and fair enough. It's a private business endevour after all and at the end of the day their own choice.

Though I guess people see 'children' and probably assume young children who would make a mess. But then people should see parents in an individual light. I mean, some would happily put right any mess, some would pay a bigger deposit to keep a LL peace of mind. I personally think it's very unfair to just say 'no children' even though I understand it's a LL personal choice. Then again, I feel the same about pets to.

It's one of those horrible catch22's. The LL has the right to chose whoever he wishes to rent to. People need a place to live. From a simple business perspective I can see why people would want no children and pets.

OrkneyStar

carpetbelly wrote: »

A very valid point so yes, can see your arguement. And yes, I can see it's obviously every LL choice of who rents their property and fair enough. It's a private business endevour after all and at the end of the day their own choice.

Though I guess people see 'children' and probably assume young children who would make a mess. But then people should see parents in an individual light. I mean, some would happily put right any mess, some would pay a bigger deposit to keep a LL peace of mind. I personally think it's very unfair to just say 'no children' even though I understand it's a LL personal choice. Then again, I feel the same about pets to.

It's one of those horrible catch22's. The LL has the right to chose whoever he wishes to rent to. People need a place to live. From a simple business perspective I can see why people would want no children and pets.

I agree completely, although having owned a very hairy dog (she lives at mums now) I would rather a child any day! A teenager- well thats a new matter completely- potential for crazy wild parties :eek: !