Renting - "no children" discrimination

Bungarm2001

I have to agree with pulpitears...letting a 5 yr old kid out on the street to play shouldn't be a problem, as long as the kid sticks to a set of clearly defined rules, and Mum or Dad checks regularly. There are many 'play streets' designated in Salford where traffic is only allowed in an emergency between certain hours. We've seen kids as young as 2-3 out there playing safely. There should be more of these streets.

The younger they are allowed to go out to play safely, the quicker they will automatically learn roadsense and other life skills without even realising. I must admit I am appalled at how many molly coddled kids of around age 10 out there who are completely without road sense and have no clue what the consequences could be if they went into some friends house without asking permission ...anyway...back to the OP; We have had families with kids and we have at least two now. True, we get crayons on the wall sometimes, but it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. We let mostly to students, and if you could see the mess they always leave behind, I'd take a family with kids anyday, if mess was the only consideration.

So, not all LL 'discriminate' in this way.

JustJewels

Hello again,

Thanks for all your comments, it is great to read other peoples perspectives.

I hadn't thought about a landlord being put off by problems with evictions - thanks to barnaby-bear for pointing this out. I was thinking of legislation like America's Fair Housing Actg which makes it illegal to have a no kids rule - but can see how that would be difficult to enforce...

Of course a real solution would be more social housing/better housing affordabilty for everyone...but I don't have the yearning to become a politician, LOL

poppysarah, my baby is 2 months old. By the time he needs a garden, hopefully his mum will have found a house to rent with a garden. We do go to the local park almost daily ;-)

to idiophreak and others who bring up the question of discrimination - I do think it's genuine discrimination - defined as "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice". Who is to say that I will be more trouble as a tenant just because I have a baby? I have been and intend to continue to be an exemplary tenant.

And yes, if fewer and fewer people choose not to have children, our demographic problems will get a whole lot worse. Wheneever I hear the phrase, "supporing families" from a polititian from now on, I'll just snort with derision.

I feel for other families in a similar or worse situation to mine, that's all

thanks again for all the replies

JJ

lostinrates

I have no idea what the answer is, but I think its a sad reflection both on society's view of children and also the parenting that has fostered society's view of children.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

pulliptears wrote: »

and how will little Shane learn awareness trapped in behind gates until he's 12? He will suddenly be let free, completely alien to life outside his own front gate.

Im not saying let them run free, but as you rightly say I know my own kids and I know their sensibilities. I taught them not to run into roads and they never did.

I taught mine not to as well, but they are kids - they aren't predictable.

I suppose it is a state of mind, a way of being, i've always hated kids playing in the streets - kids can learn about life without slung out on the pavement.

I suppose that my belief is that kids should have a childhood, not pregnant at 13 or waiting outside the newsagents hoping to get someone to buy 10 B&H for them.

Possibly it comes down to the way I was brought up which was neither right nor wrong, same as tattoos on girls bums aren't right or wrong, we are just all different.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

JustJewels wrote: »

Hello again,

Thanks for all your comments, it is great to read other peoples perspectives.

I hadn't thought about a landlord being put off by problems with evictions - thanks to barnaby-bear for pointing this out. I was thinking of legislation like America's Fair Housing Actg which makes it illegal to have a no kids rule - but can see how that would be difficult to enforce...

Of course a real solution would be more social housing/better housing affordabilty for everyone...but I don't have the yearning to become a politician, LOL

poppysarah, my baby is 2 months old. By the time he needs a garden, hopefully his mum will have found a house to rent with a garden. We do go to the local park almost daily ;-)

to idiophreak and others who bring up the question of discrimination - I do think it's genuine discrimination - defined as "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice". Who is to say that I will be more trouble as a tenant just because I have a baby? I have been and intend to continue to be an exemplary tenant.

And yes, if fewer and fewer people choose not to have children, our demographic problems will get a whole lot worse. Wheneever I hear the phrase, "supporing families" from a polititian from now on, I'll just snort with derision.

I feel for other families in a similar or worse situation to mine, that's all

thanks again for all the replies

JJ

Life isn't fair, that doesn't make it discrimination - you chose to have a child knowing about the limitations of rented accomodation, whose fault is that?

Unfair for example is a minority forcing a majority to comply with their views, or you insisting that a LL must accept you. What next, he should reduce your rent because you need to buy extra babygrows this week? Your choice, your hardship.

We did things the other way around - not that my way is right, but then I brought my priviledge with the title deeds of the house.

silvercar

Families with children generally make more stable tenants as they want the security without worrying about moving home every 6 months.

If a tenant has been in a property 5 years it will need a repaint anyway, whether from general grubiness or crayon on walls.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

I have to agree with pulpitears...letting a 5 yr old kid out on the street to play shouldn't be a problem, as long as the kid sticks to a set of clearly defined rules, and Mum or Dad checks regularly. There are many 'play streets' designated in Salford where traffic is only allowed in an emergency between certain hours. We've seen kids as young as 2-3 out there playing safely. There should be more of these streets.

The younger they are allowed to go out to play safely, the quicker they will automatically learn roadsense and other life skills without even realising. I must admit I am appalled at how many molly coddled kids of around age 10 out there who are completely without road sense and have no clue what the consequences could be if they went into some friends house without asking permission ...anyway...back to the OP; We have had families with kids and we have at least two now. True, we get crayons on the wall sometimes, but it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. We let mostly to students, and if you could see the mess they always leave behind, I'd take a family with kids anyday, if mess was the only consideration.

So, not all LL 'discriminate' in this way.

Yes, of course five year olds stick to a clearly defined set of rules. Unfortunately road sense is something not best learned by trial and error, there is one chance at it. It's like the dedicated drunk driver who continues to do so because he has yet to be caught/have an accident - kids aren't made of rubber, you can't paint over the crayon marks.

No, kids don't need to be wrapped in cotton wool, they need to grow up, but all in the right time.

Makes me laugh - parents would stick a kid outside, but would pull a face if someone suggested smacking the kids should the need arise.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

silvercar wrote: »

Families with children generally make more stable tenants as they want the security without worrying about moving home every 6 months.

If a tenant has been in a property 5 years it will need a repaint anyway, whether from general grubiness or crayon on walls.

Tongue in cheek

You think so? I'd say the opposite, that have demonstrated a lack of financial planning - without exception every tenancy should be treated as good for a year, is that the mark of a stable life, moving every year with kids?

sooz

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

Makes me laugh - parents would stick a kid outside, but would pull a face if someone suggested smacking the kids should the need arise.

Oh dear....I finally agree on something with you! Mine are not allowed outside on their own, but do get smacked on rare occasions.

I am off to have a stiff drink.

sooz

JustJewels wrote: »

poppysarah, my baby is 2 months old. By the time he needs a garden, hopefully his mum will have found a house to rent with a garden. We do go to the local park almost daily ;-)

Why don't you view without the baby, & mention him/her direct to the LL once you have viewed. Offer to pay a slightly larger deposit, & point out that at this age they do b*gger all damage. Most of the time they just lie there . It's the bit between 1 and a half and school when they are little monsters & drive cars over the radiators, 'practise' of that pen you just put down, play torpedoes with tampons in the toilet etc.