Renting - "no children" discrimination

Captain_Mainwaring_2

baby_boomer wrote: »

This discrimination is on the same level as "no Irish or Blacks" IMHO and might be worth a challenge in the courts?

It certainly makes a mockery of the government's preference for "mixed" housing.

Now you are just talking rubbish.

OK, Do it your way - They will just fail my credit check - more than one way to skin a cat if I can't rent out my property to who I want.

Governments policy for what? living in rented accomodation with kids for your whole life? I thought we were supposed to be a forward thinking nation.

poppysarah

baby_boomer wrote: »

I totally disagree with barnby bear's comparison with legitimate risk assessment on car insurance. It's not right for society's laws to allow a landlord to equate having children with drink driving.

Car Insurance is more if you have kids in your household ... because there's more potential people who might need to make a claim in the event ofan accident.

I don't think household insurance does the same - maybe it does.

d123

It's not just private landlords, my local council has a rule of no under-16's in flats. If you want to rent a council flat you cant have children under 16.

I always thought it was to save all the neighbours in the flats from the noise and general distutbance that children cause.

iamstacie

baby_boomer wrote: »

This discrimination is on the same level as "no Irish or Blacks" IMHO and might be worth a challenge in the courts?

Are you being serious? I've always believed that discrimination means to not allow 'X' person to do 'Y' thing because of prejudice about their age/race/sexual orientation/disability etc, in other words things they cannot change and have no control over. Having a child is a choice.

I'd have thought challenging LLs who differentiate between people whose wage pays the rent, and those on DSS might have more chance in the courts of the land. For some people at least, DSS isn't exactly a life-style choice.

If it were law that LL's were not to differentiate between those with kids and those without, I would expect the end result to be no different to how it is now, except with more families 'failing credit checks' or finding the house has 'already been let'. If someone doesn't want to allow you and your child to live in their property, then they shouldn't be made to do so. There are plenty around that will.

Having said all that, there are ways round it. Paying a higher deposit, or £10-£20 extra a month, or having additional clauses in your contract re cleaning/re-decorating etc.

barnaby-bear

baby_boomer wrote: »

This discrimination is on the same level as "no Irish or Blacks" IMHO and might be worth a challenge in the courts?

It certainly makes a mockery of the government's preference for "mixed" housing.

I totally disagree with barnby bear's comparison with legitimate risk assessment on car insurance. It's not right for society's laws to allow a landlord to equate having children with drink driving.

I think the problem is with allowing private rental to operate on a free market basis - people are constantly told we have an attitude problem to renting in this country, in Germany say the rent controls and tenure are so much better that LLs are in the business of renting homes, in this country it's about getting the tenants least likely to scuff the magnolia paint and cheap laminate before selling it on, who are going to be the easiest to get rid of at a whim...

Some insurers refuse to insure young drivers - I specifically cited young drivers getting a drink driving conviction is a choice and demonstrates a bad driver - being young just statistically raises the chance of you being in accidents it doesn't make all young drivers bad....

Changing the legislation won't change a thing - just like workplace legislation means many women in their 20s just won't have 'the same skills cross-section' as the successful candidate.... it would mean more people applying for accommodation potentially paying fees for credit checks, taking time off to view stuff with no chance of success...

barnaby-bear

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.

But many BTLers can't see beyond their shiny new build magnolia paint and want some professional out-all-day executives to pay the mortgage while it rises 10% a year for a couple of years and they'll never have to do any repairs or decorating and they can sell it on and make a mint from their empire...:rolleyes:

loveandlight

Where we live our neighbour's flat has been rented out to young families and the quality of our life ever since has been very poor. In my experience, the families with young children renting next to us (there has been two families who have lived there so far) couldn't care less the effect their noise has on others as the standard excuse seems to be because they have got children they can do what they like and their landlord couldn't care less either as long as he gets his rent every month.

So for that reason alone, when we move out shortly we have decided to rent ours out to a young family as well, even though our property has been furnished to a very high spec and is not equipped for a young family.

It is not fair on any prospective tenants of ours who don't have children, to have to put up with all the noise problems they will undoubtedly get with the constant flow of families with young children our neighbour landlord rents out to. So we have decided that we will have to rent ours out now to a family so they can then argue amongst themselves with the neighbours and then neither one of them can think that they have priority just because they have got children.

barnaby-bear

loveandlight wrote: »

Where we live our neighbour's flat has been rented out to young families and the quality of our life ever since has been very poor. In my experience, the families with young children renting next to us (there has been two families who have lived there so far) couldn't care less the effect their noise has on others as the standard excuse seems to be because they have got children they can do what they like and their landlord couldn't care less either as long as he gets his rent every month.

So for that reason alone, when we move out shortly we have decided to rent ours out to a young family as well, even though our property has been furnished to a very high spec and is not equipped for a young family.

It is not fair on any prospective tenants of ours who don't have children, to have to put up with all the noise problems they will undoubtedly get with the constant flow of families with young children our neighbour landlord rents out to. So we have decided that we will have to rent ours out now to a family so they can then argue amongst themselves with the neighbours and then neither one of them can think that they have priority just because they have got children.

Technically LLs can be held accountable to management committees and noise enforcement from the council (or even covenants like no puchchairs in the hallways) for their tenants... many flats don't allow children in the covenants because they aren't built in a way to make for harmoneous living... so they may perceive a hightened risk but I imagine students are more 'discriminated' on because they might also be a lot of work... in LL land nice executive couples who wear suits are out all day, preferably dine out a lot to avoid dirtying the oven, two incomes to cover the rent and go to bed early without parties to get up for their jet-setting jobs reign supreme....

baby_boomer

iamstacie wrote: »

Are you being serious? I've always believed that discrimination means to not allow 'X' person to do 'Y' thing because of prejudice about their age/race/sexual orientation/disability etc, in other words things they cannot change and have no control over. Having a child is a choice.

Are you suggesting that employers should be allowed to discriminate against applicants who have children?

poppysarah wrote: »

Car Insurance is more if you have kids in your household ... because there's more potential people who might need to make a claim in the event of an accident.

I don't follow this analogy. If we are talking about accidents which might harm the rented property, then these will come under the terms of the rental agreement. Any damage would be paid for by the tenant, not the landlord - who does not have the role of a car insurer.

poppysarah

baby_boomer wrote: »

Are you suggesting that employers should be allowed to discriminate against applicants who have children?


I don't follow this analogy. If we are talking about accidents which might harm the rented property, then these will come under the terms of the rental agreement. Any damage would be paid for by the tenant, not the landlord - who does not have the role of a car insurer.

It wasn't an analogy - just a statement. I don't know whether contents insurance would be more if you have kids. I don't remember ever giving the age of my child or being asked how many I had. I don't think it's on any form. So therefore at a guess my contents insurance isn't more because I have a child.
I think we're due for renewal soon so when I'm doing the ringing round I'll maybe remember to ask about children and how they affect it.
I can't see building insurance being affected by having kids.

But... someone said on here the other day about landlords insurance being more if your tenants smoke. I didn't notice any such questions when I've looked into landlord insurance but it's certainly something all house contents insurance should take into account.

You are right though. Whatever damage is caused to the property should be repaired (paid) and sorted out by the tenant. It's only fair wear and tear that's the landlord's problem. Perhaps there's just more fair wear and tear when you've got kids. So perhaps some landlords feel they'd miss out that way.

I should imagine the best tenants are ones who aren't always ringing to complain about really minor issues and are planning on staying long term, investing time and money into the place they call home. There's nothing excluding those people from having kids at all. Or having pets, or being smokers or any of the other things that landlords seem to object to.