Renting - "no children" discrimination

bookduck

mrs-puff, you blame the LLs. I see it if the parents were more disciplined and treat the house like their own, rather than living a nasty slum commune, then this would not happen and kids would be welcome.

Unfortunately it is often not the case in our asbo society. Tenant want a high clean standard and I have no problem with that, but they don't care and having kids they can't maintain it and want us LLs to pay for it too

I do not believe that there will an abundance of empty houses - at least not in London. As with everything, the market will be tighter, people on the bottom will be pushed further down and the rest will downsize. Cheap houses may loose a bit but expensive houses may loose a lot. I do think the rents will be compressed and the more affluent, professional and single people with get better deals in the luxury market for their cash.

bookduck

iamstacie wrote: »

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.

I would not let out my property to any DSS or welfare person. I am not allowed, and neither are many others.

Some popular mortgages agreements have a clause that expressly forbids the borrower to do this.

mrs-puff

I'm not blaming anyone. I just think that things will change soon for landlords and their 'criteria' for letting their houses that's all.

And please stop assuming all parents who don't own thier own homes have kids that will be getting abso's soon. It's a very sweeping and grossly disrespectful comment to make to any parent frequenting this forum, especially those who are endeavoring to find private and not state funded accomodation for themselves and their children (after dropping the dog at the local dog-home).

Sadly though, seems to be the general attitude on this thread.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

mrs-puff wrote: »

You don't know anything about me or my choices. And you missed the point I was making completely.. :rolleyes: I wasn't disputing the CHOICE aspect of having children. I was talking about the lack of choice when it comes to unfortunate circumstances hitting hard working, and decent families right between the eyes when they least expect it. And, the fact that these unfortunate circumstances are more likely to happen given the current economic climate. They will have to seek tenancies.

Seems you now understand assumption, you assume that LL's have to put up with tenants choices.

Where are they all going to live ?

Don't know, and to be truthful, don't really care - I made my planning, I'm not planning for anyone else.

Again completely missing the point. The dog was bought when they did own their own property. But unfortunate unforseen circumstances mean..well.. are you seeing a pattern here yet ?

Yes of course it was - all the tenants with a dog used to own their own properties.

Try applying a little logic and foresight to the debate and look a bit further into what's happening now instead of concentrating on your own little NIMB-TL (to let) world in-between slapping your children around.

Mind your mouth - since when is a bit of discipline a bad thing, in any case it is still legal, and my wife and I shall do as we see fit.

Ps sorry I was out by 10 years on the 'Love Thy Neighbour' thing but it was before my time.

It is just a continuation of your inability to get your facts right.

Do you want to force me to have a cat flap installed just because someone may want to rent who owns a one?

Captain_Mainwaring_2

mrs-puff wrote: »

I'm not blaming anyone. I just think that things will change soon for landlords and their 'criteria' for letting their houses that's all.

And please stop assuming all parents who don't own thier own homes have kids that will be getting abso's soon. It's a very sweeping and grossly disrespectful comment to make to any parent frequenting this forum, especially those who are endeavoring to find private and not state funded accomodation for themselves and their children (after dropping the dog at the local dog-home).

Sadly though, seems to be the general attitude on this thread.

I well if it does, I'll just leave mine empty.

No one is assuming any such thing as well you know - LL's are exercising their free right to choose the type of tenant they believe will be fitting for that property.

If I have a tenant candidate who happens to be asian and another one of British descent , it doesn't matter - I'll choose whichever one looks like they will take care and pay up, but if either appear to be dodgy then they will be rejected. Rejecting an asian tenant because they appear to be problematic is not racist, so long as I reject a white tenant on the same grounds.

I run a business, not a horses home of rest or a housing charity.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

bookduck wrote: »

I would not let out my property to any DSS or welfare person. I am not allowed, and neither are many others.

Some popular mortgages agreements have a clause that expressly forbids the borrower to do this.

Neither would I, and I am allowed. It's my choice.

Why would lenders say this I wonder? could it be that the actuaries have worked out such tenants are more likely to be trouble? What of this "discrimination" ??

hehehe

deeds

I have to say as a LL myself i agree with Captain Mainwearing, I wouldn't have kids in my property either, who needs the hassle, mess or grief?
Not to mention the fact that I dont feel my property is place for children anyway as it has a big stone hearth, steep stairs and a stepped kitchen area - all of which in my eyes are just a claim waiting to happen when little johnny trips and cuts his head open.

I also think tenants should have to pay for their own damage too.

LL are not the total baddies here, if its your property its your choice, I wouldn't have anyone TELL me who I had to rent my own property out to, like Capatain M I'd sooner leave the thing empty.

silvercar

The laws in this country actually favour letting to kids.

Say you have a 4 bed house to let. If you let to a group of professional people the house is classified as an HMO (house in multiple occupancy). Landlords then have extra rules to comply with, including fire doors, registering themselves as suitable landlords, sinks in each bedroom have been muted, minimum space per tenant.....

If they let to a family, it is an ordinary let and a lot of the extra burden falls away.

barnaby-bear

Microstar wrote: »

When I read some of the comments in this thread its like I've entered a parallel universe. There really are a lot of gimlet-eyed nutters around, aren't there? No wonder we have so many social problems in this country. And comments about 'knocking a 2 year old across the room' are simply beyond my comprehension.
Hopefully some of you will get the opportunity to reflect on your comments in 25 years time, when today's generation of small children are wiping away your dribble in the old folks home.

You think these small children are going to be working, paying taxes, doctors, healthcare workers... others think they are going to be ASBO-d dole scrounging baby-machines.... ding dong round two....

Housing issues in this country probably are changing the demographic of those breeding but in what ways....

barnaby-bear

silvercar wrote: »

The laws in this country actually favour letting to kids.

Say you have a 4 bed house to let. If you let to a group of professional people the house is classified as an HMO (house in multiple occupancy). Landlords then have extra rules to comply with, including fire doors, registering themselves as suitable landlords, sinks in each bedroom have been muted, minimum space per tenant.....

If they let to a family, it is an ordinary let and a lot of the extra burden falls away.

That's a good point I'd forgotton - I had quite a few friends who had to move when the legislation came in because 3 of them in a house... mostly they were relet to higher earning couples rather than families though...