Too young to rent.. Apparently

property.advert

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

A LL, letting a property for a minimum of 6 months, will look into every eventuality. Neither you, I, or even the OP can, in these "exciting" times, offer any guarantee of continuous employment for the duration of any tenacy agreement offered. THAT is why many LLs are reluctant to take under 25 singles.

Some, if not all, councils will pay the rent for a property if the person renting was already under a tenancy prior to making a claim for benefit.

In addition, the LL has a deposit (perhaps 2 months rent) as an eventuality.

Agents are not crystal ball gazers, they can only base things on the here and now, which sort of debunks this argument.

gratefulforhelp_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No you can't. It is, in essence, a credit agreement.

I always thought that too, but there are exceptions in law if you are providing yourself with the necessaries of life.

Wee_Willy_Harris

slyracoon wrote: »

He never mentioned that he was single. The SRR LHA rate is only applicable to singles.

It was implied in the OP....

spunko2010 wrote: »

Hi all.. Quick question and would appreciate advice, I visited a property to let, was near enough a perfect place and I've been looking for for a while... my offer was accepted, however the landlord then declined to meet me and cancelled after finding out that I was "too young" (24). It's a standard house, not a "seniors" place, etc. I am not interested in any sort of legal nonsense, I'll let it go, but I was wondering if that was in fact legal? I guess it's "their" property after all.

I've been renting for 6 years now since I was 18 and this strikes me as very odd and I found it quite offensive to be honest.

Wee_Willy_Harris

property.advert wrote: »

Some, if not all, councils will pay the rent for a property if the person renting was already under a tenancy prior to making a claim for benefit.

In addition, the LL has a deposit (perhaps 2 months rent) as an eventuality.

Agents are not crystal ball gazers, they can only base things on the here and now, which sort of debunks this argument.

There is a run-on period of full rent payments (The "13 week rule") which, as the name suggests, ends after 13 weeks. Using the deposit to cover rent arrears would mean that there was no provision for any other claim on it. Here and now, his normal LHA claim would fall under the SRR because, here and now, he is under 25.

slyracoon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It was implied in the OP....

That does not imply anything. Your post was misleading and did not state the assumptions you had made.

MsHoarder

Don't know what advice you want. Its probably not legal, but the time/cost in doing anything about it is disproportionate to the problem. Just find another place with a LL who just wants the rent paying.

Wee_Willy_Harris

tamarto wrote: »

Sightly off topic (ok a lot off topic) but what are the differences?

Strictly speaking, until you are 18, it's a rather complicated sounding "trust" arrangment, where the provider rents it to a trust for which the provider is also a trustee. It's not the easiest thing to explain, and makes no practical difference to the tenant, but it gets round the credit liability issue.

jimpix12

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

A LL, letting a property for a minimum of 6 months, will look into every eventuality. Neither you, I, or even the OP can, in these "exciting" times, offer any guarantee of continuous employment for the duration of any tenacy agreement offered. THAT is why many LLs are reluctant to take under 25 singles.

Fair enough, although I always pay 6 months rent in advance, and was happy to stretch to 12 months in advance once I was aware of the LL's ahem, "reluctance". Apparently this didn't make an iota of difference...

I am not on Housing Benefit, it is a private let. I have been in much more risky employment than this. The reason given by the LL was apparently "he wants an older professional couple as they are a local builder family themselves". I read that as either "they are travellers/gypsies" or "they are an older couple who live nearby and don't want a young person playing loud music at 3am, indulging liberally in risky sex, smoking cannabis", or some other obnoxious stereotype

jimpix12

MsHoarder wrote: »

Don't know what advice you want. Its probably not legal, but the time/cost in doing anything about it is disproportionate to the problem. Just find another place with a LL who just wants the rent paying.

I suppose I am looking for advice should this happen again in any future search. It's always good to know the law, even if it doesn't apply directly to oneself.

Wee_Willy_Harris

slyracoon wrote: »

That does not imply anything. Your post was misleading and did not state the assumptions you had made.

I didn't infer any assumptions... YOU did. I merely stated the reasons why LL were reluctant to take single under 25s. From the OP (and further replies) there was NO evidence to suggest he wasn't single. There was, however, SOME evidence (I, I'm, I'll, etc) to suggest that he was. Either way, I clearly indicated that the information I gave applied to single people under 25. Only the terminally confused would find that misleading.