We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
More persons in my rental property than I thought
Comments
-
Irrelevant and unhelpful. The OP is legally stuck with the tenancy, but his preferences are is own concern.
I don't like dogs - does that sicken you?
Some people don't like children - why does that sicken you?
Now, if he liked children - to the point of !!!!!philia, you'd have a point!
edit: can't believe paed*p*... is censored! It's a perfectly proper word. Oh well...
What an unnecessary and extreme comparison. The point is, that children are not going to cause any more harm than a couple without children. In fact, a childless couples could be considered to potentially cause more damage than those with children.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
I'm afraid forbidding children is an unfair term, so until the fixed term expires there's nothing you can do. If you wish to change tenants at that point, as sequence says make sure your S21 is served correctly and in good time.
And there is a very good reason why that is the case and so your previous remarks were pointless.The agent should be instructed to be extra cautious in tenant selection next time, but it sounds like it was not really the agent's fault.
On what grounds? Bearing in mind the unfair term.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »fascinating point of view! have you ever heard of the concept of a spare room, or do your guests have to sleep on the floor?
I think.......What use is a second bedroom if it's not for kids? Even if it's a single parent who only gets to see the kids every other weekend they still need a 2 bed flat. Would you deny them a tenancy as well? A couple could easily just rent a 1 bed flat unless they are willing to spend extra on a room that will rarely be used. If you are so against potential damage caused by children and pets then don't let the property out at all.
........answers your question.
If you want guests, get a sofa-bed.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Ahhhh, so that's what it is. Always wondered why I can't stand the vile little creatures.
Anyway..... Back to the OP.
Not much you can do now, just make sure the S21 notice is served immediately and give your agent a right lecture about properly vetting tenants in the future.
Again, on what grounds?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »If I wanted children to spill paint or drag mud all over my house, I'd have my own...
Just because you have children DOES NOT give you the right to let them crap on someone else's carpets. If you must have kids, at least have the decency to buy your own house for them to ruin, rather than ruining someone else's house.
And the typical security deposit is nowhere near big enough to cover the damage the little monsters can do in a year. So whilst you may be willing to pay for new carpets, most renters either couldn't or wouldn't.
I think the decision to allow children or not should be entirely up to the landlord. No matter what the "renters rights" brigade say, when you rent IT IS NOT your home. It's SOMEONE ELSE'S home that you rent temporarily. If you want a home where nobody can tell you what to do, then buy one of your own.
By making the decision not to rent to families with children, the landlord is narrowing their target market (and thus increasing the chance of voids) in return for lowering the risk of damage and wear and tear on the house. It should be entirely their prerogative to do so.
The attitude of some people just fails to reach the logic for which humans were intended to have. :wall:The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
property.advert wrote: »I've seen loads with a "no children" exclusion.
Why ? well, I saw one property where the tenants allowed their kids to draw all over the walls, smear dirt and grime everywhere they could reach etc.
You have to remember that some people and some cultures have no respect for the property of another. Also, nearly every LHA claimant is encumbered by kids.
One way to put them off is to simply request £10,000 as a deposit.
I'm curious, which cultures have no respect for the property of others?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Irrelevant and unhelpful. The OP is legally stuck with the tenancy, but his preferences are is own concern.
I don't like dogs - does that sicken you?
Some people don't like children - why does that sicken you?
Now, if he liked children - to the point of !!!!!philia, you'd have a point!
edit: can't believe paed*p*... is censored! It's a perfectly proper word. Oh well...
Turnbull wasn't saying he was sickened that op didn't like children but that op wouldn't give them a chance. That's a big difference. I personally have no problem with op not wanting children in his property but now they are there and if they are respecting his property just let them at least see out the tenancy without giving them unnecessary grief. They may be the best tenants he's ever had.It's someone else's fault.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »What a saddening insight into the mindset of people who want their cake and to eat it.
You've got the deposit. Business has risks. It's not all rewards. It would be very very difficult to eliminate every single risk and still reap the rewards which is appears you wish to do.
What was saddening is the very fact the OP intends to get rid and cause grief to a family with kids straight away, regardless. You could understand if the kids had acted up, or rent wasn't being collected etc. But this kind of thing is the reason a lot of people view amatuer landlords with such distaste.
What happens if someone gets pregnant, like people do in life, while living in your precious house, which you want to reap rewards from?
And this is the point that far too many people ignore.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I deleted that as it was wrong.
Theres obviously a pack of landlords here. You are welcome to your views.
Personally I think the whole premise of calling children cretins, and wanting them evicted ASAP, while wanting all the rewards of renting out a property, is just a little sad.
I am a landlord and I find the OP's attitude extremely sad. The fact that he would be prepared to make a family homeless based on the basis that they were not what he was expecting, is shameless.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
pamelamalcolm wrote: »Never trust an agent... See?
I have been using agents for years. Some were bleedin' awful in terms of their customer service, but on the whole, as long as you keep an eye on them they are okay.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards