More persons in my rental property than I thought

ILW

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I'm curious, which cultures have no respect for the property of others?

Chav culture.

Callie22

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If this is true, this is someothing that needs to be dicussed with your local hosuing office.

The Department of Social Security has not been in existence for many many years.

Pretty much every letting advert round here states 'No DSS'. I always wonder what would happen if someone moves in and then it's discovered they're claiming LHA. Technically they haven't lied when they agreed to 'No DSS' ...

I've actually just spent a fairly frustating morning calling local LAs to try to book viewings. In every case, the first question asked was 'are you both working', followed by 'any pets, kids, smokers'. It used to be polite to ask someone's name at the start of a business phone call, but that seems to have gone out the window.

Flyboy152

ruggedtoast wrote: »

And this pretty much perfectly sums up why the private sector is not fit to be relied upon to offer widespread accommodation to people in the UK.

That is very unfair. There a good deal of responsible and hard working landlords who offer accommodation at reasonable costs and treat their tenants with respect. The problem is that, as in many walks of life, we only get to hear of the bad ones.

dodger1

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Actually when you rent a domestic dwelling it is your home. Home is where you live regardless of who owns the property. I do however agree it's the owners right to say no children. Personally I believe it should be the right of an owner to say no to anybody he/she doesn't like for any reason, religion, gender, race, gay, straight etc etc etc. Me, I'd let anyone rent my property (if I had one) as long as they paid on time and looked after it.

Flyboy152

ILW wrote: »

Chav culture.

Chav is not a culture, it is a sub-division of British culture; a sub-culture.

Flyboy152

Callie22 wrote: »

Pretty much every letting advert round here states 'No DSS'. I always wonder what would happen if someone moves in and then it's discovered they're claiming LHA. Technically they haven't lied when they agreed to 'No DSS' ...

I've actually just spent a fairly frustating morning calling local LAs to try to book viewings. In every case, the first question asked was 'are you both working', followed by 'any pets, kids, smokers'. It used to be polite to ask someone's name at the start of a business phone call, but that seems to have gone out the window.

If landlords are refusing on the grounds you receive LHA, you need to discuss this with your local housing office.

It is perfectly acceptable to ask if a tenants is working, but this should be followed with questions regarding ability to pay the rent.

lazer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Actually - it is the Tenant's home, and the landlord's house, but not their Home!

Definition of Home:
home (hm)
n. 1. A place where one lives; a residence.
2. The physical structure within which one lives, such as a house or apartment.
3. A dwelling place together with the family or social unit that occupies it; a household.
4. a. An environment offering security and happiness.
b. A valued place regarded as a refuge or place of origin.

5. The place, such as a country or town, where one was born or has lived for a long period.
6. The native habitat, as of a plant or animal.
7. The place where something is discovered, founded, developed, or promoted; a source.
8. A headquarters; a home base.

Tenents should be able to treat the house however they want, within reason of course. As long as the return the property to the standard it was at at the start of tenancy prior to leaving it, it is not the landlord's business what the tenants get up to in their own home.
They are renting it as their home, which is why they are paying rent for it after all.

Flyboy152

lazer wrote: »

Actually - it is the Tenant's home, and the landlord's house, but not their Home!

Definition of Home:
home (hm)
n. 1. A place where one lives; a residence.
2. The physical structure within which one lives, such as a house or apartment.
3. A dwelling place together with the family or social unit that occupies it; a household.
4. a. An environment offering security and happiness.
b. A valued place regarded as a refuge or place of origin.

5. The place, such as a country or town, where one was born or has lived for a long period.
6. The native habitat, as of a plant or animal.
7. The place where something is discovered, founded, developed, or promoted; a source.
8. A headquarters; a home base.

Tenents should be able to treat the house however they want, within reason of course. As long as the return the property to the standard it was at at the start of tenancy prior to leaving it, it is not the landlord's business what the tenants get up to in their own home.
They are renting it as their home, which is why they are paying rent for it after all.

Although I understand the sentiment expressed, that is not strictly true. A landlord can place many restrictions on the use of the property as long as those restrictions are reasonable.

chewmylegoff

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I think.......



........answers your question.

If you want guests, get a sofa-bed.

oh ok. my mistake. second bedrooms are only used for children.

i've been renting 2 bed flats for years and there's only me and my OH living there. plenty of other couples i know do this, in fact i'm struggling to think of anyone i know who lives in a 1 bedroom flat, and none of them have children.

the suggestion is that the LL is targeting the wrong audience because a 2 bed flat is only appropriate for tenants with children. this is nonsense.

chewmylegoff

Flyboy152 wrote: »

And this is the point that far too many people ignore.

the OP didn't ignore it though. he said he was prepared to have the property empty and take the void rather than have children in living there.