More persons in my rental property than I thought

whispywillow

Travelling_Man wrote: »

Clearly it is possible that if I rented to a childless couple, that a pregnancy would ensue. However, in my view a baby would cause less damage than two school age children.

Hmmm, i take it you don't have kids then, because I can tell you, in the 2 years that my son has been on this planet he has caused more destruction than 'school age children' believe me!!

Pennylane

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

No Children...

Its 2011 OP. If you want to try your luck being a landlord and get a stranger to pay off your mortgage for you then you need to play by the rules!

Why are you assuming that LLs have mortgages?

Flyboy152

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.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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

I'm still curious.

real1314

Whilst I have been , to some degree, supportive of the LLs right to choose, yet still think it's illogical, a thought has just struck me after seeing the "no blacks, no irish, no dogs" notice.

This LLs refusal to let to people with children could actually be illegal as it could be deemed indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Heterosexuals are proprtionately more likely to have children than homosexuals, hence; indirect discrimination. :cool:

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Hamish McT you are such a troll.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think the decision to allow children or not should be entirely up to the landlord.

Thankfully, it seems that the OFT don't share your views.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Thanks for sharing your further opinion. The *fact* however is that once someone becomes a LL and lets out their own home, it ceases to be the LL's home, although clearly it remains their property.

The legal document granting the T "exclusive occupation" of the property(in return for those lovely rent payments) means that for the duration of the tenancy, the T may indeed look upon the property as *their* home.

Cissi

real1314 wrote: »

Whilst I have been , to some degree, supportive of the LLs right to choose, yet still think it's illogical, a thought has just struck me after seeing the "no blacks, no irish, no dogs" notice.

This LLs refusal to let to people with children could actually be illegal as it could be deemed indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Heterosexuals are proprtionately more likely to have children than homosexuals, hence; indirect discrimination. :cool:

I'd have thought that "age discrimination" would be more likely to fly

spinningsheep

as other posters have said, you can have a nice family who look after the house as though they owned it who have children and pets etc yet you may have a "Professional childless couple" who may look like the heaven sent tenants on paper yet may trash your property in an instant. Every landlord has the right to stipulate who may live in what is ultimately their property, but many are exceptionally shortsighted and unrealistic in their expectations of renting out their houses. In my tenancy agreement it states no pets. When I viewed the house ( before reading the agreement) I asked if the landlady would object to me having a cat, and was told no problem.he hasn't soiled or damaged anything, there is no smell, I have carpeted the lounge at my own expense, the same with the kitchen flooring amongst other decoration and maintainance in the house, and as a result my landlady is now a friend as well as landlady as I am looking after her house as though it were my own

G_M

Well, 88 posts and counting...... ! Time to switch direction a bit?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259646/Gay-couple-turned-away-guest-house-owner-let-share-bed.html

(good old DM!)

It cost them £3600 and their business in the end.

Morglin

If it stops other B&B owners being so silly and bigoted, and acting unlawfully, then this can only be a good thing.:T:beer:

They weren't penalised for being Christian, they were penalised for being discriminatory, and the ruling would have applied to anyone using their religion as an excuse to break the law, whether they were Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever.

If you offer a public service, then your opinion desn't really enter into what you should be doing, if you wish to keep on the right side of the law.

Lin

highshorting

What type of damage are you expecting?