Smoking & Renting

Print_Screen

lynzpower wrote: »

When I go into a LA I always say, " we are looking for a 2 bed garden property, we are both smokers and we have a dog". I put it out there from the off.

I'm surprised that you get offered anything at all. My GF and I are looking to rent in London and we have a dog. It is almost impossible to find a place that allows pets for a price we can afford! When I've gone and asked LA about places then allowed pets. They have laughed at me (literally) and basically said "No chance". If we smoked as well then I can't even imagine what their reaction would be.

We are now looking into squating (we are that desperate)as their are no other options open to us.

franklee wrote: »

If there a lot of rental properties on the market it strikes me that a landlord could do very well by advertising for smokers, pets, etc. He'll probably get crushed in the stampede of otherwise excluded tenants. He could make extra charges for cleaning to make up for any problems caused. Finding a niche is always a good idea. Why are so many landlords lemmings?

Well I think that LLs will always fear for their property being destroyed by a pet or child or smoker, etc.
However is it actually legal to not allow children? As at one time LLs would be able to say "No blacks, no dogs no Irish" I suppose their would have to be a test case.

I'd hate to think would you would do if you were a single parent with a small child, a dog and DSS! Probably look for a rather large cardboard box to sleep in

A_Nice_Englishman

Print_Screen wrote: »

I'd hate to think would you would do if you were a single parent with a small child, a dog and DSS! Probably look for a rather large cardboard box to sleep in

You'd be offered housing by a social landlord (council or housing association).

lynzpower

Printscreen,

I wonder where abouts in London you are. I must say there was only a coupole of LAs that said they wouldnt accept us, but we were well surprised at the amount that said "no problem!" We got 2 bed house with garden ( we agreed to put in our own back door with our dogflap in and save damaging the LLs door- cost about 200 inc labour.) for 758 a month ( unfurnished) . Pretty much every LA in Leytonstone said OK, particularly victor michael, prestige, theydon, movingplaces all definately said yes to us. ( albeit some wanted an extra 100 deposit off us just in case she destroyed anything- she hasnt apart from a few pairs of my slippers :mad: )

Im in Leytonstone, and we looked in Leytonstone, Woodford, Snaresbrook, Leyton and Walthamstow. If you wander up Hoe st, Id be surprised if any turn you down ( ludlow thompson will, but avoid them they are expensive anyway )

guppy

Check the contract. Its unlikely to prohibit occupation by a smoker. It probably only requires you not to smoke in the premises. Technically this could include the garden though! But realistically, I can't see there being a problem if you never smoke indoors.

Print_Screen

lynzpower. I could hug you Thanks a lot for the info! I phone up Victor Michael who had several properties for rent. I haven't even tried the others yet. I have arranged a viewing for 3 properties in Leytonstone at the moment. It must be a very pet loving part of London compared to where I live and have LA lauging at pet requests. So many thanks and hugs. Hopefully we'll find something!

Badger_Lady

My tenant moved out at the weekend and the flat smelled of wee.

Yeah - if someone declared themselves a smoker I'd be reluctant to let to them. But if they said they were a non-smoker and the flat showed no signs of smoke-smell / damage, I wouldn't have a problem. If I did smell smoke, I'd be witholding deposit!

Certainly wouldn't care if I saw you walking down the road with a fag, as long as I was clear that you weren't doing it in the house.

I do think those questionnaires are a bit vague - the question should be "do you require a property where you can smoke indoors" or something.

Although I was refused a rented flat once (years ago when I lived with a smoker) because they didn't want residents smoking in the alley alongside it. Interesting.

Austin_Allegro

Lavendyr wrote: »

But the home, while the tenant may occupy it, still belongs to someone else.

This is the sort of thing landlords say to justify interference in tenants' lives.

The tenant, in law, has the 'right to quiet enjoyment' which I would interpret as meaning that as long as he does not damage the property or cause a nuisance to others, he may do what he wishes just as a freeholder may do.

Now, you could argue that a heavy smoker 'damages' fixtures and fittings because these smell of smoke or turn yellow, but if he only smoked, say, one cigarette a week this would not have any serious effect - meaning the description 'smoker' is relative and therefore of little meaning. As previously pointed out there is no mention of guests - what if you are a non-smoker but your mother-in-law visits you every day (poor you) and smokes? This also makes the declaration pointless.

All that the landlord may do, in my opinion, is put a 'no smoking' clause in the contract signed by the tenant. Whether this is legally binding or not I don't know, but the question of whether someone is a smoker is irrelevant and intrusive.

lynzpower

Print_Screen wrote: »

lynzpower. I could hug you Thanks a lot for the info! I phone up Victor Michael who had several properties for rent. I haven't even tried the others yet. I have arranged a viewing for 3 properties in Leytonstone at the moment. It must be a very pet loving part of London compared to where I live and have LA lauging at pet requests. So many thanks and hugs. Hopefully we'll find something!

Leytonstone is right on the edge of epping forest. Once you get onto Leyton flats ( 2 seconds walk from the Green man roundabout) youll see how dog loving it is- everyone seems to have dogs theres Loads of us!

Best of luck !!

Lavendyr

Austin_Allegro wrote: »

This is the sort of thing landlords say to justify interference in tenants' lives.

The tenant, in law, has the 'right to quiet enjoyment' which I would interpret as meaning that as long as he does not damage the property or cause a nuisance to others, he may do what he wishes just as a freeholder may do.

Now, you could argue that a heavy smoker 'damages' fixtures and fittings because these smell of smoke or turn yellow, but if he only smoked, say, one cigarette a week this would not have any serious effect - meaning the description 'smoker' is relative and therefore of little meaning. As previously pointed out there is no mention of guests - what if you are a non-smoker but your mother-in-law visits you every day (poor you) and smokes? This also makes the declaration pointless.

All that the landlord may do, in my opinion, is put a 'no smoking' clause in the contract signed by the tenant. Whether this is legally binding or not I don't know, but the question of whether someone is a smoker is irrelevant and intrusive.

In essence, I agree with what you say. My comment was more playing devil's advocate, though as a non-smoker you really can tell if someone has smoked in a property, even if they're only a light smoker - the smell just lingers. It would be difficult and, I would have thought, just as presumptuous for a landlord to say "smoke no more than 1 cigarette in the house per day".

Not to mention, as everyone else has, the insurance issue.

PasturesNew

What an interesting thread this is turning out to be....

Information, varying viewpoints, looks like somebody's found a home for dogs

Thanks everybody.