Smoking & Renting

Gorgeous_George

Believe me, I've had to put right a property where people smoked. It's a nightmare.

Given the choice of two tenants, one who smoked and one who didn't, I'd select the non-smoker. The smoker would pay more rent and a larger bond.



GG

lynzpower

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Believe me, I've had to put right a property where people smoked. It's a nightmare.

Given the choice of two tenants, one who smoked and one who didn't, I'd select the non-smoker. The smoker would pay more rent and a larger bond.



GG

what about where ones a smoker earning 35k a year and other ones on Housing benefit

PasturesNew

Housing benefit person would be better.

Those high earners have NO respect you know ....

:P

guppy

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

Austin_Allegro wrote: »

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

Yep, theoretically property can't be owned. Its the right to possession that's important, which the landlord surrenders when he lets it.

Lavendyr

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Given the choice of two tenants, one who smoked and one who didn't, I'd select the non-smoker.

Additionally I would expect that a non-smoker would be more likely to ask any smoking friends or relatives to step outside, than someone who smokes themselves (and who is renting a house where they are permitted to smoke inside).

I think it's fine if a smoker rents a house but does not smoke in it. But I think that they should also take the responsibility to make sure that no one else smokes in there either, if they have signed a contract stating "no smoking is permitted in the house".

pickles110564

lynzpower wrote: »

what about where ones a smoker earning 35k a year and other ones on Housing benefit

I would take the ones on housing benefit, never take anyone who has pets or are smokers again.
Ones on 35k a year have a huge chip on their shoulders thinking that us Btl's are stopping them buying as we push prices up.
They always want to have the last word and call you back for stupid things trying to control their stuation as they feel so inadequate

black-saturn

It makes no difference whether you smoke or not. Even if you ticked you were a non smoker and then decided to smoke inside the house there would be nothing a landlord could do. You are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property so not being able to smoke in your home would be in breach of that. Stating they don't want smokers in the tenancy agreement is just a polite request, not a legally binding requirement, same as keeping pets.

Oh and no I'm not a smoker.

lynzpower

pickles110564 wrote: »

I would take the ones on housing benefit, never take anyone who has pets or are smokers again.
Ones on 35k a year have a huge chip on their shoulders thinking that us Btl's are stopping them buying as we push prices up.
They always want to have the last word and call you back for stupid things trying to control their stuation as they feel so inadequate

god it must be awful living in your world, you really are so bitter _pale_

pickles110564

lynzpower wrote: »

god it must be awful living in your world, you really are so bitter _pale_

Why? My world is fine it is just you chip on the shoulder types that need to get off their @rses and make something themselves

pickles110564

black-saturn wrote: »

It makes no difference whether you smoke or not. Even if you ticked you were a non smoker and then decided to smoke inside the house there would be nothing a landlord could do. You are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property so not being able to smoke in your home would be in breach of that. Stating they don't want smokers in the tenancy agreement is just a polite request, not a legally binding requirement, same as keeping pets.

Oh and no I'm not a smoker.

True just take more deposit from them and get your house redecorated on them when they leave:T