Any way around 'over 50s only' for a homeswap?

usefulmale

marliepanda wrote: »

There will also be people who have been refused. There are obvious issues with allowing even quiet 39 year olds into such properties.

Such as what?

glasgowdan

This just seems so antiquated and must surely rank alongside headline stories such as B&Bs refusing gay couples and so on. I see the need to advertise for quiet people, but not ones of a certain age. What's that got to do with it? All it means is they're more likely to be retired and spend all day twitching their curtains getting wound up about the height of other's hedges, or whether the wheelie bins get put back more than 2 yards from where they were set out.

marliepanda

usefulmale wrote: »

Such as what?

For starters:

Quiet 39 year old suddenly gets a very loud and disruptive partner or suddenly had another child! Suddenly there is a family with young kids in the over 50s community.

Or, a current residents child wants to move back in with mum and dad. Mum and dad want them to, so now there are a few younger residents as how can they say no when they've already allowed a 39 year old in.

Many reasons, and that is exactly why these over 50 communities exist.

sheramber

Someone I know on another forum managed to get permission from her council due to being disabled although she was under 50 years.

You can only ask and see what they say.

rtho782

marliepanda wrote: »

For starters:

Quiet 39 year old suddenly gets a very loud and disruptive partner or suddenly had another child! Suddenly there is a family with young kids in the over 50s community.

Or, a current residents child wants to move back in with mum and dad. Mum and dad want them to, so now there are a few younger residents as how can they say no when they've already allowed a 39 year old in.

Many reasons, and that is exactly why these over 50 communities exist.

That's exclusionary and discriminatory.

I'm a quiet 33 year old, I don't want to live near to noisy people. Why should I have to because they have all been pushed out of the "over 50s" areas. An over 51 year old person might have a 30 year old partner who is noisy, or a teenage son/daughter come live with them.

Closed and "managed" insular communities are a bad plan.

Jackieboy

usefulmale wrote: »

Such as what?

Having children after moving in?

marliepanda

rtho782 wrote: »

That's exclusionary and discriminatory.

I'm a quiet 33 year old, I don't want to live near to noisy people. Why should I have to because they have all been pushed out of the "over 50s" areas. An over 51 year old person might have a 30 year old partner who is noisy, or a teenage son/daughter come live with them.

Closed and "managed" insular communities are a bad plan.

It's as exclusionary and discriminatory as you choose to make it. You're overreacting. No one wants to live near to noisy people. It's not an unusual thing.

Over 50s places usually have extra services such as emergency cords, services. Not places many under 50s (and indeed MANY over 50s) would want.

Jackieboy

rtho782 wrote: »

That's exclusionary and discriminatory.

I'm a quiet 33 year old, I don't want to live near to noisy people. Why should I have to because they have all been pushed out of the "over 50s" areas. An over 51 year old person might have a 30 year old partner who is noisy, or a teenage son/daughter come live with them.

Closed and "managed" insular communities are a bad plan.

You don't have to - buy your own place somewhere nice and quiet.

kinger101

It's likely that any age discrimination would be entirely legal, as there is usually an "objective justification" when it comes to property targeted at over 50s. However, whoever owns the home might be free to waive this given your circumstances. I'd make further enquiries.

G_M

Ygritte wrote: »

The landlord. And 'it says' refers to the advert on homeswapper.

This really does not answer the question.

A statement in an advert has no legal force. But if it's included in the advert because this restricion exists elsewhere, then it may be legally binding.

If the LL simply decided he'd prefer over 50s, then yes, of course he has discretion to remove or alter this requirement.

If the LL is stating this because he is legally bound by the restriction (planning law, a legal covenant on the land etc) then no, he has no discretion.

Hence my question, which should perhaps have been:

Where does this restriction originate?