To be miffed at prospective landlords not accepting children in a rented property

[MolotovCocktail]

We are looking to rent a larger property. We want to remain in the same location, but just need a bigger house. There's me, my DH, and our 2 DDs, aged 4yo and 11mo.

This is the second time that, when I've called to arrange a viewing, I've been told 'the landlord doesn't accept children' when asked who the property would be for.

Why is this? Surely, if any of us caused damage to the property, that's what the deposit is for?

AIBU to feel miffed and want to question the reason why such landlords are holding onto 3-bed family properties within walking distance of school?

And, whether it's LLs being discerning as to when they choose to let their properties to, I have to admit that it feels like discrimination to me.

We rented our first property in 2001, and other in 2008. We literally walked into them. We had no children then, but we literally said 'we'll take it' and we were in the next month. No choices in terms of competition from others IYSWIM. Been here 2 years and there was more interest, but no 'competition'. Very much first come, first served.

Now our application gets handed to the LL who can pick and choose.

I wouldn't be so bothered, but I've never cared more about where we live than I do now

And I care so much because of my girls.

pickled I can't believ you were asked to leave because of that reason. That's awful!

I searched for a rental property for 3 years; total nightmare because I have 4 kids. Everytime I went to apply for the property the estate agent would say "LL prefers max of 2 kids" fair enough. A friend of mine has 8 kids and three rellies but told her landlord she only has four. When he comes to visit the house they have to be hidden in the ensuite!

In the end I offered 5 months rent and deposit upfront and estate agent nearly fell at my feet to sign the contract there and then.

Listening to others' nightmare stories on here, I'm starting to think our landlord is great!! We started renting here in 2007 and had two DC. We now have 3, but landlord was always cool about the kids. They did give us a proper 'full-on' interview. Wanted to know our income and insisted on previous references which is fair enough. We told them we'd treat the place like our own, which we do. They don't do much to be honest. We do all minor repairs as we don't like to bother them. They did put the rent up though last week, so will ask them to do some jobs which desperately need doing now. Perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to want to move from here based on what everyone else is saying.

We will soon be LL's and are advertising the house as a good one for families as it has a good layout, biggish bedrooms and a garden. My issue would be pets but only because there are an awful lot of animals already living on the street. It would really depend on the animal and its nature I think.
YANBU to be miffed at all, it seems very short sighted.

Sorry haven't read the whole thread.

Somebody I know was actually evicted from her home when she became pregnant, perfectly legally I should add.

I looked into this a lot afterwards. Round here about 35% for suitable housing bans children, this would be illegal discrimination against families in many many other comparable countries. IMO it should be illegal here too. For one it unfairly discriminates against women because single parent families are mostly headed by women. Can you imagine if landlords were allowed (openly) to ban Indians (for example) because they cook curry (I'm sure plenty won't have them anyway, I know the system isn't perfect). We would rightly be outraged and the landlord would (hopefully) be prosecuted.

Children don't choose to be children, they have no choice, they can't just change what they are. They also IMO have as much right as the landlords banning them to walk the earth and that includes fair access to housing. If landlords don't want to want to provide fair access to all the different groups needing housing then they shouldn't be a landlord IMO. Fair enough, ban people have have a choice in what they do/are (smokers for example) but not people who don't.

I think the pendulum has swung to far in the landlords favour giving tenants too few rights, and I say this as a private landlord myself.

Yes Molotov I was pretty shocked too! Was a lucky escape really, she was awful & well known for being an utter nightmare.

I hope you find somewhere soon. The rental market is ridiculous, sky high prices and lots of competition. My mum has just started renting for the first time ever, and was horrified at how hard it was to get a place. The conditions some of the agents have are stupid.

I'm probably going to get flamed, but I have a well behaved cat the landlord doesn't know about. She sleeps all day & goes out all night. I know I know, I should have told the letting agent, but after being chucked out of the flat, we were desperate to get somewhere, and throwing a cat into the mix would have meant we were even less likely to get somewhere. I am a great tenant in every other way, honest!

fire - ahh, that's interesting, that must be it.

Kendodd I think the pendulum has swung to far in the landlords favour giving tenants too few rights, and I say this as a private landlord myself

I think its the opposite myself - landlords are extra wary of risk because rights have swung so far in favour of tenants. Certainly this year I've rented my flats far more easily than in previous years, I've had 6 or 7 different groups of organised tenants after each, and you can take your pick. I think this is because the city which I rent in has such draconian regulations that many landlords have simply sold up, or sit on empty properties as investments.

If a landlord makes a wrong decision and gets in a tenant who trashes a property and/or doesn't pay the rent, it takes months to evict them. And whats the alternative in such a scenario - you could not seriously expect a landlord to simply provide free of charge accommodation to a tenant who was trashing a property.

I think the State is too much wanting private landlords to take on the role of the State in providing accommodation, but thats never going to work, as landlords are generally motivated by profit and investment return, and the State simply has to fulfill a duty from taxpayer's money.

When my partner and I moved out if our last rented property we re-painted the whole lot (got the paint code from a leftover tin in the lift so it matched), rented a carpet cleaner and a steam cleaner and left the place looking a new as when we moved in.

I always thought that was just what tenants were supposed to do?? Are you lot telling me I could have saved 2 weeks worth of rent on two houses, two weeks worth of painting and all those rental costs?!

I'd much rather be in a position to buy my own house rather than rent. We pay the same rent as a mortgage in any case. DH is a higher rate tax payer, so technically we have a good income. However, getting that 20% deposit together is a bit tricky in this climate with inflation through the roof. House prices are still too high and have further to fall. Whether the government will allow that to happen is another story.

LadyFlumpalot me too! I thought that was what most people did. I've lived in places where I've had to provide proof of carpet cleaning receipts.
I have been royally screwed over by landlords in the past with regards to my deposit. The rent deposit protection scheme thing is fantastic, I feel much more secure now that is a requirement.

It might not always be a terrible thing if the landlord just asks about children or even plans for children (as in LRD's post). I asked our tenants to let us know if they have children as I think the spindles are too far apart and will have them replaced as soon as there is a child living there.

I think we need changes in the law to make good tenants more secure while protecting landlords from non-payers. It's difficult to imagine the set of laws we need as they will have a huge impact on a lot of the market e.g. security for tenants will make mortgage companies reluctant to give consent to let.

ihategeorgeosborne it's one of those myths throwing around that you need 20% deposit. We got our place in the crash in 2009 with less than 15%, so it's a 90% LTV loans. A few at my work took the same opportunity and they don't have 20% either. The only thing I regretted was a 2 year fix. Should have gone for a tracker back then, but no one has a crystal ball, do they?

I mean we have somewhere between 10-15%, can't remember exactly.

lesmissabs It is not the government's job to provide accommodation to families who can perfectly well afford it privately! The potential tenants we are talking about here are only disadvantaged because landlords discriminate against them (I'm sorry but there's no other word). Why should the government pick up the bill?

The problem I see in this country is that the assumption seems to be that most people will own homes, needy people will get subsidised housing, and private renting is only for students or very young adults, and only for a few years. In reality the private rental market needs to be fair and accessible as more and more people are depending on it, and for much longer. The idea of people being evicted for being pregnant, or refused housing for having children, is not something this country should be proud of. As someone else said, this is not allowed in many other countries.

I would agree though that there needs to be a way to get money back from tenants who cause a lot of damage. Like others, I have shampooed carpets and repaired damage being leaving rentals and I think this is a completely reasonable expectation.

I have had a terrible experience with one LA. We viewed a house and it was perfect for us because the owners accepted a dog. We agreed to take it and went back to the office to sign the paperwork. They insisted they needed three months of bank statements to prove we could pay the rent. Ok but we wanted the house. They made me print my statements off in the office and then I spent a humiliating half an hour where I was grilled on every transaction ? ?what is Quidco?? ?How many credit cards do you have?? They then took our holding deposit to take it off the market.

They phoned two days later saying we were not a good financial bet and they had let the property to someone else (despite having our holding deposit). I have been renting for ten years and have never missed a rental payment, left outstanding bills behind, damaged a property. I wouldn?t have had to go through that kind of humiliation (?you have a lot of debt don?t you?) to get credit facilities.

ToddlerTerror, The difference in repayments is huge though. With a 10% deposit we were quoted about £300 a month more for a mortgage than with a 20%. I worry too that interest rates will go up as they surely have to at some point soon. Wouldn't like to be stuck with a 90% mortgage with an increase in interest. I think we are living in worrying times. It feels like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

As others have said, I thought it was normal to thoroughly clean your rented house before moving out. Our old landlord was amazed at how clean the oven was in our old house after I'd cleaned it. He said he'd never seen it so clean. Took me bloody ages though!

If I had a 10% deposit, plus the money for fees and solicitors etc, the mortgage repayments on my current house (assuming 5% interest rate, 25 years) would be 30% more than we are currently paying in rent.

That's what I worry about Trills which is why we rent.

It's not always because they think children will cause damage to the house.

My friend rented her house when she moved abroad and had to specify no children because there was no bannister on the staircase. It would have been too easy for a child to fall sideways off the stairs and short of installing a bannister there was no way to make it safe. This was her home that she intended to return to after a few years and she didn't want/couldn't afford to make any major modifications.

As it happened the tenant got pregnant after moving in which put my friend in a potentially difficult position. Fortunately the tenants moved of their own accord before the baby was mobile.

I think landlords can get more money out of a houseshare- with either students or other young people. I disagree that these people will cause more damage- yes they might be messy but mess is usually as far as it goes, and most of the student house shares I have been in recently are actually kept generally clean and tidy! Some landlords also seem to prefer relatively short term rents, as they can change the rent by a larger amount at the end of the term.

I also think some landlords unfortunately prefer students/first time renters as they may be less aware of their rights re: viewings, inspections, deposits, eviction etc.

Obviously this is not right, and obviously there are other advantages to renting to families. I would suggest looking for private landlords, who you may be able to negotiate with more easily, or going into a lettings agent and asking them what they do have in the area that can be rented to a family with children.

I was a LL for a while (never again)
Had the tenant from hell and it came to having to evict him. Really stressful and expensive all round. If there'd been children involved it would have just been awful.
Basically I wouldn't want the responsibility of having children in a property, as evicting or anything if things go wrong could be horrible.