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?

[OneLittleToddleTerror]

Slowloris I agree that houseshares pay more. I'm in a university town and most of the large houses have been converted to student flats. However I think they are layout differently from family homes. They tend to have a lot of bedrooms for a start.

[DontmindifIdo]

Patchouli - I hadn't thought about that, you read on threads on here where families are given notice they are told to stay until they are formally evicted in order to get the council to house them, perhaps some LL's have been burned by that and see that it's harder to get families out when you want the flat/house back at the end of the tenancy (I would imagine this is more of a fear for those who are renting out a property they intend to live in again rather than one that's purely a business purchase)

[PanickingIdiot]

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?

Who should pick up the bill then?

If the tenants can "perfectly well afford" private accommodation, they should do what other posters suggested: cough up a big enough deposit so they are competitive against more attractive prospective tenants. Landlords don't have an obligation to provide accommodation to anyone, which is why claims of "discrimination" will never get you very far in this context. It's a supply and demand thing, offers that are not competitive get overlooked, that's all.

[Patchouli]

Dontmind I think any tenant is advised to sit tight when given notice to quit - ours was. But feeling responsible for evicting a family with children would be emotionally difficult I think.
I'd rather not enter into a contract involving DCs.

[Trills]

I think any tenant is advised to sit tight when given notice to quit - ours was.

Isn't that called "being a dick"? That's a totally unreasonable thing to do. You moved into the house with the understanding that at some point the landlord might want their property back, and signed a contract agreeing what notice should be given if they want you to leave or if you want to leave. If they give you the appropriate notice you should say "fair enough, that's what we agreed" and leave.

(and I say that as someone who has moved 3 times in the last 2 1/2 years as the result of landlords deciding to sell the property I was living in).

[eggso]

Deposit at my house is to cover the last months rent before we move, this has been the case of 2 of the 5 houses we've rented in the last five years (we live moving . So if the deposit is for that, the landlord doesn't have much insurance really.

Our current landlord asked for a couple/family because he was sick of dirty students ruining his houses!

[Patchouli]

Yep, I thought he was being a dick.
The advice he got from CAB was to sit tight though. It probably was to do with having the council house him.

[ananikifo]

PanickingIdiot: I support more regulation of the private rental market. I would support landlords being able to recover money for their damages beyond the value of the deposit, as I think these extremely high (5 MONTHS?!) deposits imposed on families are extortionate, and should be capped. The government here doesn't put many restrictions on landlords (compared to other countries) and then pays to house people who could afford to rent privately if they could find a place.

I come from Canada and where I've rented back home there was a limit on how much they could demand as a deposit, and the main criteria they could use to refuse you a lease was if the rent too high compared to your income. This sounds revolutionary here but to me it's just basic fairness.

[Booyhoo]

Interesting thread, im a tenant but i can totally see both sides of the argument. Ive only read the first page but Im wondering if one solution might be for prospective tenants to permit prospective LL/ agent to visit them in their current home as part of the application to see how well they look after it and whether it meets the standards they would expect in their property.

[babyfirefly1980]

I don't get this either, renting a 3/4 bed house but not allowing children, pets I can understand.

[MolotovCocktail]

If it came to putting 5/6 months rent in advance so that we look good over any competition would mean we'd be stuck here for a while yet.

We can "well afford" the monthly rental. We've saved enough for 1-2 months rent in advance for the deposit and moving costs. This doesn't mean that we can "well afford" £5-6k to prove to an agent/LL that we're a safe bet, or something like that. Far from it, actually.

[MolotovCocktail]

FWIW booyhoo I'd be happy for a prospective LL to visit our current property to check it - and us - out.

We actually did this when we rented from a private LL where no agent was involved. We all got a feel for eachother and we had a wry positive relationship with that LL.

[flatbread]

I think it should be illegal to discriminate based on sex, age, religion, or family situation. The rental market should be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as other industries

[MolotovCocktail]

'very' not 'wry'

[specialsubject]

race and sex discrimination ARE illegal and have been for decades.

landlords are allowed to choose tenants. If they choose the wrong ones, they get lots of trouble. If they are too choosy, they don't get anyone and have no income.

[Booyhoo]

Me too molotov. I know for some people it wouldn't be appropriate ( house shares or staying with family etc) but i wouldn't have a problem with showing a prospective LL that im clean and my pets and dcs are well behaved and cause no damage. Its all well getting a tenant to sign saying they will keep a place clean and in a good state of repair but one persons' 'clean' might be another person's idea of a hovel. And also, well some people lie to secure a tenancy. It would be harder to get away with saying you were a good tenant if you had to prove it. Also, some LL wont give a reference until they have taken possesion of the house again which is too late if you need it to get your next tenancy.

[flatbread]

Special, in the US you cannot discriminate rental tenants on the basis of their family status.

It is ok to choose tenants based on their creditworthiness, but not whether they are pregnant, have one or 3 children (as long as it is permissible occupancy)

I think the US law is far superior in this regard.

I am a LL myself, I rely on references, income statements and credit checks. The rest is not my business

[Trills]

If you have two sets of potential tenants how can the criteria that you use to choose between them be enforced? What if they are identical in all of the criteria that are "supposed" to be used to make this decision?

[Llareggub]

I feel so lucky after reading this thread. I am currently renting after selling my house and moving to a different city. I rented the first house I saw and have moved in with my two children. I am feeling very thankful that our LL isn't bothered, but then as the house had been empty for months perhaps he feels lucky too.

Seems very shortsighted. As my DCs are of school age I won't be looking to move any time soon as he gets a long term tenant and I get to enjoy my sea views and great school. Win win I reckon, walls might get sticky by dirty little hands but that's easily fixed in my opinion.

[flatbread]

Trills, If they are both equally suitable, whoever pays the deposit first and signs the lease.

[Trills]

So it's a race? You say "whoever puts the cash in this box first gets the house"?

[PanickingIdiot]

ananikifo - that's interesting, and I kind of agree with it in principle, but I wonder what's the incentive for people in Canada to become private landlords? If everything is regulated up to the back teeth, how much you can ask for, who you can refuse etc. yet the government relies on private individuals to rent out their houses to people who aren't rich enough to own and aren't poor enough to qualify for social housing, that's a delicate balance.

I know someone who made quite a bit of money from rental property in Canada, and believe you me, she does "discriminate" (mostly along the lines of nationality/country of origin). She can't do it openly, of course, but ultimately she has the final say in who gets to move in to her houses, and she bases what she does on bitter experience, it's not about being malicious for the heck of it. I can't really blame her, and I don't think it's an easy way to make a living (it used to be, perhaps, but not any more), after all, there are other things you can invest in with far less hassle, except who would provide private housing for the rest of us, then?

[Kendodd]

race and sex discrimination ARE illegal and have been for decades.

But discriminating against children IS sex discrimination imo as this would disproportionately affect women because most single parent household are headed by women.

I would really like to know what the rational behind allowing this discrimination to continue is.

If you have two sets of potential tenants how can the criteria that you use to choose between them be enforced? What if they are identical in all of the criteria that are "supposed" to be used to make this decision?

Easy, you choose pick whoever applied first.

[DoctorWhoFan]

I have an elderly and extremely well behaved dog and have had hell's own job finding somewhere to rent. I got lucky and now have a lovely landlady and what appear to be fairly laidback letting agents. The house was a mess when I moved in, and I spent hundreds on paint etc getting it to look like a liveable house. The landlord was aware it was a mess so the rent was lower than most. However, landlord has said we should use the house as our own, no problem if we have a child here, and we're welcome to do what we like to the garden as well as have chickens, so I reckon I got really lucky with my landlady. Also, in the first month of me living here, I suspect she's paid out more than the first month's rent getting the heating fixed as it was FRRRREEEEZING!

I have a 'reference' for my dog from our previous LL!

I feel for the LLs who have had tenants move out and leave the place in a complete mess. My attitude has always been to leave the place as I found it. Obviously I won't do that with this place as it was a shithole and is now starting to look rather lovely, but in the past I have repainted walls and woodwork, had the carpets cleaned etc. It has been my responsibility to do so as far as I was concerned. If I was renting, I would hope that my tenant would do the same, so I treat the house as my own home and if there is damage etc., I fix it.

It does seem wrong to discriminate against someone with children, but I do sort of understand the fear of the house being left in a mess. I think a LL should perhaps discuss the issue with the tenants though and an arrangement reached (and then put in writing). Surely that should cover all bases?

[flatbread]

So it's a race? You say "whoever puts the cash in this box first gets the house"?

No idea what you mean.

When I put my house for rent, the agent does the viewings.

If someone is interested, they pay a small admin fee and a deposit, subject to income, credit checks and previous references.

If they pass, they get the place. If not, the deposit is returned.

If two people see it simultaneously and like it, the one who provides the deposit and reference details first, gets it, provided they clear the process.

What is so difficult about that