No DSS, No Smokers, No Pets

[JustAnotherPoster00]

Sick of seeing those 3 on every single house I look at, I'm disabled (mainly MH related) and I need to move but can't simply because of those

To address point C above, I can't remember the exact figure but a large number of number receiving HB are in work so that's just a judgement coloured by ignorance about who receives HB.

And therein lies the problem. People have an idea about what HB claimants are like and make decisions (about something as crucial as housing) and that's that. And every time a HB claimant acts poorly, that only confirms the judgement despite the FACT that the majority don't.

Iceiceice because the council like to bury their heads in the sand until there's a problem they can't ignore. For the same reason that they don't sort out school transport until the week the kids go back to school.

Our councils would save a lot more money if they were proactive instead of leaving it until there's a huge mess to clear up.

Sorry different rant....

LL here.
We allow a couple of pets.
Insurance states professional people which can include HB.
Would not in any circumstance accept smokers.

As far as evictions go I've never ever understood why the council advise people to stay put until the landlord gets the high Court bailiffs in (I do believe they're the only ones who can force an eviction and it costs a lot of money too

its because they haven't got anywhere for the tenants and are desprate so even a few weeks can be a help to them also often a lot of the tenants that private rent are people who have been evicted from council homes so they will literally have no were for them to go if they don't try and keep them in the property

Calpol, I can now see your point but it's a strange one. Contracts are about making it possible to recoup damages in the event that someone violates its terms. If you consider a no-smoking clause unenforceable in that it doesn't give someone the right to physically prevent the counterparty from smoking, then you must consider all contracts unenforceable.

your right to quiet enjoyment is statutory and you can't over write statutory law by putting something in a contract.

Ah, the old quiet enjoyment chestnut. Quiet enjoyment is not an absolute right. Again, there's case law on this - see Southwark v Mills, for example, as to what constitutes a breach of quiet enjoyment.

"Quiet enjoyment" gets trotted out on every LL/tenant thread as some sort of talisman for beleaguered tenants but a) it's not all that relevant to smoking and pets and b) it's not an absolute right. If a LL comes by frequently and for no reason - that's probably a breach of a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, and the tenant can then go ahead and make a high court claim for breach at a prohibitive cost. Not allowing tenants to smoke - not so much.

Its ridiculous. When I found out I was pregnant with DD1 we wanted to move back to my hometown (that year it was declared as "the best town to raise a family in England". All rentals were not only no DSS/no smoking/no pets, 99% of them were no children too. In a place known for families. We had to re-home our cats because we found one that was flexible on the children front but no pets.

The landlord had been living in it previously and when we moved in I found hairs from her 2 dogs everywhere. Then she turned up all the time checking that "her" garden was ok.

I am so grateful for the windfall that meant we could buy our first home and I no longer have to line the pockets of these people.

As a Landlandy I've always been annoyed by the council and there advice of staying until the bailiffs turn up, yes I will lose more money on top of what I already had.
I understand the tenant might not have anywhere to go but why should they be allowed to stay in my property for free

Last eviction went like this ( tenants were getting universal credit and just didn't pay me my rent )

Have to be X amount in arrears to even start eviction

Goes to court on X date, court gives a date to leave, more waiting for me and still NO rent payment

That date comes, my tenants decide they don't want to leave instead they will stay and trash the place! Still NO rent payment

I have to go to the high court bailiff , more money for me to pay out, still NO rent payment for me

At least the high court guys ( who were bloody fantastic) finally get me my house back but it is completely trashed and needed hundreds spent on it to repair. I am also owed thousands in rent I will never get back!

All I asked of the tenants was the rent got paid, then they wouldn't of been evicted and I wouldn't of been owed thousands in rent- everyone happy! That was clearly asking too much

We rented for a while with two cats - even if an ad said no pets, we asked and often LLs were happy to accept them with a rider to the contract and a larger deposit.

You do not have a right to enter a tenanted property. Believe me, I've applied for enough warrants of entry and outside of an eviction situation it is granted for gas safety certificates and rarely for anything else.

With all

it's a fact that HB tenants are on average more likely than others to fall on hard times than others. And if the tenants fall on hard times they will put food on the table ahead of the rent.

So until (a) direct payment is restored (b) LL is given four notice that for any reason HB is going to cease (3) that notice is a mandatory ground for possssion and (4) until the bailiffs arrive HB will still be paid, it is rational and sensible to refuse HB tenants. And of course if the terms of the LL's mortgage require it, game over.

If you really, really want the house you will have to sacrifice the pets and the smoking. If you don't do you really want the house?

Children? Difficult but don't call it discrimination if you mean illegal. It isn't.

I own my home and had two house trained cats when we moved here. Ten years on and as they have become elderly and incontinent they have completely destroyed the carpets in one room (it has rotted all the way through to the rubber underlay) as well as a row of cupboards that are rotting due to cat wee.
We only have one left now and she is very old so not long for this world. When she dies that room will have to be stripped, aired and refurnished. There is a door jamb that needs replacing as one of them started to scratch inside once she got too old to go outdoors. We will also need to replace the concrete front door area where they have weed repeatedly.

At a conservative estimate I reckon making good will cost about £2500. As they are my beloved pets I will shoulder that cost but if I ever became a landlord i would absolutely never allow pets.

Blimey my cat is only two. I'm not looking forward to that. I'd have to have plastic covers down or something. I'm hoping I won't still be renting in ten years.

One of our tenants cat destroyed a carpet (hallway so not major) and she replaced it with a much inferior one. We still allow pets hate to think of them being re-homed. Not everything is about profit. Most of our tenants do have animals and are extra careful and leave the places spotless.

The no pets and no smokers is pretty standard to be honest although a lot will accept pets if you take out additional insurance to cover any damage caused by them.

DSS - ime this has got worse since housing benefits started being paid direct to the person instead of the LL. I have seen and spoke. To several people who have ended up using that money for other things and then not being able to pay their rent.

I specialise in renting to people with pets. The pets have never caused any problems. Nor have the pet owners. Some of the non-pet owners have been a nightmare

Sorry my post was cut off. Museum the deposit covers damage- broadly speaking the difference between the state of the property when you moved in and when you moved out. Smoking may cause burns, smelly carpets and stained walls. Then again, it may not. So you can't stop people smoking and neither can you "fine" them For doing so by taking their deposit. You just recover the cost of making good again.
It's just damage, how it happens isn't really relevant.

I wouldn't rent to a smoker - it takes so long to get rid of the smell.

Pets, I'd be ok with theoretically but both my flats are in blocks that preclude cats and dogs.

I'm not allowed to rent to DSS but I would be wary anyway. Too many horror stories about trying to evict tenants who've spent their HB elsewhere. I'd be ok with renting via a housing association.

So you can't stop people smoking

dont that's not correct, for all the reasons I mentioned upthread.

Essential you haven't explained how a landlord can stop a tenant smoking in their property at all. The reality is, you tell them you don't smoke then do what you like.
The risks are if you're found out and not in your assured period you could be given notice and if you cause damage you lose your deposit. That doesn't stop you doing it.

It's unreasonable to not let to smokers. It's not unreasonable to not allow smoking in the house. 'No smoking' and 'no smokers' are two different things. I smoke, but never inside, always outside.

No pets tricky, loads of people have pets but they do damage. I would however let someone have cats in my rented house assuming they provided a pet deposit on top of regular deposit.

No housing benefit isn't acceptable but it's the fault of the regulations that make it hard to evict these tenants, not the landlords.

Right, but you can apply that logic to any contract. You can show up at work wearing a hoodie when your employment contract has a dress code, or refuse to pay your kid's CM fees. It's a breach of contract. You may get away with it, or you may find the consequences enforced. The fact that the LL can't legally walk into the flat, take the cigarette from your lips and stub it out on your forehead is neither here nor there.

One of the deals with civil society is that we broadly abide by the things we agree to do. "I can get away with it"/"No one can stop me" isn't a good enough response. You sign a contract saying you won't smoke in the house, you don't smoke in the house.

I'm going to stop replying to you now, as I feel this thread is going down the usual LL/tenant thread vortex.

I used to work for a national visual impairment charity. Whilst there I had on my case load a woman relocating to an area for work who was registered blind and had a guide dog.

Despite the fact it is illegal to refuse her housing on the grounds of her assurance dog it took her months to get a private rental that would take her. I even called the council about social housing and there response 'we don't allow pets'. A guide dog is not a pet. Absolutely shameful.

But you won't get an eviction order for a tenant smoking in the house and that's the whole point.

Also- essential if you are a lawyer it's pretty hard to reconcile your advice with the advice we have received for the last 10 years that I've been in housing from our own retained and in house specialist housing lawyers with whom we spend millions a year.

I'm sure if you have experience in housing law you'll know how hard it is to get an eviction even when it's clear cut.