To think renting to smokers and students, but not families, makes no sense?

[dreamingbohemian]

Just started flat hunting (oh joy!) and saw what seemed to be the perfect flat, only to see at the end:

Smokers ok
Students ok
No families

AIBU to think this makes no sense?

If he's worried about kids damaging the flat, why rent to smokers? It's a furnished flat, the smoke will get in the sofas and mattresses and everything.

If he's worried about noise and the neighbours, why rent to students, they can be really noisy.

The flat doesn't look dangerous or anything. Just wondering why landlords don't rent to families?

I would normally never in a million years send that email where you try to convince someone that your own child is not a problem -- but honestly, I have one 10 year old who is super quiet and neat, and this flat could be perfect. So just trying to figure out what the logic might be, and whether I should try an email anyway.

I genuinely thought students would be seen as riskier than families, they are more of a financial risk, many of them don't take care of the property, cause problems with neighbours.

They aren't more of a financial risk - they have guarantors, and I use the university as agent, which tends to make the tenants pay on time, as they are paying it to the university. Students aren't usually flush with cash, so they don't trash the place, usually, as they need their deposit back.

Plus, as already pointed out, there's unlikely to be a situation where they stay put, not paying rent, until evicted.

Some of you are being a bit unfair on the landlord here.
The op is looking to rent a flat. Presumably the whole flat not a room in a hmo so no matter if the flat was rented out to a family unit or several students flatsharing they would both pay the amount the flat is advertised at.

There could be many reasons why the landlord is happy to take students but not families.
Maybe he has had families in the past and had complaints of buggies left in the stairwells. They might just think it is not suitable due to size, no lift, decor. They might have had problems in the past with e citing a family or maybe they just hate children.

The smoking is probably that they are smokers themselves and have lived in the flat at some time or just don’t see smoking as a big deal.

Perhaps the landlord owns some of the other flats and it's a popular student area? If so it would make sense to specify no families, to avoid complaints about noise etc. from student parties. Much easier to keep it all student based.

Ditto smoking. If she/he is already renting to students then no point in saying no smokers because they'll do it anyway.

'no DSS' isn't illegal - that was another condition of my LL insurance

May already be student neighbours and he doesn't want to cope with complaints about noise keeping children awake

Most LLs set rules according to their insurance company requirements and their previous bad / good experiences

LL probably knows from experience that if someone is going to smoke in the house, they'll do it regardless of stipulations to the contrary - probably quite hard to prove unless they're caught in the act, because they'd just swear that any damage must have been there before.

I see it frequently with houses. No children, no sharers.
So a couple with no kids are obviously going to rattle about in your 4 bed house for an extortionate rent amount, Sharon

I guess I'm curious what makes some landlords rent to families anyway, despite all these drawbacks. Why do some landlords take the risk and others don't?

I prefer a family because they will stay longer. Finding and vetting tenants is a big hassle. There will be a gap between the end of one tenancy and the start of the next, during which I would have to clean and repaint and sort out any missing cupboard handles etc, plus the slightly neglected garden. No rent coming in for a month or two. And the more people pass through, the greater the risk that one of them will trash the place.

HOWEVER, since Universal Credit came in I have been having a rethink. Tenants who are reliant on UC (or could easily become so) are now a bigger risk, as the benefits system can treat them so appallingly. It feels horrible to make life even harder for such families by refusing to take them on as tenants, but from a business POV if they are my tenants and they get shafted by UC, so do I.

I'll keep the current family as long as they want to stay, because I know them and good tenants are worth their weight in gold. But this might be the last family we have in that house.

When I rented, I lived next to/below some very loud, annoying families with screaming kids. Perhaps he’s had previous problems with a family and neighbours were complaining.

Why are you so intent on renting a place that specifically states they do not want you there?

I wouldn’t rent to any of them so 🤷‍♀️ But pets , yes.

I rent to students, pet owners and smokers. (Because, duh, I don’t judge other people’s lives) I also rent to people with young kids but my agent thinks they are the most troublesome.

Here's a reason no one else has mentioned for not renting to families, though probably not relevant to the situation you've mentioned, OP: wear and tear on the house. Not because kids are hard on a house, but because they are at home more.

Every time someone flushes the toilet, it's one flush closer to needing repair. Every time someone walks up the stairs, the carpet is getting worn. Every time the oven is used, it is a step closer to breaking. A family with children, young children especially, usually has more people at home actually using the house for more hours of the day.

Compare that with the landlord's ideal tenants, a working couple or sharers without kids. Out at work all day wearing out their employer's toilet and carpet rather than the landlord's. If they have cash to spare and no kids, they may even eat out and get takeaways rather than using the kitchen at home. So they are handing over rent money but not using the house much.

Fixing a broken toilet might not seem a big deal, but corresponding with the tenant to arrange a time to do the repair, paying somebody to do it or taking time off one's main job at short notice and making the inevitable couple of trips to get parts - it adds up. So, less wear and tear on the house definitely makes the landlord's life easier and more profitable.

I'm hardly 'intent' on renting it aurynne I just wondered what the logic was of 'no families' so I could see whether it was worth emailing anyway, for example if all the concerns were about young kids I could explain mine is older.

I see though that there are lots of concerns! This has been really eye opening, thank you all for your insights. I won't bother emailing.

It's a total nightmare finding a flat in London, sometimes you have to pursue things just in case, but yeah I can see there's no point here.