Is anyone else angry that landlords very often say 'NO CHILDREN' when advertising?

[darcymum]

Somebody I know is looking for a place to live at the moment and is finding it impossible because no landlords want to take a tenant with children.

I was telling another friend this and she said she was evicted when she was pregnant because the landlord didn't want children.

I was so mad about this I started a petition-

petitions.number10.gov.uk/Childlands/

I know children may not be the most careful tenants in the world but they have to live somewhere.

What do others think?

Landlords can say no children, no pets, no smokers, no students. Because these things generally affect how the property is kept.

No matter that you have a hairless cat or a very tidy child or are a mature student. They can say it. And I think that's fair enough. It's their house.

I can see that about it being age-ist to put 'no children' in the ad. But if I was house hunting I'd rather know from the circling ads stage, so as not to be wasting my time looking at accommodation where the landlord won't actually let it to my family.

Thing is while there's not enough social housing we're depending on these private landlords a bit. And they're just ordinary people nowadays - not tough property tycoons.
So the thing about it being harder to evict a family with children if they're not paying the rent; I didn't just mean legally, I meant emotionally.
I can imagine you'd be more likely to be thinking 'oh I'll give them til after xmas/after school starts etc.
You'd feel pretty rotten evicting someone who answers the door with a baby on her hip - even if they haven't been paying.

Darcymum you are being ridiculous. Do you really worry that your dc will have children and not be able to find a place to live? Houses are out there. I have worked in lettings and often the ad will say 'no children' just as a deterrent to people on benefits I'm sad to say, as many buy-to-let mortgages stipulate that they will not cover people on housing benefit. When I had dd I faced the double whammy of being a student as well and had an awful time with landlords not even letting me view the house. But that is their perogative. What shocked me more was that when I found somewhere to live the landlord said 'o now I've met you I can tell you're the 'right sort' I want living here'. So in that case it was personal prejudice I suppose. Again, their choice. I was lucky to find my flat I'm in now, have been here 5 years. My landlady was a single parent herself and has never had a problem with the dc being here. As I rent, I appreciate that the property is not mine so I look after it. Unfortunately, there are many who don't. So no, I won't sign your petition. It's up to the landlord who they let live in their property. But I tell you, the one question every landlord used to ask us as letting agents was 'what's your opinion of the prospective tenant?' I think personality and how you come across can actually count for a lot when you're renting, so even if she is initially declined, ask if she can meet the landlord in person.

my flat is utterley unsuitable for children and i don't want responsiblity for someone who can't see that it is and decides to move in with a baby or toddler (and it's only 1-bed so no space for an older child).

it has a live flame gas fire and no room for a fire guard, it has original old floorboards in the hall that have cracks and splinters.

it also has an open plan kitchen in the living room and no way to keep the child away from the oven/cooker.

i know it's not up to me to police how other people look after their child's safety but it saves everyone time in looking at the flat to say outright 'no children'.

My other half and I have several houses rented out, we do not exclude children however we have only one property which was ever rented to a family and they wrecked it. When we pointed out the "issues" when they left they tried to argue with "but you knew we had kids". Yes we did, however we did not expect them to damage the walls with buggy handles, use the downstairs toilet as a buggy store, wrecking the walls and toilet seat, damage all the kitchen units when the kids were in walkers.....oh and as for the sh*t in th washing machine seal, was it too much to ask for them to remove it from the childs underwear before putting in the machine when potty training.......they lost their deposite and we spent three weekends repairing the mess !
ASs for getting tenants out of private rented it is NOT easy an the law still protects the tenant !

What is there to stop you renting to ethnic groups you consider potentially bad tenants? How about recently arrived refugees even without children? I find discrimination hard to accept, on any grounds. It's not that long since the days of Enoch Powell, or No Irish Need Apply.

sigh
This isn't about racism. It's surely about a landlord's right to choose who lives in their property.

Interesting thread this one. I haven't signed you petition Darcy - not because I don't agree with you but simply because I cannot see it ever getting anywhere given the mindset in this country. Some properties are just not suitable for children and I think the Landlord has every right to say so.

I am more concerned with the lack of affordable housing overall rather than wether or not a Landlord will let to a family with children. We have this stupid situation due to a lack of social housing for all who need them. [JP resolves NOT to get on soapbox and abuse the conservative govt of the 80s who sold off much social housing without allowing reivestment in new properties for those who need them].

More social housing will mean less need for expensive private rents and less landlords facing the "do I or don't I let to a family with young children"?

Many private lets are previous social housing anyway. My last private rent was on the other sink estate in town (we are lucky enough to have two here ). I paid £700 a month - my council tenant neighbour paid £300 for the same size home. When I needed to reduce my hours and claim housing benefit (partial) due to DS's problems with dyspraxia and dyslexia the landlord gave me 2 months notice as he "doesn't let to housing benefit" even though I had religiously paid my rent on time every month without fail. Thankfully the council housed me and the private place is now sitting empty - in view of my landlords inflexibility I wish him months of no income on it.

I've signed. I was number 4. In the country I live it is actually illegal for private landlords to stipulate no children. But on the other hand there is an expectation that the property will be returned in exactly the same state it was rented in, with freshly painted walls etc, and given that a deposit of 3 months rent is common, there's enough of an incentive to get this work done properly before moving out.

I do however see the point of being able to recommend that a property is unsuitable for children for safety reasons, as long as these are listed, but it's ultimately the parents' responsibility to decide.

'ASs for getting tenants out of private rented it is NOT easy an the law still protects the tenant !'

Well, yes because if not, believe it or not, there are still plenty of landlords who will evict at will.

For every tenant who screws over their landlord, there's at least one landlord who's done the same thing - retained a deposit unnecessarily, failed to make essential repairs, etc.

Why do people have such a problem with people buying houses as a pension fund ? I have read this thread with interest and find it funny that people think that due to the current economic climate and our culture of thinking of houses as assests that always rise, that property is not a good investment. As someone said you can benefit and you can loose on property but only if you invest for short term gain. Historically house prices double every 10 years therfore if you think about it in the long term you have a pretty safe bet. my first property cost me 48k and is now worth 140k and that is with two proprty crashes in the late 80's and current.
I still reserve the right to refuse anyone I don't like the look of but do not stipulate any restrictions on tenants when advertising.
Also have just rented a 4 bed house to a single man, just because it is a family house does not mean there are not people affluent enough to pay for it on their own.

expatinscotland I am pleased to say we are not landlords who screw over our tenants. We have one lady tenant who is on HB with three kids, she has problems paying sometimes but we always work with her to find a resolution, we only get annoyed when she just "FAILS TO PAY". She has been a tenant of ours for 5 years and we even replaced her oven when she was £300 in arrears with rent.

'Why do people have such a problem with people buying houses as a pension fund?'

Because it's never wise to put all one's eggs in one basket.

Also because the buyer tends to seethe property as an invesment and not as something that is a basic human right.

Glad to hear it, Nickee. The law is there for a reason.

Again, it's a moot point for us, as we are in social housing.

But I've known many who unfortunately didn't have as good a landlord as you.

another thing, you can not now
keep a deposit unneccesarily due to the deposit protection scheme.

Plenty of landlords on here who refuse to put the deposit into the scheme, Nickee, if the tenant started to rent before it came into existence.

Again, the law is there for a reason.

Not all landlords are bad just as not all tenants are non-rent payers who wreck property.

Also, sadly, a number of threads from people whose only knowledge that their landlord was no longer paying the mortgage was notice of foreclosure hearings or even the bank showing up at the door, ready to take back their property.

I have experience of renting in the US where you cannot refuse to rent to anyone, no matter what the landlord's individual prejudices are, and it is assumed that the parents are the best judge of what might or might not be safe or suitable accommodation for their children.

Landlords may refuse to rent to people who have pets. It is the only reason a landlord may state on an advert to refuse a tenant. Some take a declawed cat, some aren't fussy about claws, some stipulate no more than three cats total, some refuse dogs -- there are a lot of variations. The only way a landlord can turn away a family with children is if the size of the group is too large, according to local overcrowding ordinances, for the property to safely accommodate. There is usually an assumption that there will be a maximum of two people per bedroom.

And property has long been seen as an investment in the US too, but this has not stopped localities from making regulations that prevent racial or ethnic or other discrimination. Hispanic immigrants have challenged local ordinances on the basis that they discriminate against extended families (landlords may stipulate a nuclear family, afaik) or families with large children and therefore are directed against hispanics, but the fire codes have won in most places. A prospective tenant who gets turned away because of a credit check that turns up what the landlord deems an unreasonable risk may challenge this decision too.

Mostly, you pay a security deposit, and agree that this will be forfeit in full or in part and used for repairs or refinishing. While a rental property is always seen as an investment and income generator, it is assumed that any property will require some work after a tenant leaves; not paying the rent is another risk of being a landlord, and it is not a risk that is confined to renters who have children. A landlords' rights really should not extend to banning any group or class of people, imo. there are risks involved in renting to any tenant, not just those with children. It can be done and is done elsewhere and not that many landlords have been driven out of business. There's much more private than public rental in the US.

I am from the US. I should also point out that a significant percentage of properties for rent are not owned by individual, buy-to-let landlords but by large, commercial corporations and managed by large property management companies.

This also leads to greater security in renting most of the time.

Leases, as they are known there, are commonly secure for an entire year. You then have the option to renew your lease, usually with a small increase in monthly rent but sometimes not.

Large estates are mostly found in older, big cities and are far, far more limited than they are here.

math, i had a declawed cat. yep, i had to pay a pet deposit for him, usually about $500-$600 with the stipulation in the lease that half that would be retained after we left to clean up what damage he may have done (which was nil, i adopted him from a total queen and he was the cleanest, tidiest cat i ever had).

and although buy-to-let landlords are present there, they are not in as great a percentage as here mostly because many states have laws which make it a tax nightmare and/or not as profitable an investment vehicle as it is here.

erm, if you look st comparable investments made cash/ stockexchange versus housing, you'll find most people would get a better (and safer) return by investing in property where possible, a house is a solid asset..failing all else, you can live in it, which is more than you can say for a share portfolio.

the current trend will only increase in the long term - upwards.

400k new households a year 85k new dwelling built -not hard to work out.

i think if you have been priced out of house ownership, look at the current inability of the govt to get any housing built (and utter NIMBYism of councils of all shades in opposing pretty much any development on principle).

My experience is from an area where there were a lot of older 'two flat' or 'three flat' buildings, plus a lot of older walkups with anything up to 70 units or so in them; some of these buildings were owned by individual investors, some by bigger property management companies. Some parts of the city were made up entirely of this kind of housing. Taxes are very complex you pay more local taxes if you don't reside in your property, and there are other tax drawbacks, but obviously things balance out and landlords can come out ahead not too many landlords in it because of altruism, afaik.

I have signed your petition!

I absolutely agree with you darcymum - sorry I haven't read all the comments on this thread - it was making me too angry

I would go further and petition the government generally about tenants rights - it's absolutely disgusting having no rights over a place you pay very good money to live in....