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?

the current govt has introduced a raft of legislation on house building that has made it even harder to get new homes built, for example...

not to mention allowing far, far too permissive lending practices for years on end.

If landlords are put off renting (buying to rent) does that mean less competition for property and house prices would fall? Therefore giving more people the opportunity to buy the house they currently rent?

I am sure some landlords would 'pretend' to consider families but I'm sure some still pretend to consider black people. Letting agents could not though.

Properties would not need to be childproofed, that would be the job of parents, just normal safe. I don't expect all properties it the USA are childproofed.

Well done mummee09v that's just what I need, my petition to take on a life of it's own.

'I don't expect all properties it the USA are childproofed.'

Again, it's a poor juxtaposition because of the way property is viewed there, particularly rental property.

With the exception of some major cities, such as NYC and San Fran, there are relatively few 'ordinary people' who rent out properties compared to the UK.

Many tax laws make it cost-prohibitive and even people with multiple properties to rent tend to do so by first incorporating.

The US is also a far more litigous society, less passive on the whole, and this has shaped things as well.

edgarAlanPie that is precisely why I said "to an extent" and why I followed up my first post with one that pointed out that govts since Maggie have failed to undo the damage she did.

re childproofing - it is, imo, an odd anomoly of housing law in this country that if you rent to several people who aren;t related then the house has to be approved by the council and they can, as a condition of that approval, make the landlord make significant changes. eg to fire safety and numbers of bathrooms. if, on the other hand, a house is rented to a family there is no requirement for inspection or licensing like this. so if you have a sizeable house to rent it's a lot easier, and a lot less risky to rent to a family - than to several unrelated individuals (I forget at what point this law kicks in - I think it's if you rent to 4 or more unrelated people - but it could be less)

I think that is because HMOs have had a history of fire risk, more than family houses

but HMOs and family houses are, in terms of structure, the same thing. if you want to rent your house to 4/5 friends/"young professionals" you will have to make adjustments and be licensed. if you rent it to a family of 5 you won't.

When you rent with children in the US, you are responsible for doing what is necessary in your opinion to keep the children safe, just as you would if you owned your residence anywhere. If your child is injured in a rental property the landlord is not liable. Al of this is spelled out in a lease. You don't have a right to sue unless there's a hazard such as leaking co2 or a floor collapses, i.e. defective maintenance or structural problems, afaik. But reaching up and getting burned by a stovetop, no, the parents have to prevent this themselves if they wish their child not to be burned, and the landlord is not responsible.

The litigiousness of the US makes landlords very fearful of refusing to rent to someone because of prejudice. If a landlord never rents to families or never rents to African Americans or hispanics or white people, this would be an easy pattern to spot.

avoision of CGT -

• nominate the property as your PPR (permanent place of residence) i think it best if you have been there at least once.

_ nominate as relatives PPR (you can only have one at a time)

you can live elsewhere whilst doing this to a maximum 3 years or longer if you have a good reason not to (eg roaming job, forces)

this is ok so long as not done specifically to avoid CGT. if rented out, the owner/ person whose PPR it is must receive rent at market value.

• don't sell it (and will it to someone other than spouse - if under £300k threshold to avoid IHT)

the current govt has introduced a raft of legislation on house building that has made it even harder to get new homes built, for example...

Well of course they have Tony Blair is a property speculator as is half the cabinet.

Thanks for the tips edgaralepie.

'If a landlord never rents to families or never rents to African Americans or hispanics or white people, this would be an easy pattern to spot.'

Not to mention, members of the press posing as perspective tenants and then whistleblowing about it - and alerting the appropriate authorities.

expatinscotland, why do you think a law to prevent discrimination against people with children in housing would not work because of the amount of small scale landlords in the UK?

I agree with you about the mindset Expat, but the problem is much simpler than that. The issue is that this is a very crowded little island with fewer homes than people/families who need homes. Supply and demand does the rest.

it's not just that, it's the entire mentality towards property and property ownership in this country, darcy, as i've tried to state in nearly every one of my posts. it's vastly different from most of the US, as are their tenancy laws, which again, vary by state to account for the enormous geographical area.

even property transfer of ownership laws vary. for example, some states have a disclosure law which states that if an owner is aware of a murder, suicide or other unnatural death that occurred on the property, it must disclosed before the sale is complete or the purchase can be nullified and the seller open to suit.

and it's not federal law specifically geared towards properties and property rental, but that encompasses discrimination in many forms - for example, it's illegal to ask a lot of question of a job applicant that are relatively commonplace here.

and again, a significant proportion of rental housing there is in owned by a commercial company. therefore, the property is viewed in a different light, taxed differently, insured differently, managed differently, etc.

Or is it that you are against such a law?

having lived in the phillipines, india, s. america and assorted sundry places, i don't give the 'small island' argument much credence.

supply is controlled more by big business and government than by geography in this country.

that won't change, no matter how many petitions, because now too many people are using property as pensions/investment vehicles and a whole host of other issues i can't be arsed to outline here.

'Or is it that you are against such a law?'

Darcy, are you just not reading my posts?

Or are you only interested in

Blu very rationally tried to point out some aspects of such a 'law' on landlords and how this might affect supply even further.

Still others who are landlords tried to explain their own stance.

[sigh]

texas, for example, has a disclosure law. colorado does not.

states with large native american populations tend to have disclosure laws because some native americans will not live in a place where an unnatural death has occurred.

282,000 empty properties in the Uk, some suggest it's heading for a million.

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3300347/Use-empty-houses-Gordon-Brown-told.html

we went through hell to get this place. i mean, it took a serious toll on my health, i've still got loads of acne two months on my skin is only just clearing.

but i don't see anything changing here.

too many folks now with too precarious and too vested an interest to risk changing.

c'est la vie!

I have heard (may or may not be true) that Holland had hardly any empty homes because owners pay very high taxes on empty properties.

Maybe that's a good idea?

Shall I start a petition?

in most places in europe, it's far far more common to rent than to own.

someone on here pointed that out.

again, the tenancy laws are different.

my ex in germany rents and he has to give 3 months notice if he wants to move. he also has to have the place professionally cleaned upon vacating it.

I am extremely grateful that we have terrific landlords.

When we moved in a few years ago, we had two children (not tiny, though, early teens) and two dogs. The landlord initially said he wasn't keen on dogs, but the previous tenants had had six and as long as we leave the place fit to live in for the next lot of tenants, he's cool about it.

I know from my neighbours' experience (we share a landlord) that they do everything they can to help you stay in their properties; they've had problems with rent not being paid due to illness and have been really supportive.

If only all landlords were like them.

PS OP, I have signed your petition, if only so that the issue is given some consideration. A review of housing law is necessary, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see private landlords letting out the family home have to face some of the nightmares I've heard about. There are good tenants and bad ones, good landlords and wankers...