So build more social housing instead of trying to legislate away the issue.
Private landlords prefer to rent to people less likely to cause mess and damage while rental properties are in high demand shock horror.
And this was only discovered now? Been an issue well over a decade.
I knew it would conveniently be at the bottom that’s she’s also on housing benefit, probably the bigger issue for rental.
Read the article, she’s on housing benefit and appears to be after an upgrade on her housing.
Typical I want something for nothing and the rules to change to suit me.
In all fairness, kids can’t legally sign a lease while cats and dogs can’t hold a pen. They lack the apposable thumbs.
I’ve seen carpets soaked through with dog piss so badly the floor boards had to be replaced. Back gardens and decking literally covered in dog shit.
Interior doors, scratched to oblivion. Walls drawn on and great chunks of plaster gouged out of them.
Damage is inevitable, particularly with kids and pets BUT it’s not a problem if the tenant takes responsibility and either fixes or pays to fix the damage.
The problem is how many times this stuff is left for the owner to deal with after they move out. Damage way beyond what the deposit would cover.
Some landlords are evil but a lot of them are just normal people with a small investment for the future. Not the millionaire property magnates people like to paint them as. They just want tenants who look after the place and pay their rent as agreed (and hopefully stick around).
But one bitten twice shy. If the landlord doesn’t want kids or pets it’s almost certain they’ve been burned by a previous tenant who treated the place like shit and ran.
We have to start building homes like after ww2 or we Will go extint
It’s not that landlords dislike dogs or children, it’s that the vast majority of people who are looking for a cheap place to rent who happen to have children or dogs, refuse to take responsibility for them. Leaving whatever carnage they make to the owner, ruining the interiors and making it impossible to further rent without a full makeover costing thousands.
So why should they deal with these people.
So I’m personally of the opinion that landlords have way too much power to infringe on the day-to-day lives of their tenants, that blanket bans on pet ownership and being able to hang art on the walls are egregious, and that if you have an issue with people living normal lives in your property you shouldn’t sign up to be a landlord.
I get that that’s a bit controversial in some circles, so I’m not surprised that we haven’t got any further with those issues yet.
But bans on ***children***?
Come *on*. Surely that’s completely unacceptable to the vast majority of people?
Tbh in general with landlords I don’t understand this situation.
If I were a landlord, I’d let the person living there do whatever they like.
I’d take a deposit which would cover any normal risks.
I’d get insurance that would cover any abnormal risks.
If i was still too worried about the situation then I would put my money in a different investment which I thought had less risk.
The reality is that the landlord in this situation just wants to make more money by not having to pay insurances to mitigate the risk of damage.
> but my children aren’t like that
Yeaaaah, riiiight
As someone who’s lived nextdoor to loud kids, I’d pay extra to live in a block of flats that were ‘no kids allowed’
I can’t speak for kids, but I’ve been trying to find a rental that allows my cat since March, and so far have been unsuccessful. I’ve applied for dozens of houses and flats, have only two viewings and both of the estate agents involved ghosted me. Not sure what else to do really. My brother has offered me help, for which I am immensely grateful, but that means moving two hours away from my job.
If we actually want to be a society that supports families, then discriminating against families should be illegal.
How the fuck is there no law preventing landlords from not allowing children??
This makes me so angry.
The children have zero choice over their lives, its not their fault they’re kids.
I get banning pets, because pets can just be annoying. But Children!??! you don’t **deserve** property if that’s how you use it. Anyone and everyone who put an ad saying “no children” should have their property seized and given to children charities.
Bad renters exist but most people just want a place to live in. Landlords might not like it but life is messy and comes with superficial damage. Properties are for living in, they should not be an investment you hoard and keep in perfect condition for no reason. If landlords are that concerned about such a thing, they should invest in antiques or collectibles.
tbh I can understand some breeds of dog, especially if it’s a malty dog, there’s only so many times you can hoover hair off a carpet until it just becomes part of the carpet.
You’d have thought children were some protected group though!
Like it or not landlords currently have a role in our society, if they are incapable of that then they should be penalised. There’s no excuse for blanket bans like this.
Saying no to children I can understand. But why no to pets?
I know it’s not a popular opinion (and I want a dog at some point) but I think it’s actually fair that landlords can say no to pets.
Tells a story about the down slide in parenting standards over the last 50 years.
The smart thing to do as per is to build more houses
If you can’t afford to buy, don’t burden yourself with the cost of children.
If you need to rent, don’t have a pet.
I don’t see how any landlord can be forced to accommodate anyone they don’t want to.
I’ve always said a huge mental detriment to this country are the baffling and unnecessary rules put on renters that completely infantilise them.
One ends up living a strange kind of Fischer-Price life, where one can live in a domicile, but one can’t have pets, or children, or decorate, often one can’t refurnish, or make quick fixes, or decide one’s utility suppliers. That’s not counting things like the landlord simply turning up demanding entry, riffling through one’s post, arranging viewings at any hour of the day or night, etc.
It draws a harsh but invisible line between home owners and renters that says ‘You, home owners, you’ve acquired the necessary assets to be granted freedom and dignity in your domestic life, but you, renters, have not acquired assets, and therefore must be controlled and bullied like small, idiot children, because that’s what you are.’
It’s absolutely destroying the mental health of renters. They know, in no uncertain terms, that they’re viewed and treated as a kind of immature underclass that’s lucky to have anything it gets short of hanging.
My old landlord didn’t allow dogs and it was the best flat I’ve ever lived in.
Fuck your noisy little gobshite furbaby.
The ban on kids thing is kinda messed up tho.
I’ve often wondered about this when looking for a new rental place. Assume all is fine if you don’t have pets children and benefits and you rent the place.
What happens if you then get pregnant while living there? Are you expected to move out? Is that a breach of contract enforceable in any way? Surely this is beyond stupid?
To my knowledge the tenant can purchase pet insurance for rentals. If they have that there is no reason why they can’t rent something in the portfolio
28 comments
So build more social housing instead of trying to legislate away the issue.
Private landlords prefer to rent to people less likely to cause mess and damage while rental properties are in high demand shock horror.
And this was only discovered now? Been an issue well over a decade.
I knew it would conveniently be at the bottom that’s she’s also on housing benefit, probably the bigger issue for rental.
Read the article, she’s on housing benefit and appears to be after an upgrade on her housing.
Typical I want something for nothing and the rules to change to suit me.
In all fairness, kids can’t legally sign a lease while cats and dogs can’t hold a pen. They lack the apposable thumbs.
I’ve seen carpets soaked through with dog piss so badly the floor boards had to be replaced. Back gardens and decking literally covered in dog shit.
Interior doors, scratched to oblivion. Walls drawn on and great chunks of plaster gouged out of them.
Damage is inevitable, particularly with kids and pets BUT it’s not a problem if the tenant takes responsibility and either fixes or pays to fix the damage.
The problem is how many times this stuff is left for the owner to deal with after they move out. Damage way beyond what the deposit would cover.
Some landlords are evil but a lot of them are just normal people with a small investment for the future. Not the millionaire property magnates people like to paint them as. They just want tenants who look after the place and pay their rent as agreed (and hopefully stick around).
But one bitten twice shy. If the landlord doesn’t want kids or pets it’s almost certain they’ve been burned by a previous tenant who treated the place like shit and ran.
We have to start building homes like after ww2 or we Will go extint
It’s not that landlords dislike dogs or children, it’s that the vast majority of people who are looking for a cheap place to rent who happen to have children or dogs, refuse to take responsibility for them. Leaving whatever carnage they make to the owner, ruining the interiors and making it impossible to further rent without a full makeover costing thousands.
So why should they deal with these people.
So I’m personally of the opinion that landlords have way too much power to infringe on the day-to-day lives of their tenants, that blanket bans on pet ownership and being able to hang art on the walls are egregious, and that if you have an issue with people living normal lives in your property you shouldn’t sign up to be a landlord.
I get that that’s a bit controversial in some circles, so I’m not surprised that we haven’t got any further with those issues yet.
But bans on ***children***?
Come *on*. Surely that’s completely unacceptable to the vast majority of people?
Tbh in general with landlords I don’t understand this situation.
If I were a landlord, I’d let the person living there do whatever they like.
I’d take a deposit which would cover any normal risks.
I’d get insurance that would cover any abnormal risks.
If i was still too worried about the situation then I would put my money in a different investment which I thought had less risk.
The reality is that the landlord in this situation just wants to make more money by not having to pay insurances to mitigate the risk of damage.
> but my children aren’t like that
Yeaaaah, riiiight
As someone who’s lived nextdoor to loud kids, I’d pay extra to live in a block of flats that were ‘no kids allowed’
I can’t speak for kids, but I’ve been trying to find a rental that allows my cat since March, and so far have been unsuccessful. I’ve applied for dozens of houses and flats, have only two viewings and both of the estate agents involved ghosted me. Not sure what else to do really. My brother has offered me help, for which I am immensely grateful, but that means moving two hours away from my job.
If we actually want to be a society that supports families, then discriminating against families should be illegal.
How the fuck is there no law preventing landlords from not allowing children??
This makes me so angry.
The children have zero choice over their lives, its not their fault they’re kids.
I get banning pets, because pets can just be annoying. But Children!??! you don’t **deserve** property if that’s how you use it. Anyone and everyone who put an ad saying “no children” should have their property seized and given to children charities.
Bad renters exist but most people just want a place to live in. Landlords might not like it but life is messy and comes with superficial damage. Properties are for living in, they should not be an investment you hoard and keep in perfect condition for no reason. If landlords are that concerned about such a thing, they should invest in antiques or collectibles.
tbh I can understand some breeds of dog, especially if it’s a malty dog, there’s only so many times you can hoover hair off a carpet until it just becomes part of the carpet.
You’d have thought children were some protected group though!
Like it or not landlords currently have a role in our society, if they are incapable of that then they should be penalised. There’s no excuse for blanket bans like this.
Saying no to children I can understand. But why no to pets?
I know it’s not a popular opinion (and I want a dog at some point) but I think it’s actually fair that landlords can say no to pets.
Tells a story about the down slide in parenting standards over the last 50 years.
The smart thing to do as per is to build more houses
If you can’t afford to buy, don’t burden yourself with the cost of children.
If you need to rent, don’t have a pet.
I don’t see how any landlord can be forced to accommodate anyone they don’t want to.
I’ve always said a huge mental detriment to this country are the baffling and unnecessary rules put on renters that completely infantilise them.
One ends up living a strange kind of Fischer-Price life, where one can live in a domicile, but one can’t have pets, or children, or decorate, often one can’t refurnish, or make quick fixes, or decide one’s utility suppliers. That’s not counting things like the landlord simply turning up demanding entry, riffling through one’s post, arranging viewings at any hour of the day or night, etc.
It draws a harsh but invisible line between home owners and renters that says ‘You, home owners, you’ve acquired the necessary assets to be granted freedom and dignity in your domestic life, but you, renters, have not acquired assets, and therefore must be controlled and bullied like small, idiot children, because that’s what you are.’
It’s absolutely destroying the mental health of renters. They know, in no uncertain terms, that they’re viewed and treated as a kind of immature underclass that’s lucky to have anything it gets short of hanging.
My old landlord didn’t allow dogs and it was the best flat I’ve ever lived in.
Fuck your noisy little gobshite furbaby.
The ban on kids thing is kinda messed up tho.
I’ve often wondered about this when looking for a new rental place. Assume all is fine if you don’t have pets children and benefits and you rent the place.
What happens if you then get pregnant while living there? Are you expected to move out? Is that a breach of contract enforceable in any way? Surely this is beyond stupid?
To my knowledge the tenant can purchase pet insurance for rentals. If they have that there is no reason why they can’t rent something in the portfolio