Should a couple pay for room or per person?

mickoneill30

Well you were saying that asking for couples was discriminatory. So I was just asking what criteria you would use if rentint out a house. To be totally undiscriminatory you would have to take the first person who applied and could pay.

How Strange

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sorry now, I was making a point about the large amount of "no couples" attitudes out there in the rental world, which is to my mind mostly unjustified,

Do you have any hard facts to say that there is a large amount of 'no couples' attitudes 'out there in the rental world'?
If this is the crux of your argument then back it up with something more than heresay.

If you don't like discussing it feel free to take yourself elsewhere, or complain to a moderator. Nobody is twisting your arm to read this. I'll be happy to wrap it up if a mod feels that is the course of action to take.

No, I'm just wondering if you have anything real and concrete to back up this theory of yours?

Whatever the case it doesn't warrant a personal attack on this discussion.

It's not a personal attack, I am asking you to back up this theory of yours. You are arguing this idea that couples are routinely discriminated against. Who says? Do you have any reports to substantiate it?

The question is 'whether or not couples should pay more'.
You agree with that but now you've included a theory that most couples are discriminated against. I think you've taken a point which is valid in a certain situation and taken it completely out of context.

The simple fact is that we are all discriminated against in lots of situations - you don't get called back for a 2nd interview because one of the panel didn't like the way you said something or didn't think you would fit in the company. That's a form of discrimination. You go to look a room for rent and you don't get because they perferred someone else. There are examples ad nauseum but my point is discrimination is quite natural; people constantly make choices based on personal perference.

In a house share situation couples may not be perferred by the majority of housemates for very practical reasons but I don't get why a landlord would prefer two single people to a couple. IMO landlords would prefer a couple because they would see them as looking after the place alot better than two young girls or lads who might throw parties and not be as houseproud as a couple. That is also discrimination but we accept that that's how it goes.

Back up your theory about routine discrimination of couples in the rental world with some facts and figures please. Surely there is a report out there to substantiate your argument.

astrofool

If it was a single room, would it also be discrimination to turn away a couple? What if they're willing to live in the reduced space?

What if it's an entire family? (2 adults, 3 kids) They lived in smaller space than that last century, my grandfather was one of 13 kids living in a 4 bed house.

Victor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh, its illegal to refuse Dave in that situation alright.

How is it illegal? there is no law dealing with discrimination based on employment grounds.

No, you misunderstand me; yes, charge them more for staying in the double room or whatever. But don't turn them away just because they are a couple. I can seriously see no reason for that.

Its not discriminating against couples (possibly illegal). It is discriminating against more than one person (not illegal). Can you imagine someone renting out only one room under the Rent-a-Room Scheme. They want one person. They don't want to be out numbered in their own home. The don't want (a) couples (b) friends (c) families (d) ad-hoc groups of more than one person.

SimpleSam06

Meathlass wrote: »

Don't know how you can say that a couple's clothes would equate to one person. Surely it would be double the amount of clothes?

Thats only if everyone puts on a full load every time. In any case, washing clothes is a once a week chore - thats easy to schedule.

Meathlass wrote: »

Anyway, I think landlords refuse couples as they want a cap on tenant numbers to reduce wear and tear on the house.

Wear and tear on a house is a very subjective thing. Whatever repairs a landlord would have to do after having five people in a house isn't going to be substantially different to having four or three people in the house.

Meathlass wrote: »

Other tenants don't want couples sharing as it can be awkard if there are arguments or worse again if they hog the dvd to watch romantic movies and make other people feel uncomfortable in the house. I remember at college being woken up most nights by my flatmates screaming blue murder in their room.

I've encountered the same problems and worse with single people.

mickoneill30 wrote:

To be totally undiscriminatory you would have to take the first person who applied and could pay.

False dichotomy. I'm not saying suspend your faculties of reasoning entirely, just don't lock out couples on the basis that they are couples.

How Strange wrote:

Do you have any hard facts to say that there is a large amount of 'no couples' attitudes 'out there in the rental world'?

Sorry, the government department of informal relations was off on break when I called them. Doesn't make it untrue, however. In fact the only one debating the reality of the situation is you. Everyone else accepts it without a second thought. Tell you anything?

How Strange wrote:

It's not a personal attack, I am asking you to back up this theory of yours.

How Strange wrote:

Simplesam06, quite honestly you would argue about anything even if/when you have nothing to argue.

Leave it.

How Strange wrote:

The question is 'whether or not couples should pay more'.
You agree with that but now you've included a theory that most couples are discriminated against. I think you've taken a point which is valid in a certain situation and taken it completely out of context.

Thats what the question was. Now the course of the conversation has meandered elsewhere as they are wont to do. Either stop whinging about it or go elsewhere, as I said before. Yeesh.

How Strange wrote:

The simple fact is that we are all discriminated against in lots of situations - you don't get called back for a 2nd interview because one of the panel didn't like the way you said something or didn't think you would fit in the company.

I'm talking about being discriminated against purely because of a specific social status, not because someone doesn't like your haircut. One is a matter of opinon, the other is a something solid.

astrofool wrote:

If it was a single room, would it also be discrimination to turn away a couple? What if they're willing to live in the reduced space?

Already responded to that several times.

Victor wrote:

Its not discriminating against couples (possibly illegal). It is discriminating against more than one person (not illegal).

Wrong, its refusing people on the grounds that they have a particular social standing, which sounds very fishy indeed. The only reasonable argument is the space one, which applies in few enough cases. All the others could just as handily apply to single people (ie two friends who both take a room in a house, or god forbid, two tenants might become friends and hence outnumber the landlord who may or may not be living in the home). Its bollocks any way you slice it.

It does seem to have hit a few nerves and opened a few cans of worms however, so as I said, an important issue worth talking about.

Edit: Just saw that Victor after boards went down yesterday, alright so...

MrVostro

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

It does seem to have hit a few nerves and opened a few cans of worms however

Not really, just your nerves i think.
Everyone else here, bar you, seems to be on the same page.
And i think that deep down you are on the same page too, but you just love to stir the pot is all.

Simple fact of life is that Couples in double rooms is entirely at the discretion of the landlord or people sub-letting the room.

There is no disricmintaion. People have the right to choose who and how many people they want to invite into their houses.

How Strange

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sorry, the government department of informal relations was off on break when I called them. Doesn't make it untrue, however. In fact the only one debating the reality of the situation is you. Everyone else accepts it without a second thought. Tell you anything

Eh, if thats your best retort then I know your argument is weak.
Just because you don't have facts doesn't make it untrue?... ROTFL... it does make it true either and in fact it would be leaning more towards untrue. The reality of the situation.. who says.. only you apparently. So its the reality of the situation as it appears to you. We've now established that much. It's the not untrue reality according to SimpleSam06.

Come on Simple Sammy back it up and earn some credibility... you seem the to be the master of arguing so find something out there in the big wide interweb to back up your passionately held theory.

Leave it.

Eh, why? A dog chasing its tail is really what this argument can be compared to; going around and around in circles because you have nothing new to add and rather than coming back with hard evidence all you can say is 'leave it'

Either stop whinging about it or go elsewhere, as I said before. Yeesh.

Who's whinging Sammy? A few more hard facts and a few less smart arsed answers please.

I'm talking about being discriminated against purely because of a specific social status, not because someone doesn't like your haircut. One is a matter of opinon, the other is a something solid.

Really Sammy is that what you are arguing against? So you are arguing discrimination in the context of your view on couples alone. Only couples. Forget all the other people who would be discriminated against when they go to look for a room in a house. See I think you have one teeny tiny argument and its so weak it has almost been beaten to death and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny but you are never one to back down even when its clear that you have nothing to argue about.

Discrimination exists in all social spheres and discrimination in a job interview because you have a tatoo or a rough looking hair cut or a particular accent - the interview panel don't like the way you look or speak is just as valid as discrimination because you are part of a couple and you want to share a house with people - the people in the house don't want to share with a couple.

Moreover discrimination as a word has a negative connocation which is not accurate. Discrimination can be a positive thing - it is about making choices about what you want and what you don't want. So if I am looking for a new house mate and I don't want to share with a couple then I CHOOSE to select a single person just as I CHOOSE a girl and I CHOOSE someone from the country. They are the things that are important to me when I'm looking to share my home with someone so does that mean that I have wronged all the couples, men and urban, non-national people in Dublin. No not really. Just as when I go to look at a place I'm not chosen because I didn't fit their list of criteria for a housemate.

its refusing people on the grounds that they have a particular social standing, which sounds very fishy indeed.

Fishy? Well it happens. That's life and we have to accept that people are refused things on the grounds of social standing - where you come from, what schools you went you, your accent, how you look.

So please Sammy come up with a better argument please because you haven't added anything new for a long time now and are just plugging away with your original one even though it has had holes shot through it.

the_syco

Sorry for going off topic, but...

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh, its illegal to refuse Dave in that situation alright

If you were renting a room in your house, and you got 2 people who would pay the rent, would you take the person on the dole, who would be in your house all day, every day, or someone who will work during the day?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Thats what the question was. Now the course of the conversation has meandered elsewhere as they are wont to do. Either stop whinging about it or go elsewhere, as I said before. Yeesh.

If you want to make a new thread, make a new thread, but stop derailing this one.

=-=

OP, it depends if the house is let per room, or as a house. Per room, the landlord can charge more for a couple. Per house, it should be X amount of rent, divided by X amount of people.

SimpleSam06

MrVostro wrote: »

Not really, just your nerves i think.
Everyone else here, bar you, seems to be on the same page.
And i think that deep down you are on the same page too, but you just love to stir the pot is all.

Aha I knew you had been got for causing trouble before. From the mega property thread:

TCollins wrote:

Feck off back to your own desk Vostro.
Just because im not in the office doesnt mean i cant post here.

So no more posting from the office anymore. Ever.If you want to post on boards do it from home

Legendary ownership, and you were picking fights in that thread as well. Your trollery got posted on a Friday morning. Sick day?

How Strange wrote: »

Just because you don't have facts doesn't make it untrue?...

Pain... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because no one has commissioned and uploaded an official report on it before now doesn't mean its not a real situation, much like many tenants rights issues in this country. In fact the only one that questioned it was you. Not that I even bothered googling for it, since you aren't here to discuss anything, you're just spoiling for a scrap. Sorry, I won't be able to accommodate you.

And thats about it for your contributions.

the_syco wrote: »

If you were renting a room in your house, and you got 2 people who would pay the rent, would you take the person on the dole, who would be in your house all day, every day, or someone who will work during the day?

I already pointed out it makes more sense from a landlords point of view to take in couples, while it might not make sense to take on someone on the dole.

the_syco wrote: »

If you want to make a new thread, make a new thread, but stop derailing this one.

Seriously, I have contacted the moderators and they have not raised issue with this discussion being off topic.

On the whole its proving basically impossible to have a reasonable discussion on this issue with the people interested in discussing it reasonably (and there are many), without being attacked by two posters who apparently have some sort of personal grudge.

The discussion (and it is an interesting one) is being dragged down by them and the moderators have proven unwilling to intervene, so I'll leave it at that. The signal to noise ratio is just too high.

Victor

Intervened.