Applied for a viewing but landlord won't accept children

Isolt

Is this a new thing? I've never come across it before and I've been renting for the last 8 years. I suppose I wasn't pregnant when I started renting so maybe I just didn't notice.
I understand that each landlord is entitled to rent to who they want but does anyone know why they would not accept a new baby? Or an expecting couple in our case?

No Pants

Noise complaints.

TheChizler

Just curious, would that not fall under discrimination due to family status? It may technically not be or there may be some exemption I'm not aware of.

Balmed Out

They grow into toddlers who require a house to be toddler proofed

Holsten

Pretty obvious why they wouldn't want it - noise.

I wouldn't want to live next to any noise, be it a dog, students or a baby.

Isolt

Adults make noise too so logically I doubt it's that.
Good point about toddler proofing the place though, although I would have thought having a young family settle there and rent on a long term basis would be preferable to people coming and going. I know for us we are looking for somewhere we can stay long term now whereas that was never really a priority to us pre-baby! Ah well, I'm sure we'll find a place we'll love

zef

I have been told by LLs in the past that they don't accept children for 'insurance' reasons. Hope you find somewhere suitable too.

The_Morrigan

Noise, increased wear and tear, insurance, property suitability, there are various reasons why a landlord can choose to not accept children into their properties.

wexie

Isolt wrote: »

Adults make noise too so logically I doubt it's that.

They don't though (as a rule) draw on the walls, furniture etc. etc.

January

Insurance??? Really? I've worked in insurance and we never ask if there are children living in any of the houses we provided insurance for.

Norma_Desmond

I went to look at an apartment there last year in which the previous tenants had a toddler, the paint was peeled off the walls and the leather was all peeled off the couches.
The family were living there a few years but still the paint in the child's room was pretty much non existent.
There were wooden floors and the marks on the floors (like marks from a child banging toys and the like off it) were everywhere. Also the apartment was fairly new, only around 5 years old I would say.
If I was that landlord I wouldn't be too happy about a child wrecking my apartment like that, I know that their deposit would cover the damage but it's all the hassle that comes with it.
So I know if I were renting out that apartment again I would think twice about renting to someone who had kids.

zef

January wrote: »

Insurance??? Really? I've worked in insurance and we never ask if there are children living in any of the houses we provided insurance for.

I was probably being fobbed off . My children were 1 and 6 at the time and the property had steep stairs down to a basement flat. He said I could claim off him if one of the kids had an accident on the stairs. Old school type landlord with boxy flats in Drumcondra.

The_Morrigan

January wrote: »

Insurance??? Really? I've worked in insurance and we never ask if there are children living in any of the houses we provided insurance for.

zef wrote: »

I was probably being fobbed off . My children were 1 and 6 at the time and the property had steep stairs down to a basement flat. He said I could claim off him if one of the kids had an accident on the stairs. Old school type landlord with boxy flats in Drumcondra.

Landlord insurance is a different kettle of fish to 'normal' home insurance, specifically when it comes to third party liability.

http://www.irishlandlord.com/index.aspx?page=infocentre_article_view&id=6

Mrs OBumble

Isolt wrote: »

Adults make noise too so logically I doubt it's that.

Ahh, have you spent any time around coliccky (spelling, schmelling!) babies? I don't know any adults who make noise quite like that.

Oh, and don't forget the projective vomiting.



Seriously, I own a house where I'm happy enough to have people with a pre-crawling baby. But I wouldn't want a toddler there, due to safety issues for the kid in the particular design. Yes, such discrimination is probably illegal. But I don't care, don't want to take the risk.

OTOH, we've seen at least one recent thread from someone who only wanted to rent to a family, not to a group of 3 adult professionals.

Swings and roundabouts.

Hello Lady!

I'd say wear and tear would be the main reason. As others have said babies grow into toddlers. Not all parents instill a sense of value in their kids...some parents think being a child is a valid reason for allowing their kids to wreck everything they come in contact with!

Also new baby means stay at home mum for at least 6 months possibly permanently. more home time equals more wear and tear on appliances/furniture/ carpets etc. the same logic that many LL use if an unemployed tenant applies for the property

pwurple

wexie wrote: »

They don't though (as a rule) draw on the walls, furniture etc. etc.

My children don't do that either, but I do know families where toddler wall creativity is not as stifled as my house.

I can understand a landlord not wanting to rent to families. I have a property with an open balcony for example, and it is up on the third floor. The lift has been faulty twice in ten years for a week each time, but I wouldn't want to be dragging children up those stairs for that week myself. I probably wouldn't rent it to a family with small children. Teenagers are different.

JaMarcusHustle

We moved into an apartment last summer where we were assured our neighbours were all "young professionals". There were young kids on both sides of us, and what's worse, one of the parents would bring one of the children out into the hall late at night/early in the morning when it started crying so as not to wake her other child. The children crying and screaming just got to us, we terminated our lease after 5 months and got out of there. They can ruin your neighbours enjoyment of their living space, so I don't blame landlords for rejecting kids. There were obviously some in our apartment before we had moved in too as there were crayon marks all over the walls.

Pawwed Rig

The liability would be the main issue for me. Essentially it is upto the landlord to baby proof the house from a litigation perspective. Any fall, cut, bump etc could be pushed onto the landlord in the event of a case.
Noise would be secondary where the property is a modern apartment.
Wear and tear is not something I would be too worried about but I would make it clear that any damage is resolved by the parents.

Also, you will understand that many parents do not control their children (not implying that the OP doesn't), so anti social issues do arise although less likely with newborns;)

Santa Cruz

With children in apartments and the basic size of most apartments many tenants leave prams, tricycles etc. in the common areas. Useless management companies don't want to know about enforcing the house rules on this issue

The_Conductor

Vastly increased wear and tear on the property- which given the definition of wear and tear, a prospective landlord would almost certainly have to pay for themselves- as its next to impossible to argue that its above normal wear and tear when there is a child involved.

On the continent- you will not rent a furnished property to a family with children- only unfurnished- its a common discussion on Portuguese websites for expats who let properties to supplement their income- strictly no children, and for short-term lets, 4-6 times normal deposit levels (many have been burnt by stag/hen parties from ireland the and uk- and need the extra deposit to allow for unusual activities).

Ray Palmer

I would be surprised a LL would have to baby proof a place. I would expect it to be the responsibility of the tenant. That of course would damage the property.
I would however expect a tenant to sue a LL if their child had an accident like falling down the stairs. The big risk would probably be the windows in an apartment block.

The_Conductor

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I would be surprised a LL would have to baby proof a place. I would expect it to be the responsibility of the tenant. That of course would damage the property.
I would however expect a tenant to sue a LL if their child had an accident like falling down the stairs. The big risk would probably be the windows in an apartment block.

Most windows in apartments/duplexes have security bars and only open a small amount (unless some idiot has tampered with them). Falling down stairs- and hitting heads off tables/cornering/edges- alongside kitchen appliance issues- and of course sticking body parts in electrical sockets (why children would even think to try to put their tongue in an electrical socket is beyond me)- are up there with 'normal' children related issues.

Celeva-Mama and a few other companies sell fitouts for landlord's who propose to rent to tenants who have young children- typically it could cost a few hundred to improve the safety of a property to a reasonable level for young children- and a few hundred more at the end of the tenancy to remove corner bumpers, repaint, replace carpets that have been destroyed with Ribena etc etc etc.........

Having young children in a property that doesn't have a degree of child proofing- does cost significantly more for a landlord.

Ray Palmer

The_Conductor wrote: »

Having young children in a property that doesn't have a degree of child proofing- does cost significantly more for a landlord.

It costs that is enough. Why it should be a LL cost at all is the question. It isn't maintenance nor a requirement. Any such costs are related to having a child not a cost the LL signed up for when somebody had a child.

Children have fallen out of windows in rented places in Ireland where they met modern building standards. It is a real danger with fatalities.

Claw Hammer

Another issue is affordability. People with children have less disposable income and can fall into arrears of rent.

murphym7

Imagine the scenario. My partner and I are child free and sign a lease and move in to a property, shortly after she gets pregnant and we have a baby. What happens then, We get evicted for breaking the lease? I haven’t seen a lease yet that mention no babies, maybe no pets, not no babies.
So what happens then regarding insurance etc….
Sounds like a loud of rubbish to me and personal preference of a landlord, which I have no issue with.

runawaybishop

Isolt wrote: »

Is this a new thing? I've never come across it before and I've been renting for the last 8 years. I suppose I wasn't pregnant when I started renting so maybe I just didn't notice.
I understand that each landlord is entitled to rent to who they want but does anyone know why they would not accept a new baby? Or an expecting couple in our case?

There are loads of reasons why they wouldn't want someone with kids, but they are still discriminating against you.

Refusal to grant a tenancy

Equality legislation applies to lettings and accommodation. You cannot discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community.

Saying a property isn't suitable for kids is irrelevant. The property has health and safety standards it must adhere to, whether there are kids in it or just visiting.

Ray Palmer

runawaybishop wrote: »

There are loads of reasons why they wouldn't want someone with kids, but they are still discriminating against you.

Refusal to grant a tenancy

Equality legislation applies to lettings and accommodation. You cannot discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community.

Saying a property isn't suitable for kids is irrelevant. The property has health and safety standards it must adhere to, whether there are kids in it or just visiting.

Except it isn't discrimination on any of those grounds including family status. You can have a family the children just can't stay in the property. That is difference enough. A child can't be in a pub after 9pm a rule brought in by the government. Hotels can be child free quite legally too.

Children have special requirements and also protection in the law so have different rights to that of an adult.

runawaybishop

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Except it isn't discrimination on any of those grounds including family status. You can have a family the children just can't stay in the property. That is difference enough. A child can't be in a pub after 9pm a rule brought in by the government. Hotels can be child free quite legally too.

Children have special requirements and also protection in the law so have different rights to that of an adult.

Any evidence to show that this is allowed though Ray? If the property isn't suitable to rent out to someone with kids then it is not suitable for a child to be in it at any stage whatsoever and the landlord would need to ensure that this was the communicated clearly.

edit: Stating that you couldnt invite a black person into the property, for example, would also be discrimination. How is this different to stating you can have kids but they arent allowed in?

Ray Palmer

runawaybishop wrote: »

Any evidence to show that this is allowed though Ray? If the property isn't suitable to rent out to someone with kids then it is not suitable for a child to be in it at any stage whatsoever and the landlord would need to ensure that this was the communicated clearly.

edit: Stating that you couldnt invite a black person into the property, for example, would also be discrimination. How is this different to stating you can have kids but they arent allowed in?

There is a difference between a child living in a property than them visiting. It is not the same as racial exclusion in anyway. Children are not the same as adult and different rules apply. You can still exclude under 21s from a bar legally. I didn't write the law.

They are not excluding somebody on family status or any of the other 9 grounds that is all you or I need to know. A child can be excluded by law in a number of places and the LL can say the apartment is not suitable for children for a number of reasons and doesn't need to give even one.

You have claimed it is family status I have pointed out that it isn't have you another argument or is that it?

runawaybishop

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There is a difference between a child living in a property than them visiting. It is not the same as racial exclusion in anyway. Children are not the same as adult and different rules apply. You can still exclude under 21s from a bar legally. I didn't write the law.

They are not excluding somebody on family status or any of the other 9 grounds that is all you or I need to know. A child can be excluded by law in a number of places and the LL can say the apartment is not suitable for children for a number of reasons and doesn't need to give even one.

You have claimed it is family status I have pointed out that it isn't have you another argument or is that it?

I'm looking for evidence is all, I've shown you mine now you should show me yours.

Ray Palmer

runawaybishop wrote: »

I'm looking for evidence is all, I've shown you mine now you should show me yours.

There is no evidence to give and you didn't show evidence. You incorrectly made a conclusion which isn't true. Are you not aware of our licencing laws regarding children? I won't bother get them for you but I know they are there if you don't that is your ignorance on a very well publicised piece of legislation.