9 ms·

> The law would also make it illegal for a landlord to refuse tenancies to families with children, or those in receipt of benefits. What could possibly go wron

> The law would also make it illegal for a landlord to refuse tenancies to families with children, or those in receipt of benefits. What could possibly go wrong?

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
This also seems concerning: "Under the new law, tenants would be given the legal right to request a pet in their home, which the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse." We had a tenant once who brought in her two cats who peed everywhere so we had to replace the entire wooden floor and repaint all the walls because the cat piss stench was everywhere. Financial damage done out of our pocket was way higher than the one month worth deposit. Feels reasonable to have a say in that matter.
- psychlops 3y ago
  "It's my comfort bull."
  - foldr 3y ago
    “Cannot unreasonably refuse.”
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Can't any tenant damage a property more than the deposit, regardless of whether they have a pet or not?
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    Can't a car hit you while you're sitting in your house? Of course anything can happen in theory, but as a landlord you're trying to minimize the risk as nobody will cover you if your tenant fucks you and destroys your property, so you optimize by picking the safest and less risky option.
    - gpderetta 3y ago
      Cars are insured, and ideally landlords should be too. The problem is that if a landlord insurance policy (or mortgage, or long term lease) disallows pets, the landlord is going to prohibit pets. If such prohibition is void then pets are more likely to be allowed. There were similar issues with social housing tenants where some mortgages or insurances disallowed them until it was made it illegal. Of course enforcing these laws is hard...
      - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
        >landlords should be too. There are no insurances where I live that cover against malicious tenants who's pets destroyed your place. Household insurances here only cover you place against accidents (like a pipe bursting flooding the place) or wraths of nature (like a storm breaking your windows) or against burglars breaking in but that's it. So it's up to the landlord to protect himself from bad tenants or they can financially ruin you. >he problem is that if a landlord insurance policy (or mortgage, or long term lease) disallows pets, the landlord is going to prohibit pets. If such prohibition is void then pets are more likely to be allowed. And any such insurances against malicious tenants or pets will be expensive and would only be passed on to the tenants in increased rent prices. There is no free lunch here. Landlords aren't gonna take a loss.
        gpderetta 3y ago
        Hum. 5 minutes of searching shows that malicious tenant damage cover is available, often as an extra, in the UK. Of course that's an additional cost. As a landlord you can decide whether to take the risk yourself, pass the cost to the tenant at the risk of being less competitive, or eat the cost.
        ChuckNorris89 3y ago
        >in the UK Like I said before, "where I live there's no insurances covering tenant damage". It's great it's a thing in the UK but I don't live there.
- unfunco 3y ago
  Is there a law that states the deposit must be one month? You could adjust the contract so that if a tenant requests pets, they're liable for a larger deposit / cleaning bill when they leave. I rent and have two cats, they pee in the litter tray so that's not an issue, but they cause all sorts of other damage, mine like sitting on the bannister at the top of the stairs, so there's loads of scratch marks on it because it's too high to jump up to it easily, they're very furry Norwegian forest cats that groom each other a lot, so I wake up frequently to vomited up cat balls on carpets, etcetera. My deal with the landlord is that I'll just pay for whatever damage is done, even if that's higher than my deposit.
  - efaref 3y ago
    The legal limit for the security deposit is five weeks (or six weeks when the annual rent exceeds £50k). source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/security-deposit-cap-reduced-to-save-renters-hundreds-of-pounds https://www.gov.uk/government/news/security-deposit-cap-redu...
    - gpderetta 3y ago
      The deposit is max 5 week, but the tenant is still liable for any damage beyond the deposit. Of course the landlord need to take the tenant to court and there is no guarantee they'll ever be able to recover the money.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    >Is there a law that states the deposit must be one month? No, but the market rate is at one month. >My deal with the landlord is that I'll just pay for whatever damage is done, even if that's higher than my deposit. Every tenant claims to your face he's a billionaire and that he will pay for everything, but then bolt it the week before the end of the contract, leaving you with a damaged apartment and unpaid bills. Such claims are difficult to enforce and a bird in the hand is worth more 10 in the bush.
- foldr 3y ago
  For some reason people are very reluctant to view renting out a property as a business venture with attendant risks and no guarantee of profit. Either you can afford to insure yourself against such eventualities, or the cost of the repairs will be paid off in the long term by future tenants - or your business isn’t really profitable except in fair weather.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I keep reading comments like this on HN, as though deliberately introduced legislation that undermines a key industry is somehow a cognitive no-op. Governments can make doing business unreasonably difficult. To mis-name that as "this business has no right to exist" just clouds the issue.
    - foldr 3y ago
      Many European countries have far more protections for tenants than the UK and still have rental markets. The idea that these minimal regulations (which really don’t go anywhere near far enough) will somehow make it impossible for people to rent out accommodation is frankly ludicrous.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        This is another fallacy. We can't compare individual things between countries in such a simple way. If you want to dive into the detail of how the whole of "being a landlord" and "being a tenant" works in those countries, and then figure out the differences and potential improvements holistically, then that's great. But this is so general it's impossible to say why it might or might not work.
        foldr 3y ago
        You seem more interested in legislating the terms of the conversation than actually having it. If I understand correctly, you believe that England is a special flower and that regulations which would be considered the bare minimum in a great many other countries around the world (including such exotic and remote locales as Scotland) somehow cannot function here. I’d be happy to point out any fallacies in your argument for that conclusion – if it weren’t for the fact that you’ve presented no argument for it whatsoever.
- snehk 3y ago
  > Financial damage done out of our pocket was way higher than the one month worth deposit. "I lost money doing business"
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    We did loose money, but not because we made a business mistake but because our business parter (the tenant) screwed us. Protecting against such events in the future would mean extra expenses passed on to the other tenants. There is no free lunch here. If the tenants are causing extra damage, then it will cost them more in the end, pushing the market prices up.
pjc50 3y ago
I don't know, would you like to elaborate?
- tpxl 3y ago
  I live in a country where you can't evict families with children. This means you can get shitty people who will destroy your property and you can do nothing about it. They are too poor to get damages if you sue. A family member lost a few months rent and about 10k in repair costs to this scam.
  - M2Ys4U 3y ago
    There's a difference between not being able to evict a family with children and not being able to refuse to let the property to a family with children, though.

> The law would also make it illegal for a landlord to refuse tenancies to families with children, or those in receipt of benefits. What could possibly go wrong?

ChuckNorris89 3y ago

This also seems concerning: "Under the new law, tenants would be given the legal right to request a pet in their home, which the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse." We had a tenant once who brought in her two cats who peed everywhere so we had to replace the entire wooden floor and repaint all the walls because the cat piss stench was everywhere. Financial damage done out of our pocket was way higher than the one month worth deposit. Feels reasonable to have a say in that matter.

psychlops 3y ago
"It's my comfort bull."
- foldr 3y ago
  “Cannot unreasonably refuse.”
madeofpalk 3y ago
Can't any tenant damage a property more than the deposit, regardless of whether they have a pet or not?
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  Can't a car hit you while you're sitting in your house? Of course anything can happen in theory, but as a landlord you're trying to minimize the risk as nobody will cover you if your tenant fucks you and destroys your property, so you optimize by picking the safest and less risky option.
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    Cars are insured, and ideally landlords should be too. The problem is that if a landlord insurance policy (or mortgage, or long term lease) disallows pets, the landlord is going to prohibit pets. If such prohibition is void then pets are more likely to be allowed. There were similar issues with social housing tenants where some mortgages or insurances disallowed them until it was made it illegal. Of course enforcing these laws is hard...
    - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
      >landlords should be too. There are no insurances where I live that cover against malicious tenants who's pets destroyed your place. Household insurances here only cover you place against accidents (like a pipe bursting flooding the place) or wraths of nature (like a storm breaking your windows) or against burglars breaking in but that's it. So it's up to the landlord to protect himself from bad tenants or they can financially ruin you. >he problem is that if a landlord insurance policy (or mortgage, or long term lease) disallows pets, the landlord is going to prohibit pets. If such prohibition is void then pets are more likely to be allowed. And any such insurances against malicious tenants or pets will be expensive and would only be passed on to the tenants in increased rent prices. There is no free lunch here. Landlords aren't gonna take a loss.
      - gpderetta 3y ago
        Hum. 5 minutes of searching shows that malicious tenant damage cover is available, often as an extra, in the UK. Of course that's an additional cost. As a landlord you can decide whether to take the risk yourself, pass the cost to the tenant at the risk of being less competitive, or eat the cost.
        ChuckNorris89 3y ago
        >in the UK Like I said before, "where I live there's no insurances covering tenant damage". It's great it's a thing in the UK but I don't live there.
unfunco 3y ago
Is there a law that states the deposit must be one month? You could adjust the contract so that if a tenant requests pets, they're liable for a larger deposit / cleaning bill when they leave. I rent and have two cats, they pee in the litter tray so that's not an issue, but they cause all sorts of other damage, mine like sitting on the bannister at the top of the stairs, so there's loads of scratch marks on it because it's too high to jump up to it easily, they're very furry Norwegian forest cats that groom each other a lot, so I wake up frequently to vomited up cat balls on carpets, etcetera. My deal with the landlord is that I'll just pay for whatever damage is done, even if that's higher than my deposit.
- efaref 3y ago
  The legal limit for the security deposit is five weeks (or six weeks when the annual rent exceeds £50k). source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/security-deposit-cap-reduced-to-save-renters-hundreds-of-pounds https://www.gov.uk/government/news/security-deposit-cap-redu...
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    The deposit is max 5 week, but the tenant is still liable for any damage beyond the deposit. Of course the landlord need to take the tenant to court and there is no guarantee they'll ever be able to recover the money.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >Is there a law that states the deposit must be one month? No, but the market rate is at one month. >My deal with the landlord is that I'll just pay for whatever damage is done, even if that's higher than my deposit. Every tenant claims to your face he's a billionaire and that he will pay for everything, but then bolt it the week before the end of the contract, leaving you with a damaged apartment and unpaid bills. Such claims are difficult to enforce and a bird in the hand is worth more 10 in the bush.
foldr 3y ago
For some reason people are very reluctant to view renting out a property as a business venture with attendant risks and no guarantee of profit. Either you can afford to insure yourself against such eventualities, or the cost of the repairs will be paid off in the long term by future tenants - or your business isn’t really profitable except in fair weather.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I keep reading comments like this on HN, as though deliberately introduced legislation that undermines a key industry is somehow a cognitive no-op. Governments can make doing business unreasonably difficult. To mis-name that as "this business has no right to exist" just clouds the issue.
  - foldr 3y ago
    Many European countries have far more protections for tenants than the UK and still have rental markets. The idea that these minimal regulations (which really don’t go anywhere near far enough) will somehow make it impossible for people to rent out accommodation is frankly ludicrous.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      This is another fallacy. We can't compare individual things between countries in such a simple way. If you want to dive into the detail of how the whole of "being a landlord" and "being a tenant" works in those countries, and then figure out the differences and potential improvements holistically, then that's great. But this is so general it's impossible to say why it might or might not work.
      - foldr 3y ago
        You seem more interested in legislating the terms of the conversation than actually having it. If I understand correctly, you believe that England is a special flower and that regulations which would be considered the bare minimum in a great many other countries around the world (including such exotic and remote locales as Scotland) somehow cannot function here. I’d be happy to point out any fallacies in your argument for that conclusion – if it weren’t for the fact that you’ve presented no argument for it whatsoever.
snehk 3y ago
> Financial damage done out of our pocket was way higher than the one month worth deposit. "I lost money doing business"
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  We did loose money, but not because we made a business mistake but because our business parter (the tenant) screwed us. Protecting against such events in the future would mean extra expenses passed on to the other tenants. There is no free lunch here. If the tenants are causing extra damage, then it will cost them more in the end, pushing the market prices up.

pjc50 3y ago

I don't know, would you like to elaborate?

tpxl 3y ago
I live in a country where you can't evict families with children. This means you can get shitty people who will destroy your property and you can do nothing about it. They are too poor to get damages if you sue. A family member lost a few months rent and about 10k in repair costs to this scam.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  There's a difference between not being able to evict a family with children and not being able to refuse to let the property to a family with children, though.