Banning rent supplement recipients from complex

Magpie said:
How many times can a mgmt co be expected to do this against one property?
Click to expand...
How many times do you think the mgmt co will have to take action before the landlord realises that his bad tenant choices are costing him money?
 
Complainer said:
How many times do you think the mgmt co will have to take action before the landlord realises that his bad tenant choices are costing him money?
Click to expand...

On experience, endlessly, since the LL neither seems understand or care about his responsibilities in any direction.
 
Enforcement of any policy with a group of individuals with individual interests is almost impossible, but the idea is understandable. I don't see how there would be any legal challenge when it is a regular thing to view in classifieds ' no rent allowance' and many rent allowance tenants will ask 'do you accept rent allowance' so there is a culture present for want of a better word.
 
It's not about lessons being learned, landlords don't go looking for bad tenants. The neighbours may get peace, but it won't be instant and it may run on for some time. I'm not saying that rent allowance tenants are any worse, but if you have a run of bad luck with a group, it's time to change. The main problem with RS tenants is that they don't have to fear any financial repurcussions, so they have little to lose when it all goes wrong, whereas a paying tenant has to worry about references and deposits etc.
 
Padraigb said:
You shouldn't try to cure a wrong by by performing another wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't see how thats another wrong! If you have proved a complete inability to find yourself a vaguely respectable tenant over several years, should the other residents just sit back and wait for you to do it for another several years?

The point is that, as usual, nice quiet law abiding people get walked over by anti-social tenants and careless landlords. And there is little recourse for residents or mgt co's that isn't very expensive and time consuming. What is wrong with trying to look out for our members interests, since that is after all the job?
 
Magpie said:
I don't see how thats another wrong! ...
Click to expand...

Assume for the purposes of the discussion that I am a considerate person who might be thought a good neighbour. Suppose there were a vacant property in your development available for rent and I viewed it and thought it suited my needs. If the owner of the property and I agreed on a tenancy, I would consider it a gross and inappropriate intrusion if I had to submit to interview by you before a lease could be signed. I would consider it even more inappropriate if you wanted to know how I was funding my rent: that's none of your d**ned business.

You are looking at the wrong remedy.
 
We looked into suing a landlord whose tenants were causing the problems to make him take action. The legal advice we were given from one solicitor and a barrister was to forget it despite leases and house rules etc. It can be a serious problem and while I don't agree with banning rent supplement tenants or telling landlords who they can rent to or not, there has to be some sort of protection for neighbours.
 
So rent allowance recipients cause the vast majority of antisocial behaviour in a complex?

They probably do. Is the answer to ban them all. I think it would would work.

But here is the exact same scenario.

Do non owner-occupiers renting the units from the landlords cause the vast majority of antisocial behaviour in a complex?

They probably do. Is the answer to ban them all. I think it would would work.

You see where this is going?
 
In New York potential tenants or buyers often have to be interviewed by a committee representing the existing owners to see are they"suitable" tenants ot owers.
It really is just another way of keeping out or allowing in a particular class of owner
 
Yorrick said:
In New York potential tenants or buyers often have to be interviewed by a committee representing the existing owners to see are they"suitable" tenants ot owers.
It really is just another way of keeping out or allowing in a particular class of owner
Click to expand...

Yea, blacks, dogs and Irish.
 
I don't think there is any need to roll out the Irish chip on the shoulder. The Irish in New Yorks were as bad as the rest when they got the upper hand. Whites kept out blacks, Catholicis kept out Jews, Jews kept out Muslims. etc
 
Some complexes ban vans owned by working tradesmen.
Now it's the rent supplement tenants

Who is next?
 
Yorrick said:
I don't think there is any need to roll out the Irish chip on the shoulder. The Irish in New Yorks were as bad as the rest when they got the upper hand. Whites kept out blacks, Catholicis kept out Jews, Jews kept out Muslims. etc
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called discrimination. In this case it is suggested that people are discriminated against because of income. To me that’s about as ok as discrimination due to race or religion. So much for equality.

BTW, not allowing tenants to park commercial vehicles in a complex is not the same as not allowing the owners of commercial vehicles to rent there.
 
Purple said:
Yes, it's called discrimination. In this case it is suggested that people are discriminated against because of income. To me that’s about as ok as discrimination due to race or religion. So much for equality.
Click to expand...

The grounds for illegal discriminition are;

Gender
Marital Status
Family Status
Age
Disability
Race
Sexual Orientation
Religious Belief
Membership of the Traveller Community

Outside of those 9 categories, you can discriminate all you want.

What will you do though if a good tenant (maybe even one of the people pushing this idea) loses their job and claims Rent Allowance? The rule will have to be written carefully to allow for the refusal of tenants habitually claiming rent allowance, whilst permitting the retention of good tenants with changed circumstances.
 

I’m aware of the grounds of discrimination under the equality act. That’s why I didn’t say it was illegal. I do consider it immoral and reprehensible.
 
There is also the matter of property rights, to which our constitution and our courts give considerable weight. If I owned a unit in an apartment block and wished to rent it out, it might be difficult to limit my right to do so.

I cannot imagine a judge having much sympathy for a management company blocking a letting solely on the basis of how the tenant's rent is funded.
 
Looks like it is legal to keep out students as well as social welfare tenants. People who cook heavily spiced ethnic food are also fair game as it is not on the basis of their race, just their culinary skills.

I have to go and figure out if those people in tracksuits with Japanese import cars consider themselves a race.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register