Also the judge didn’t find in the shelter cases that they couldn’t afford the property.
I’ve explained I can afford the property - paying six months in advance which the landlord refused. This means someone on a salary of £30,750 or more can rent on a periodic basis and sign up to an assured short hold tenancy of 6 months where they are required to pay 6 months rent over the course of 6 months, yet when I offer to pay in advance I’m refused.
That’s directly treating me differently and unfavourably on the basis of something in connection with disability (section 15) and indirect discrimination because this policy effects me where I haven’t been able to earn over the threshold arising out of cancer and mental health issues and there is no proportionate means of a legitimate aim in refusing the flat when I can afford to live at the property with help from others and paying in advance.
Anyway I’ve got a solicitor taking it on now because they think the letting agent have discriminated. They have to weigh up chances of success and clearly they think I have more than a 50% chance otherwise they don’t take these cases on.
If you don’t understand this you really should because it will help inform your decisions.
I know things will be changing soon, but I would increase the rent to include a pet allowance, if the tenants opted to get a pet without my consent.
I’ve had a place returned to me with most of the carpets requiring replacement, and floor boards underneath requiring sanding.
…according to them they returned the house cleaned, but obviously over the time they were living there the tenant’s dog had accidents, or was not properly trained.
I agree that a rent increase is about the only way to mitigate the risk at the moment, but this will become a lot more difficult after the Renters Rights Bill becomes law. Rent increases will become more bureaucratic and will take many months to implement if the tenant challenges the increase with the Tribunal. I’m also not sure how the Tribunal would view an increase that was for a pet and if it took the rent above the market rent for the property, it would likely be declined. Added to that is the restriction on charging a higher rent than that advertised. I don’t think there’s enough detail in the Bill at the moment to know whether advertising two different rents, (with and without pets) would be allowed. It would be difficult anyway as a goldfish wouldn’t justify the same increase as a large dog.
Hello S155 - if you carefully read my post I did not mention tenants in receipt of benefits. Your comments are offensive all round. I have 20 years experience of being a landlord - I don’t get poor tenants because I work hard to weed out what I consider to be unsuitable ones for my properties right from the get go. The right person for the right property is just as important for both tenant and landlord. Mutuality of understanding and respect are the keystones for long and happy tenancies.
