Should a couple pay for room or per person?

Geometric_Jon

Hi, I'm new to baords and to the world of renting. I'm gonna be moving to Dublin with my girlfriend. Just wondering, if we're sharing a room do we just rent the room or do we have to pay per person. And is this a double room that we should be looking for. It's all very confusing! Would appreciate the feedback.

Silverfish

Plenty of people seem to think double room = couples.

This isn't the case. I have a double bedroom, it means it contains a double bed and is larger than a single. So, when my landlady advertised it, she had to put 'No Couples!!!!' all over the ad.

Usually, the ads will state, for example, a double room for 600 a month for one person, and 800 a month for a couple, or something similar. The ad should make it clear that they are willing to rent a double to a couple. Reason being, if a house already has three people in it, they may want just one person to take the extra room, as an extra two people might be a bit crowded.

So, when you're looking, don't just assume double room at 600 a month / 2.

Good luck.

Victor

Geometric_Jon wrote: »

And is this a double room that we should be looking for.

A double room typically has one large bed for two people. A twin room has two small beds for one person each - total two people.

Many people don't like sharing with couples.

SimpleSam06

Silverfish wrote: »

So, when my landlady advertised it, she had to put 'No Couples!!!!' all over the ad.

That seems a bit discriminatory, tbh. I can understand if the house is somewhat on the small side, but I'm not sure where this general dislike for couples comes from. I mean is it stipulated in the lease that you aren't allowed to form any meaningful relationships during the course of your stay?

mikemac

There are several people don't want to share with couples leaving aside the overcrowding issues.
They can gang up and outnumber other tenants and force them to back down if there is a dispute.
Also, if they are watching TV in the living room and getting amorous, it's basically kicking the other tenants out the room or making them uncomfortable at the very least.
Finally, there is a chance of screaming matches and rows every few weeks.

I've been there and seem all this and I'm sure many others have as well.
I know these are an equal amount of problems with single tenants who bring people back all the time too and have parties but sharing with couples is best avoided if possible imo

Pines

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

That seems a bit discriminatory, tbh.

Not at all. It's up to the person letting the room to decide they want just one more person in the house, and to make that clear in the ad.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I mean is it stipulated in the lease that you aren't allowed to form any meaningful relationships during the course of your stay?

It is if the landlord has any sense Or rather, it should be stipulated that a person is only allowed to have guests after (say) 11 pm on a limited number of nights per week. Look at the periodic discussions on this board where a suposedly single letting turns into a double letting causing resentment all round simply because this was overlooked in the lease.

Silverfish

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

That seems a bit discriminatory, tbh. I can understand if the house is somewhat on the small side, but I'm not sure where this general dislike for couples comes from. I mean is it stipulated in the lease that you aren't allowed to form any meaningful relationships during the course of your stay?

Because, for example, only want four tenants. Now you have five.

SimpleSam06

micmclo wrote: »

They can gang up and outnumber other tenants and force them to back down if there is a dispute.
Also, if they are watching TV in the living room and getting amorous, it's basically kicking the other tenants out the room or making them uncomfortable at the very least.
Finally, there is a chance of screaming matches and rows every few weeks.

I don't see how any of this would not apply to single people on an ongoing basis. There are good and bad couples just like single people. The whole thing seems a bit victorian to me.

Pines wrote: »

Not at all. It's up to the person letting the room to decide they want just one more person in the house, and to make that clear in the ad.

But eh, isn't it discriminatory based on their social situation? A bit like refusing someone on the dole, which you can't do afaik?

Pines wrote: »

Look at the periodic discussions on this board where a suposedly single letting turns into a double letting causing resentment all round simply because this was overlooked in the lease.

But thats because of someone trying to get two for the price of one, its not the same as refusing couples on the basis that they are a couple.

subway

i doubt they would let the double room to a pair of platonic friends either tbh.
the "no couples" means the double room is for one person.

mikemac

SimpleSam, I don't know why you are raising discrimination twice now in this thread.
If I ever become a landlord (only a poor tenant right now ) I'll choose whatever tenant I please.
If I don't want someone on the dole or some party-mad student then I'll refuse them, discrimination rules or not.

And every landlord in the country would do the same. Why would you choose a tenant who wasn't your first choice? You don't owe them anything

mickoneill30

Because they're not just using the bedroom. Two people using the bathroom, sitting room, kitchen etc costs more or needs to be accomodated for, more than one person obviously. So charge more for a couple. I don't see any big deal as long as it's specified from the start.

Edit: I was replying to SimpleSam. Subway & Micmclo replied first.

Victor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I mean is it stipulated in the lease that you aren't allowed to form any meaningful relationships during the course of your stay?

Nothing wrong with having a meaningful relationship, just not on the premises.

SimpleSam06

micmclo wrote: »

If I ever become a landlord (only a poor tenant right now ) I'll choose whatever tenant I please.

But if you specify or are found to be specifying "no blacks", you could go to prison or be fined for it.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I don't see any big deal as long as it's specified from the start.

Absoloutely.

Victor wrote: »

Nothing wrong with having a meaningful relationship, just not on the premises.

I'm not sure if thats meant to be tongue in cheek or not, so I'll take it as such.

Pines

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But eh, isn't it discriminatory based on their social situation? A bit like refusing someone on the dole, which you can't do afaik?

Supppose I am running a competition to raffle an unwanted concert ticket.

Dave comes up to me. He's on the dole. I refuse to sell him a spot in the raffle because of his unemployment. That's discrimination. It may or may not be illegal, but it is discriminatory.

Then, John and Jane come up to me. They want to enter the raffle, but if they win, they want me to give them two tickets to the concert. I refuse: I only have one ticket to give as a prize. Is this discrimanatory against them based on their social situation? Of course not. They are being unreasonable and are trying to change the rules of the contest. I am quite entitled to refuse their request.

Instead, they then offer to buy two spots in the raffle so that they can win two concert tickets ("after all," they reason, "provided we are prepared to pay more, it's no skin off your back"). I refuse. I still only have one unwanted ticket and am under no obligation to get more tickets to suit them. Once again, have I discriminated against either based on their social situation? Nope. They have again misunderstood the rules of the contest (which I have set and which are free to walk away from).

You can't simply change the rules of someone else's offer by a false appeal to the bogeyman of discrimination. If the landlord says there's only one spot available to let, who are you to argue?

SimpleSam06

Pines wrote: »

Dave comes up to me. He's on the dole. I refuse to sell him a spot in the raffle because of his unemployment. That's discrimination. It may or may not be illegal, but it is discriminatory.

Oh, its illegal to refuse Dave in that situation alright. Landlords are offering a service just like a bus driver or any other service, and can't refuse based on a variety of criteria. Not that that stops them, in this country.

Pines wrote: »

Then, John and Jane come up to me. They want to enter the raffle, but if they win, they want me to give them two tickets to the concert.

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.

Pines

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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.

See micmclo's post for a few good reasons (#5 above).

Space in a house is a limited commodity. The couple paying more doesn't magically create the room needed for an extra person to live outside the bedroom.

In plenty of accommodation where people are working or studying, there is a simultaneous demand from each occupant for the bathroom for (say) 15 minutes each morning. The extra person will make it harder for everyone to shower and get to work on time, and in many cases, a little more money doesn't compensate.

The point being that the extra person in a couple makes demands on some finite resources of the household (whether that be seats on the couch, clean cutlery, time to shower, the volume of the hot water cylinder) for which the money may not be adequate compensation.

Firetrap

It's nothing to do with discrimination but to do with having an extra person in the house. When you're sharing a house and space is limited, that extra person is a step too far. You find yourself competing for time in the shower, a chance to wash your clothes, a parking space, cooking facilities, the clothes horse, the television. A couple changes the dynamic of a house and the other tenants are the losers.

johnnyskeleton

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

That seems a bit discriminatory, tbh.

Being in a relationship (other than a marital relationship) is not of itself a recognised ground for discrimination under the Equal Status Act.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

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.

The reason is that landlords and other tenants want to control the number of people in the house/flat. They could equally refuse if 10 people wanted to share a house/flat designed for 3/4.

If it is a single let i.e. a one bed flat, then refusing a couple is a bit ridiculous. But if it is a small 3 bed house, can you not see why then wouldn't want 6 people living there?

How Strange

to answer the original question, I think a couple should pay more for a room than a single person because there is effectively an extra person in the property. Bills should also be split individually so the couple pay for twice as much.

I personally would be hesitant to let to a couple for all the reasons listed above. I've lived with couples and yes they did gang up on other housemates and they did take over the house to watch tv or to have friends over for dinner and we all had to run for cover when they argued.

BC

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

That seems a bit discriminatory, tbh. I can understand if the house is somewhat on the small side, but I'm not sure where this general dislike for couples comes from. I mean is it stipulated in the lease that you aren't allowed to form any meaningful relationships during the course of your stay?

Usually its done because you want to stipulate the number of tenants. E.g a house with two double bedrooms and 1 bathroom, 2 tenants is fine. I would not want 2 couples as thats 4 tenants, and 4 people queueing for showers, sharing a kitchen etc.

SimpleSam06

Pines wrote: »

See micmclo's post for a few good reasons (#5 above).

I already responded to that.

Pines wrote: »

Space in a house is a limited commodity. The couple paying more doesn't magically create the room needed for an extra person to live outside the bedroom.

Firetrap wrote: »

It's nothing to do with discrimination but to do with having an extra person in the house. When you're sharing a house and space is limited, that extra person is a step too far.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If it is a single let i.e. a one bed flat, then refusing a couple is a bit ridiculous. But if it is a small 3 bed house, can you not see why then wouldn't want 6 people living there?

BC wrote: »

Usually its done because you want to stipulate the number of tenants. E.g a house with two double bedrooms and 1 bathroom, 2 tenants is fine. I would not want 2 couples as thats 4 tenants, and 4 people queueing for showers, sharing a kitchen etc.

Sorry now, hold on a second. Where are you all living, the slums of Manila, spending six hours a day in the shower? In some cases a house might not have the capacity for more than a few people, but most houses, for example three beds, could comfortably fit four or five people. This definetely applies to the kitchen and living areas, or were most houses designed to be too small for any guests? There certainly aren't enough houses of limited capacity to justify the monolithic block of "no couples" you usually see in rental discussions.

I think its just that people are leery of the idea of others knocking boots next door, as I said, a victorian mindset. Then again, this is landlords in Ireland we are talking about.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Being in a relationship (other than a marital relationship) is not of itself a recognised ground for discrimination under the Equal Status Act.

Not yet, anyway. They probably never thought it would arise. And yet here we are.

MrVostro

I think there is a troll in the house

There are perfectly obvious and valid reasons for wanting one person rather than 2 in a double room.

Most have been stated here several times already.

I dont believe there is anywhere in the civilized world where the landlord cannot decide who rents from them if they want to, or is there?

to the OP.

If a couple move into a double room i think they could expect to pay more for rent, as they are not just using the room, they are also renting a share of the house each. Also they will split the bills equally with everyone in the house.

Seems fair enough to me.

Meathlass

ok, say you have a 3 bed house with 2 double rooms and 1 single room. You could have 3 people living in the house or 5. Imagine 5 people trying to cook dinner on one oven between 5.30 and 7pm. 5 people trying to sit in a sitting room with only one couch. Landlord is perfectly within their rights to specify tenants. I know couples who wanted to live together so they rented 2 rooms in a house, slept in one and kept clothes and stuff in the other. Perfect solution. And couples change the dynamics of a house no matter what any one says.

When I was first renting in dublin with a friend we found a 2 double bed apt. The other person bidding against us got the apt as the landlord prefered having only 1 person in the apt as opposed to 2 as there'd be less wear and tear. Annoying but understandable. Of course the other person must have been loaded to have paid for it all himself.

If you follow your argument than there is nothing wrong with 4 people staying in the one room and spliting the rent between them. No one would want that situation.

How Strange

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I think its just that people are leery of the idea of others knocking boots next door, as I said, a victorian mindset. Then again, this is landlords in Ireland we are talking about.

Simplesam06, quite honestly you would argue about anything even if/when you have nothing to argue.
Once again your argument is unsubstantial and pretty much going around in circles like a dog chasing its tail.

You've gone off on an off-topic tangent about victorian ideals and discrimination.

The question is whether or not couples should pay extra.

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.

So you agree that couples should be charged more.

Whether or not people want to share with couples is a preference that they are entitled to as it is their home just as they might not want to share with girls or guys or people from the country or from Dublin or from another country. It's discriminating in the instance that the residents are making a choice based on personal perferenace but not necessarily in the negative conotation that you are clearly suggesting.

SimpleSam06

Meathlass wrote: »

Imagine 5 people trying to cook dinner on one oven between 5.30 and 7pm.

Actually since the couples would probably cook for themselves, its the same as three people living there. Its as quick to cook for two as it is for one. No matter what happens, if you share a house you are going to compromise in your behaviour.

Meathlass wrote: »

5 people trying to sit in a sitting room with only one couch.

So this hypothetical house couldn't accommodate two guests come over to watch TV? I see.

Meathlass wrote: »

Landlord is perfectly within their rights to specify tenants.

So the landlord can specify no black tenants? No chinee?

Meathlass wrote: »

If you follow your argument than there is nothing wrong with 4 people staying in the one room and spliting the rent between them. No one would want that situation.

Actually I've already said that I understand the idea of overcrowding perfectly well - I just don't think it applies in a lot of cases.

How Strange wrote:

Simplesam06, quite honestly you would argue about anything even if/when you have nothing to argue.
Once again your argument is unsubstantial and pretty much going around in circles like a dog chasing its tail.

You've gone off on an off-topic tangent about victorian ideals and discrimination.

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, and I was responding to the poster as part of the course of a normal discussion. Its an important issue.

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. I have already reported Mr Vostro there for personal abuse on his troll comment. If you have issue with the points I have raised, respond to them, rather making smart comments without answering anything.

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

Meathlass

Most couple I know don't cook together as they get in at different times - an arbitary point though.

Specifying that a couple can not rent a room together is not discrimation under the equal status act so would not be illegal.

Lots of small 3 bed houses would only have a 2 seater couch and a one seater or a table and 4 chairs. It's hardly up to a landlord to provide seating for potential guests. I would of course have more furniture if it was my own house but if I was renting out to tenants I would have the bare mimimum in comfortable but practical furniture in the house.

I know all these points have been made before but there are limited resources in terms of showers and using washing machines etc. Whenever I stay over at my boyfriend's house I'm very careful not to use the shower until everyone else has so they're not delayed going to work on my account.

MrVostro

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I have already reported Mr Vostro there for personal abuse on his troll comment.

Good luck with that one.

LOL. Absolutely hilarious.

Humble apologies for any pain caused.

Dont forget to add that couples will shower together too. You forgot that one.

SimpleSam06

Meathlass wrote: »

Most couple I know don't cook together as they get in at different times - an arbitary point though.

My experience has been the opposite, the person that arrives in first cooks the dinner for both. We're comparing hearsay however, so for what its worth.

Meathlass wrote: »

Specifying that a couple can not rent a room together is not discrimation under the equal status act so would not be illegal.

Well not yet anyway. If you're ever looking for accommodation as a couple, and are faced with refusal after refusal solely because you are a couple, you might change your mind.

Meathlass wrote: »

Lots of small 3 bed houses would only have a 2 seater couch and a one seater or a table and 4 chairs. It's hardly up to a landlord to provide seating for potential guests.

So eh the capacity problem here is a lack of two chairs?

Meathlass wrote: »

I know all these points have been made before but there are limited resources in terms of showers and using washing machines etc. Whenever I stay over at my boyfriend's house I'm very careful not to use the shower until everyone else has so they're not delayed going to work on my account.

Again, couples wash their clothes together, so its not that much different from one person. An example of what I'm talking about was one large house a friend of mine and his at the time girlfriend were looking at; there were seven rooms and five people staying there (one shower), with two rooms empty, a double and a single. They were refused because as a couple there would be no room for them, although there plainly was, and then some.

Its a commonly repeated idea in rental discussions to refuse couples at all costs. I think that its a bit of a dated idea, and should be looked at closely. Of course there are houses which are just too small, plain and simple, but these are in the minority, I would say, and generally poor quality rental accommodation in any case.

mickoneill30

Question for you SimpleSam06.

If you had a house to rent out would you just rent it out to the first person or couple that came to you?
The only thing that you could use to discriminate (because you have to use some discrimination) I suppose would be
1: Whether they can pay the rent.
2: They applied first.

Is there anything else that would affect your decision. Suppose 10 people applied. Would you in all cases just give it to the first person (or couple) who could pay?

Meathlass

I agree that in a big house like your friend there wouldn't seem to be a problem. 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?

Anyway, I think landlords refuse couples as they want a cap on tenant numbers to reduce wear and tear on the house. 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 think you're off base with the sex angle, sure single people would have people back as well as would people in a relationship where the other person doesn't live in the house. Most tenants wouldn't have a problem with that.

My solution would be to rent two rooms - or else get a 2 bed room flat and rent out the other room to someone but I think most people wouldn't want to share a 2 bed flat with a couple for all the reasons outlined in this thread.

SimpleSam06

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Question for you SimpleSam06.

If you had a house to rent out would you just rent it out to the first person or couple that came to you?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'd apply the same criteria for renting that most people would, depending on the location (close to a college etc) except I wouldn't automatically lock out couples. In fact as a businessman, taking in couples makes a lot more sense. They pay more and ease the bills (ESB, television, internet, garbage) for everyone else. I wouldn't overcrowd a small house, since the best business is long term business, and you don't get that with unhappy tenants, but I already made that fairly clear, I think.

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.