Couples renting

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

For what reason do landlords not accept couples??? It's definately close to impossible to find a house that accepts couples.

January

Is it in a house share? Might be because landlords will see it as if you break up one or both of you will break the lease? If it's a house share it's because they'd be worried about fights with the other tenants around.

the_syco

For one reason: couples will usually gang up on people, the other people will feel intimidated, and leave. Not many will live with a couple, and thus the landlord will loose money, as the room will be empty.

And by gang up, I mean agree on something. Maybe the TV, the kitchen, etc. I've heard of plenty of people moving out, as the couple would take over the TV room all the time, and them been uncomfortable witht he couple, or made to feel uncomfortable, accidently, or on purpose.

You may say "but as a couple, of course you'll agree on stuff: your're a couple". This is true, but in a house of three single people, you'll find people more at ease when watching the TV, than feeling like a constant third wheel.

I've find that most couples rent out a 2-bed apartment, and use the 2nd bedroom for stuff and guests.

ztoical

Really? I found it the other way round when looking. Looked at a bunch of places but each time I said it to the agent I was interested they came back and told me some couple saw it after me and the landlord would rather have the couple then a single girl. Maybe it's different depending where in the country you are.

Max Power1

I too would find it the opposite to what the OP issaying.

Then again i'd be more looking at apartments than house shares, but even when I did share a house for a while a few months back I wasnt the only couple in the house.. so it depends on the LL and the situation I suppose

blahblah06

were r u looking to rent

How Strange

OP, if you mean house shares then I agree with the_syco. When we were filling rooms in houses I lived in the one rule was never to let to a couple for all the reasons the_syco outlined.

Why not go for a one or two bed apt and live alone. If I were renting with my OH I certainly wouldn't want to share if I could avoid it at all.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

adrieanne__x wrote: »

Is it in a house share? Might be because landlords will see it as if you break up one or both of you will break the lease? If it's a house share it's because they'd be worried about fights with the other tenants around.

It's a house share. Well anybody can break a lease, I can understand somewhat about the couples fighting between themselves...

the_syco wrote: »

For one reason: couples will usually gang up on people, the other people will feel intimidated, and leave. Not many will live with a couple, and thus the landlord will loose money, as the room will be empty.

And by gang up, I mean agree on something. Maybe the TV, the kitchen, etc. I've heard of plenty of people moving out, as the couple would take over the TV room all the time, and them been uncomfortable witht he couple, or made to feel uncomfortable, accidently, or on purpose.

You may say "but as a couple, of course you'll agree on stuff: your're a couple". This is true, but in a house of three single people, you'll find people more at ease when watching the TV, than feeling like a constant third wheel.

I've find that most couples rent out a 2-bed apartment, and use the 2nd bedroom for stuff and guests.

I rented a house with two couples and one other single person, never ever had a problem with anything, TV, kitchen, bathroom, anything really. The landlord had no problem with that either. It seems to be more evident in Dublin, I get the impression that landlords are just backwards. One landlord agreed to take us but then upped the rent, caring only for what he could get out of it. A bit greedy, so probably won't take that place at all, for that very reason. Got another offer from a woman who has kids, she said she would rather have couples (no reason given).

It seems like a lot of landlords are simply ignorant and backward in their ways. One woman didn't believe we should be living together out of marriage... WTF? The only good reason I see is the room, with couples in a house it becomes too crowded.

Most landlords still believe that their 1 bed apartment is still worth 1200 a month, which is a crazy price at this time. Most places are looking for way too much money for the little they offer. Plenty affordable places down the N11 or N81, but we weighed the pros and cons and rather stay closer to work.

blahblah06 wrote: »

were r u looking to rent

Anywhere south side really. Bray, ballybrack, blackrock etc etc. It seems that most of the down to earth landlords have property on the north side, which is a pity really

How Strange wrote: »

OP, if you mean house shares then I agree with the_syco. When we were filling rooms in houses I lived in the one rule was never to let to a couple for all the reasons the_syco outlined.

Why not go for a one or two bed apt and live alone. If I were renting with my OH I certainly wouldn't want to share if I could avoid it at all.

Sure, that would be great, but there's the massive price differance, that's a main reason why people want to share a house, because it's so much cheaper.

bangersandmash

Harlee Tasty Gemstone wrote: »

The only good reason I see is the room, with couples in a house it becomes too crowded.

From the perspective of many landlords, two occupiers instead of one would equate to double the wear-and-tear on the property. They may also object on the grounds that it'll cause friction with existing tenants. So while a landlord may find it difficult to find a new tenant in this climate, he/she is probably even more concerned about not losing 2-3 existing good tenants.

Is there a possibility that you could consider a full house to let and offer to find the other tenants (e.g. friends)? A risk proposition in many respects, but it may be attractive to some landlords who are finding it difficult to let a property. Also the rent for 3 bed houses in many nice parts of South Dublin often seem to be lower than the equivalent total for a similar house share.

Harlee Tasty Gemstone wrote: »

It seems like a lot of landlords are simply ignorant and backward in their ways. One woman didn't believe we should be living together out of marriage... WTF?

That's unreal. Sounds like you dodged a bullet there! Obviously she forgot that she's meant to be running a business rather than playing moral guardian to her tenants :rolleyes:

rick_fantastic

also they would have to have the house insured for public liability. this means they would have it insure for whatever occupancy. 1 person per room? 3 bed house = max three people. could cause issue if a tenant made claim.

the_syco

Harlee Tasty Gemstone wrote: »

Anywhere south side really. Bray, ballybrack, blackrock etc etc. It seems that most of the down to earth landlords have property on the north side, which is a pity really

What's your budget per month?

Harlee Tasty Gemstone wrote: »

One landlord agreed to take us but then upped the rent, caring only for what he could get out of it.

Were you looking to rent a double room? There's always a difference between one person in a double room, and two people in a double room.

ztoical

rick_fantastic wrote: »

also they would have to have the house insured for public liability. this means they would have it insure for whatever occupancy. 1 person per room? 3 bed house = max three people. could cause issue if a tenant made claim.

A landlord does not need public liability insurance. The landlord needs to insure the building while the tenants need to sort their own contents insurance to cover their belongings in the house.

3DataModem

A landlord does need liability insurance.... what if your washing machine leaks and the tenant slips on the floor and breaks their arm? Landlord is liable, so better be insured! Costs about 100 per year (1/2 bed apt) so mad not having it.

ztoical

3DataModem wrote: »

A landlord does need liability insurance.... what if your washing machine leaks and the tenant slips on the floor and breaks their arm? Landlord is liable, so better be insured! Costs about 100 per year (1/2 bed apt) so mad not having it.

There is a difference between needing something and being legally required to have something. There is no legal requirement for a landlord to have public liability insurance - they do need building insurance and often building insurances will cover anyone injured on the premises as a result of negligence if it doesn't the landlord can look for comprehensive general liability cover not public liablity.

Public liability is for third parties coming into a business so a member of the public falling in a shop falls under public liability but an employee of the company falling in the shop doesn't fall under public liability that's a different insurance cover. A robber falling and breaking a bone on your property can fall under public liability but a tenant falling does not.