2 working adults favored over one

YellowLead

I am looking to rent a two bed for myself and my son. For two years now. I only ever heard back from one estate agent who invited me to a viewing. I turned my nose up at it as it was mouldy and badly worn. The agent advised it would be very hard for me to get anywhere as landlords favor two working adults when letting as if one loses a job it’s less risky they won’t make rent. I thought maybe he was saying that to get me to rent the dump I was looking at but after two years of hunting it thinking he was right.
Is this true? It’s a Dublin commuter county so demand is high.

Baby01032012

Yes that makes perfect sense. I think the agent was trying to be helpful yet leaving themselves open to discrimination accusations. I’d expect the agent to be less frank.

It makes sense because 2 adults as you said would have a greater income to rent and a greater ability to meet the rental payment. A couple would be even better due to less wear and tear as they would only be using one room. With kids you have extra wear and tear..I have two myself.

It’s the way the market is. Any rental enquiry gets on average 100 response in first day or so. The landlord or agent and pick the choose. And the above is what concerns them.

2Mad2BeMad

The whole process of picking a tenant is down to discrimination .
It's the only way they can pick a tenant. It's the way the market is and while none would openly admit that and rightly so it's the only way to narrow down a list of people.

I know I've not been picked because I have tattoos and whatever some judge by that.
I'm renting now and I'm always on time paying. Have a good relationship with my landlord so in my view some landlords missed out on a good tenant because there quick to judge.
I know my ex was not picked because similarly to you she's a lone parent working part time. And I don't blame landlords doing it this way if I was a landlord id narrow down the list the same way. It's a business after all

Xterminator

Is it discrimination for a landlord to pick the tenant they believe is the least risk though?

Hint i don't think so!

riclad

In dublin the landlord has to discriminate, you can only pick one tenant,
some landlords might go for an older tenant who works in the bank or the civil service.
Maybe go for a 2bed apartment instead of a house.
I do,nt blame landlords for being conservative, irish law is biased in favour
of the tenant .
Many landlords do not use agents .
I do not think every landlord only takes 2 working person,s .
But they want a tenant who can afford to pay the rent every week.
IF there,s wear and tear the cost of repair can be taken from the deposit .
There,s alot more apartments for rent than there are house,s for rent at least in urban area,s .

Fol20

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Yes that makes perfect sense. I think the agent was trying to be helpful yet leaving themselves open to discrimination accusations. I’d expect the agent to be less frank.

It makes sense because 2 adults as you said would have a greater income to rent and a greater ability to meet the rental payment. A couple would be even better due to less wear and tear as they would only be using one room. With kids you have extra wear and tear..I have two myself.

It’s the way the market is. Any rental enquiry gets on average 100 response in first day or so. The landlord or agent and pick the choose. And the above is what concerns them.

I don’t think it is discrimination as he is offering the place to them.

As you pointed out. Kids are much more likely to do more wear and tear on the property so I personally only. Pick working professionals. Nothing against you or your kid, I just want to minimize risk and protect my investment.

overkill602

OP posts their experience still looking after 2 years and we must remember and commend our politicians tripping over each other some with threshold advised private members bills for getting us here.

LLs are vilified by media and populists movements that have ensured a contraction of supply of private accommodation with no tolerance for any tax incentives except for the new reit type vehicle funded by pension funds and shareholders who pay taxes wherever the reside in the world and not here.

ChewBerecca

When I lived in Dublin, we (professional couple in our late twenties, both working full time in global financial institutions) didn't even get a response to two thirds of the ads we applied for.

The ones we did get responses to, were gone before we could even arrange a viewing. We ended up relocating because we couldn't find somewhere before our lease was up and ended up in a holiday home for over a month waiting out our notice periods with work.

OP, I don't think it's a personal attack on you and your child. The demand is high for every reasonably* priced rental in the greater Dublin area. The landlords or agents probably get tens if not hundreds of applicants. Yes, they will go for the least risky option on paper, but chances are a few of the applications you have sent have been one of many received and the landlord/agent found a suitable applicant before they even had a chance to review all applications.

An empty property is costing money, so a lot of landlords/agents will go with the first suitable party rather than review all applications if demand is high.

*Reasonable for Dublin

YellowLead

Thanks all - I understand why it is the case, and don’t feel in any way it’s discrimination or an attack, I was just curious if everybody experiences this. It’s just frustrating when I have more than enough money to pay and both myself and my son and quiet neat people.
Should I be quoting my salary in any enquiries? I’m looking at house shares where I’m sharing a twin room with my son at this stage, I know an apartment is not going to happen.

YellowLead

Fol20 wrote: »

I don’t think it is discrimination as he is offering the place to them.

As you pointed out. Kids are much more likely to do more wear and tear on the property so I personally only. Pick working professionals. Nothing against you or your kid, I just want to minimize risk and protect my investment.

Thanks for giving a landlords perspective. Would a teenager be less or more attractive, or would a landlord assume a teenager would wreck the place? I’m a working professional by the way.

jimwallace197

YellowLead wrote: »

Thanks for giving a landlords perspective. Would a teenager be less or more attractive, or would a landlord assume a teenager would wreck the place? I’m a working professional by the way.

Less attractive because if you lose your job or fall ill, he wouldnt be able to pay the rent. Also, I don't think its that he would wreck the place but the likiehood of him having parties while you are gone would be a factor etc.

Fol20

YellowLead wrote: »

Thanks for giving a landlords perspective. Would a teenager be less or more attractive, or would a landlord assume a teenager would wreck the place? I’m a working professional by the way.

Teenagers are better than young children however they too can damage the place. Noise complaints for neighbors or anti social behavior are at the top of my list for teens. It depends what the ll are after. Most are after working professionals however some may give you a shot if they are more empathetic to your situation. It isn’t all negative either.Tenants with children are more likely to stay longer in a property to offer stability so less turnover. I personally just prefer working professionals as it’s less hassle for me though.

Mellor

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

The whole process of picking a tenant is down to discrimination .
It's the only way they can pick a tenant.

No it isn't.

Discrimination is treating people differently, for whatever reason.

Picking a tenant involves assessing people. Hold them all to the same assessment and you are treated equally.
Some people just fair better in a fair assessment.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

No it isn't.

Discrimination is treating people differently, for whatever reason.

Picking a tenant involves assessing people. Hold them all to the same assessment and you are treated equally.
Some people just fair better in a fair assessment.

Actually it is, it’s just that not all forms of discrimination are illegal. In the process of choosing a tenant from the many who apply, the LL may be making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things. Selection criteria may discriminate in some ways, but there may not be anything wrong with that as long as it is not one of the 9 grounds or HAP.

Mellor

Dav010 wrote: »

Actually it is, it’s just that not all forms of discrimination are illegal. In the process of choosing a tenant from the many who apply, the LL may be making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things. Selection criteria may discriminate in some ways, but there may not be anything wrong with that as long as it is not one of the 9 grounds or HAP.

The situation I described, treating all applicants the same, and assessing the best candidate is not discrimination. I was replying to the poster who said you have to discriminate.

I'm not suggesting that no landlord anywhere discriminates. Obviously many do, just like many people do in every other position.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

The situation I described, treating all applicants the same, and assessing the best candidate is not discrimination. I was replying to the poster who said you have to discriminate.

I'm not suggesting that no landlord anywhere discriminates. Obviously many do, just like many people do in every other position.

The other poster is right, you do have to discriminate, you just can’t do it on one of the 9 grounds plus HAP. If you take the ops case, he is being discriminated against because he does not having a working partner, is that illegal? Possibly not.

Mellor

Dav010 wrote: »

[
The other poster is right, you do have to discriminate,

No you don’t.
Choosing the better tenant over another is not discriminatory.

10pennymixup

Mellor wrote: »

No you don’t.
Choosing the better tenant over another is not discriminatory.

To discriminate is to differentiate between two or more things/ people using certain criteria.

To illegally discriminate is to use one of the 9 grounds for that criteria.

All LL's must discriminate when making their decision over applicants, they must not do it illegally (or at least tell anyone that they used illegal criteria).

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

No you don’t.
Choosing the better tenant over another is not discriminatory.

And how do you choose one over the other? You decide on selection criteria where you favour one applicant over another. That criteria, even though it may be applied to all, may be discriminatory. An example of this occurred last month, daft can no longer publish “professionals only” on their website. It is perfectly reasonable to think a LL might favour a professional with a steady income, and the same criteria may be applied to all, but it excludes those not working. Same principle here, the LL, reasonably, would prefer a couple with two incomes, but I doubt you could state that on the ad. We all discriminate, most of it is not illegal, and the bit that is, you don’t put it on your daft ad.

antix80

YellowLead wrote: »

Should I be quoting my salary in any enquiries? I’m looking at house shares where I’m sharing a twin room with my son at this stage, I know an apartment is not going to happen.

Yes, I'd be quoting my salary and I'd be offering a larger than average deposit.

I don't think your landlord is discriminating FWIW. If you lost your job and stopped paying rent there's definitely a perception that the courts wouldn't want to make a child homeless & that would come at the cost of your landlord's investment.

Lux23

YellowLead wrote: »

Thanks all - I understand why it is the case, and don’t feel in any way it’s discrimination or an attack, I was just curious if everybody experiences this. It’s just frustrating when I have more than enough money to pay and both myself and my son and quiet neat people.
Should I be quoting my salary in any enquiries? I’m looking at house shares where I’m sharing a twin room with my son at this stage, I know an apartment is not going to happen.

It is discrimation, you can't refuse to provide a service or sell goods to someone based on their family status whether they be single, married or a single parent.

Fol20

Lux23 wrote: »

It is discrimation, you can't refuse to provide a service or sell goods to someone based on their family status whether they be single, married or a single parent.

How do you pick the best possible tenant. The ll will need to have priorities they rate better than others. The ll is simply picking the best candidate as per the ll criteria.

Lux23

Fol20 wrote: »

How do you pick the best possible tenant. The ll will need to have priorities they rate better than others. The ll is simply picking the best candidate as per the ll criteria.

Those priorities can't be based on their family status, race, gender, etc. That's the law, I am sure you're not encouraging a landlord to break the law?

Fol20

Lux23 wrote: »

Those priorities can't be based on their family status, race, gender, etc. That's the law, I am sure you're not encouraging a landlord to break the law?

Where in my comment that you quoted did I mentioned the types of discrimination. Stop talking down to me then. Do you think a ll flips a coin and says I’ll take that one. No - they make a calculated decision based on all the info they have. This could include the gut feeling of a ll , their income affordability, their references, how they came across during the meeting etc. I couldnt care less about the tenant. I just want the person with the least risk, hassle and will pay on time.

Samuel T. Cogley

OP have you looked into HAP and renting a small house? You might not get a prime location but living in a working class area myself it's not all shooting at Garda vans.

YellowLead

antix80 wrote: »

Yes, I'd be quoting my salary and I'd be offering a larger than average deposit.

I don't think your landlord is discriminating FWIW. If you lost your job and stopped paying rent there's definitely a perception that the courts wouldn't want to make a child homeless & that would come at the cost of your landlord's investment.

Agreed it’s not discrimination- I think it was other posters rather than me that mentioned that. I am just looking for tips to get an initial viewing in the first place - quoting salary is a good idea.

YellowLead

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

OP have you looked into HAP and renting a small house? You might not get a prime location but living in a working class area myself it's not all shooting at Garda vans.

I don’t need HAP - I have a high salary. My problem is I can’t find anywhere not that I can’t afford it. Lucky I know but unlucky at the same time. Appreciate your advice anyway.

Fol20

YellowLead wrote: »

I don’t need HAP - I have a high salary. My problem is I can’t find anywhere not that I can’t afford it. Lucky I know but unlucky at the same time. Appreciate your advice anyway.

In that case, I would recommend leading with your best asset - your affordability.
1)When you go to viewings, bring a contract highlighting your salary.
2)Bring a copy of your bank account statements that highlight your disciplined and can easily afford it.
3) As a last resort offer 3-6months of rent up front. Personally I avoid the last as some times it creates a suspicion within me as to what have I missed about the the tenant but some ll love the cash flow up front.

Some people complain that it’s a breach of privacy however like an interview you need to stand out from the crowd in a good way so use what you got as best as possible.



Hopefully it works out for you.

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

Those priorities can't be based on their family status, race, gender, etc. That's the law, I am sure you're not encouraging a landlord to break the law?

Of course they can you just can’t say it, which is ridiculous of course as a property owner should be allowed to choose who he/she wants for any reason and if they don’t want kids, single people etc they should just be allowed to state this in their ads and save everyone’s time.

YellowLead

Fol20 wrote: »

In that case, I would recommend leading with your best asset - your affordability.
1)When you go to viewings, bring a contract highlighting your salary.
2)Bring a copy of your bank account statements that highlight your disciplined and can easily afford it.
3) As a last resort offer 3-6months of rent up front. Personally I avoid the last as some times it creates a suspicion within me as to what have I missed about the the tenant but some ll love the cash flow up front.

Some people complain that it’s a breach of privacy however like an interview you need to stand out from the crowd in a good way so use what you got as best as possible.



Hopefully it works out for you.

Thank you - I’d be happy to show my payslip and bank statement if I was lucky enough to get a viewing and to offer more that the deposit asked.

Considering house shares now, not ideal for my teenager but if they are professionals and not students ill take it. Beggars can’t be choosers.

YellowLead

Kash Mango Stomach wrote: »

Of course they can you just can’t say it, which is ridiculous of course as a property owner should be allowed to choose who he/she wants for any reason and if they don’t want kids, single people etc they should just be allowed to state this in their ads and save everyone’s time.

Would be so handy if they could state in their ads - no single people so indeed time would not be wasted.

Still waters

Where have you been living with the last 2 years since you started looking for a place

YellowLead

Still waters wrote: »

Where have you been living with the last 2 years since you started looking for a place

In a bad relationship

the_syco

YellowLead wrote: »

Should I be quoting my salary in any enquiries?

Maybe. I'm guessing if you don't mention that you work, LL's will assume that you'll be paying with HAP.

Perhaps look for a 2 bed apartment, and don't mention the kid?

YellowLead

the_syco wrote: »

Maybe. I'm guessing if you don't mention that you work, LL's will assume that you'll be paying with HAP.

Perhaps look for a 2 bed apartment, and don't mention the kid?

I always mention that I work, just have never quoted salary but yes I could leave out the child part initially if that might help, in case there is bias against single parents.

Jessibelle

It's no help to the OP I know, but in the last three months searching, highlighting that my partner and I are both working and stable tennant's with references etc, and having responded to goodness knows how many ads, we've had three viewings. At this stage, it's an exercise in frustration and I can only imagine it's worse when the selectivity when a child is mentioned is employed.

YellowLead

Jessibelle wrote: »

It's no help to the OP I know, but in the last three months searching, highlighting that my partner and I are both working and stable tennant's with references etc, and having responded to goodness knows how many ads, we've had three viewings. At this stage, it's an exercise in frustration and I can only imagine it's worse when the selectivity when a child is mentioned is employed.

I hope you find something soon

Jessibelle

YellowLead wrote: »

I hope you find something soon

You too!

Mellor

10pennymixup wrote: »

To discriminate is to differentiate between two or more things/ people using certain criteria.

That's not the definition of discrimination. That's the root of the misconception.
Differentiate is not the same as discriminant.

It's perfectly possible to choose between two people without discrimianting. If people think that it's not possible they are living in a bubble.

Dav010 wrote: »

And how do you choose one over the other? You decide on selection criteria where you favour one applicant over another. That criteria, even though it may be applied to all, may be discriminatory.

Or course if may be discriminatory. A criteria of "no homosexuals" is discriminatory. That's very different to saying every single criteria possible is discriminatory.

Same principle here, the LL, reasonably, would prefer a couple with two incomes, but I doubt you could state that on the ad. We all discriminate, most of it is not illegal, and the bit that is, you don’t put it on your daft ad.
Today 00:25

Making an making an assessment based on the means of a applicant to meet the rental requirements is not discrimination. For example, I wouldn't rent a property for $500 per week to a person whose income was $1,000 pre-tax.

In general an applicant with two incomes will be higher than a single income. Choosing the higher income is not discrimination, it's the best best choice fro ma risk POV. But no reason why the single income couldn't be higher. Disregarding all the single applicants, regardless of their income is discrimination. That's the difference.

A blanket rule on the ad, refusing to consider certain applicants on their merits is discrimination. But considering them, and choosing somebody who scores better on valid criteria, is not.


As an aside, the reason we we shouldn't discriminate is because morally wrong, not because it's illegal. If you are ok with saying "we all discriminate", you might need to have a look at yourself.

10pennymixup

Mellor wrote: »

That's not the definition of discrimination. That's the root of the misconception.
Differentiate is not the same as discriminant.

No thanks, I don't need a semantics lesson from you. And I'm pretty sure that no one else wants one from me. So this is all I'm going to say on it.

You could not be more wrong when you say "differentiate is not the same as discriminant (sic)"

The word discriminate literally means to differentiate. It comes from the latin word discriminat meaning distinguish between.

The true misconception lies with its informal use over the last few decades. When issues such as race and civil rights have come to the fore, leaving the word with negative connotations and as something prejudicial. That is not it's primary meaning, and where your confusion stems from.

Linky to the first online dictionary I came across on a google search

And all of the above, as with your post, is of little relevance to the OP.

Mellor

10pennymixup wrote: »

[
The word discriminate literally means to differentiate. It comes from the latin word discriminat meaning distinguish between.

We are talking about the meaning of discrimination in modern english. Not it’s latin root.

Linky to the first online dictionary I came across on a google search

You probably should have checked discrimination while you were there.
Same dictionary

Definition of discrimination
1a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

I agree it doesn’t help the OP. But neither does claiming it’s discrimination. And OP sounds fairly rational. Sounds like he understands the situation and isn’t being led by the online whinge brigade.

Graham

Mod Note

Please take the semantics debate somewhere else. It is adding nothing to this thread and it's not helping the OP.

Lux23

Kash Mango Stomach wrote: »

Of course they can you just can’t say it, which is ridiculous of course as a property owner should be allowed to choose who he/she wants for any reason and if they don’t want kids, single people etc they should just be allowed to state this in their ads and save everyone’s time.

And an employer should be able to say they only want to hire a certain gender.

Lux23

Mellor wrote: »

I agree it doesn’t help the OP. But neither does claiming it’s discrimination. And OP sounds fairly rational. Sounds like he understands the situation and isn’t being led by the online whinge brigade.

Prefering to rent to a couple versus a single person is legally discrimination in this country. This isn't a claim, it is a fact.

Fol20

Lux23 wrote: »

Prefering to rent to a couple versus a single person is legally discrimination in this country. This isn't a claim, it is a fact.

I’m not discriminating because they are single. I am picking a different person because of affordability. If one person is in 50k while 2 people are on circa 40k each. I would pick the couple on 80k as they are more likely to afford my place. Equally if you have a person on 150k vs a couple on 80k. I’d be more likely to pick the single person.

I would also acknowledge that a single person will do less wear and tear. Is this also discrimination on family status. I’m not based on any status. It is just the number of people that would use said property

Mellor

Lux23 wrote: »

Prefering to rent to a couple versus a single person is legally discrimination in this country. This isn't a claim, it is a fact.

Which is exactly what I said

Mellor wrote:

In general an applicant with two incomes will be higher than a single income. Choosing the higher income is not discrimination, it's the best choice from a risk POV. But no reason why the single income couldn't be higher. Disregarding all the single applicants, regardless of their income is discrimination. That's the difference

Rejecting somebody because they are single, is not the same as rejecting a single person because of heir means/risk.

Lux23

Mellor wrote: »

Which is exactly what I said



Rejecting somebody because they are single, is not the same as rejecting a single person because of heir means/risk.

The effect is the same though, so legally you're on shaky ground.

Mellor

Lux23 wrote: »

The effect is the same though, so legally you're on shaky ground.

Not really. The law (in this case) regards motive, not effect.

Same way it’s illegal to deny somebody a job because of their sexuality. But it’s fine if a straight person is hired ahead of a straight person because he was the better applicant - even though the effect is the same.

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

And an employer should be able to say they only want to hire a certain gender.

An employer can choose the most suitable applicant and that may well mean a choosing a specific gender depending on the requirements.

A construction company who wants a laborer to do heavy lifting is not going to hire a petite 5ft city girl as she would be incapable of doing the job. A Lingerie store is not going to hire a man as most customers will refuse to have a man fitting them for a bra.

Choosing a working couple over a single person or a couple without kids over a couple with them is a business decision. You have lower risk in the first case and lower wear and tear in the second. Same for avoiding HAP. These are business decisions and having to hide all this under the veil of “equality” helps no one and wastes everyone’s time.

pinkyeye

OP, the fact that you've only gotten 2 viewings in 2 years is surprising really. My daughter is going to at least two viewings a week. She's not getting anywhere yet mind you but that's another battle.

These would be my tips:

1. Check Daft early in the morning each day and email the new ads straight away. LL's often get hundreds of emails and will only read the first 50 probably.

2. Comprise a good email. State that you're working, how long you're in your job, salary etc. Also make sure it's well written grammatically, I know this seems silly but every little helps to get that initial viewings.

3. State that you have a deposit and 1st months rent available and you're ready to move straight away. As someone else said an empty property costs a LL money so they're looking for speed too.

Hope this helps.

John_Rambo

Kash Mango Stomach wrote: »

An employer can choose the most suitable applicant and that may well mean a choosing a specific gender depending on the requirements.

A construction company who wants a laborer to do heavy lifting is not going to hire a petite 5ft city girl as she would be incapable of doing the job. A Lingerie store is not going to hire a man as most customers will refuse to have a man fitting them for a bra.

These are really really excellent analogies Nox. Brings such clarity to the thread, thanks. (especial the petite 5ft cit girl doing heavy lifting. Crazy situation and probably dangerous to her and her colleagues)