Originally Posted by beejee
I've heard all the reasons and excuses. But the bigger picture of it all is unseemly.
"please, oh please let me give you vast sums of money for the privacy and dignity of my own shelter!"
"no, not good enough, sorry".
What goes around comes around, and the same, equal treatment shall be shown in kind. Tick tock.
The whole scene leaves a very bad taste in your mouth. No way for a society to be.
Have you considered that the shelter is a an enormously expensive asset which is likely financed, and that a landlord takes a risk when entering a rental agreement with a tenant? Should the tenant stop paying, or become unable to pay rent, it is a lengthy, stressful and again, expensive process to remove them. The equal treatment you speak of is not shown to errant tenants, in most cases there are no repercussions for them.
If you owned such an asset, would you not try and limit risk by looking for references and taking deposits? Or would you be happy to let all comers take shelter, and absorb the crippling debt if they stop paying? for the benefit of society of course.
Bringing this back to the op, the property owner does not know the op, does not know how good a tenant he/she would be, but the LL might have 10 other people with references, so as the others have a track record, they are more appealing. How does the op get over not having bone fide references? money to limit the risk.