I have recently seen lot of rental Ads on Facebook where the advertiser is putting one of the following restrictions
It's either a granny flat or house so no strata managed scheme.
Would it be classified as discriminatory and are there any laws that prohibit these kind of restrictions?
No alcohol however is just odd
Perhaps a muslim landlord.
So no bacon or tattooes.
I wouldn't rent a place if I couldn't eat bacon. Even my muslim girlfriend eats bacon. Although not "pork". Premarital sex is fine with her, but not alcohol. Doesn't make much sense; but that's religion.
Premarital sex is fine with her, but not alcohol. Doesn't make much sense; but that's religion.
Would you rather it was the other way around? :P
but that's religion.
I think people just pick and choose how they follow their religion; I didn't think any meat from a pig would be allowed…
@Scrooge McDuck: This is just her interpretation of religion. Just because she thinks premarital sex is fine, does not mean a religion has approved that. Just because Hitler did something, does not mean that whole religion approved that. See what Islam or any other religion says not what its followers say or do.
@[Deactivated]: Well the conversation went like this:
QT: What should we order?
Scrooge: Let's have this!
QT: That's pork.
Scrooge: What's wrong with pork?
QT: I'm muslim.
Scrooge: But you ordered Caesar salad yesterday.
QT: …
Scrooge: That has pork in it…
QT: That's bacon.
I changed the subject so as not to ruin it for her.
@Scrooge McDuck: In places like Indonesia beef is commonly substituted for pork in the bacon making process. QT may be accustomed to thinking beef bacon is everywhere.
@Scrooge McDuck: It doesn't make sense because she picks and chooses what's right and wrong. That's her choice though 🤷🏻♂️
Perhaps a muslim landlord.
Lol, since we did Sharia law quietly become enforceable?
Who gives a toss if the landlord is the Pope himself; religious mandates for other parties in a lease agreement is absolute nonsense.
You don't think people should have a right to choose their tenants?
I wouldn't want to occupy a home where I wasn't welcome, especially a granny flat where the landlord lives in the main residence.
You don't think people should have a right to choose their tenants?
Yes, you choose a tenant. You don't choose what kind of life they get to live on your property.
Landlords don't have a right to impose their religious beliefs on their tenants. That is a protected right in this country; the freedom to personally decide what you believe in.
The landlord's offering a place to stay, not a religious retreat/cult commune.
I wouldn't want to occupy a home where I wasn't welcome, especially a granny flat where the landlord lives in the main residence.
Well the OP didn't really mention specifics; but even in the case of a granny flat, I'd consider that encroaching well beyond the landlord's jurisdiction.
I mean, if they're prohibiting alcohol on religious grounds, then they would presumably (if they're of some Abrahamic denomination) take issue with any number of irreligious behaviours on their property, including sex outside of marriage, pornography, consumption of pork, heck even the performance of certain music.
Where do those limitations end exactly? Should every tenant have to rearrange their entire lifestyle to suit one particularly pedantic and overzealous landlord or should the landlord learn to reconcile their differences with the fact that not every tenant is going to be a pious little altar boy? Statistically, the landlord is the anomaly here, not the tenant.
If the landlord is that deeply troubled by such behaviour, maybe they should relocate to Saudi Arabia if they really want to be told how to think and how to live inside their own home.
Yes, you choose a tenant. You don't choose what kind of life they get to live on your property.
If one can do the former they can screen for the latter.
Statistically, the landlord is the anomaly here, not the tenant.
So what's the issue? You can't legislate thoughts nor for people to get along. I'd just find somewhere I was welcome.
they can screen for the latter.
They can screen for things actually relevant to being an eligible tenant (i.e. income, marital status, tenancy history, etc.)
Alcohol consumption doesn't exclude people from being an eligible, responsible tenant, nor should it.
Pets, smoking and other such restrictions are clearly grounded in property damage/insurance liability concerns.
Your only argument for why alcohol should be a discretionary restriction at the landlord's behest is because "it might not sit well with the owner". That's rubbish. A beer bottle won't throw itself against a wall apropos of nothing. Having alcohol in a house doesn't reliably predict anything about a tenant's behaviour or likelihood of causing issues to the landlord.
If I have a granny flat and I state on the ad that no Muslims are allowed, citing potential concerns about extremist beliefs that don't agree with mine, terrorist ties/sympathies and the possibility of explosives storage/production, would that be an okay basis to discriminate on? Because that's basically what your reasoning for not allowing alcohol is.
So what's the issue? You can't legislate thoughts nor for people to get along.
Well can your employer dictate what kind of life you can lead in private? Can the government tell you what kind of lifestyle is permissible? (I mean, they will try to anyway but in principle, they shouldn't.)
What right does a mere landlord have to make such demands? They're not legally-empowered to do so, they have the same standing in the law and in society as everyone else and the relevant Residential and Tenancies Act in their respective state pretty much spells out every possible grey area on issues such as this.
This is just petty tyranny and nanny-state bureaucracy at it's finest.
If this were an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia or Iran, I could see your point, but it's not. Alcohol drinkers far outnumber teetotalers in Australia, for better or worse, and saying you can't rent a property if you consume alcohol is bordering on being unfairly prejudiced and discriminatory.
This is just petty tyranny and nanny-state bureaucracy at it's finest.
You are sorely confused. I'm commenting on how to resolve an issue in a free society i.e. rent somewhere else.
You are arguing for government to intervene in the matter of to whom a landlord offers their property for lease.
If a landlord can choose their tenant, as is the status quo, they can also choose to exclude tenants by any attributes they're able to ascertain in the screening process. I'm not arguing for or against anyone's particular choices.
And no; not a landlord, an employer, nor a government can dictate your lifestyle so long as you're free to go somewhere else. You've already asserted that this landlord is a statistical anomaly so going somewhere else shouldn't be an issue.
You are arguing for government to intervene in the matter of to whom a landlord offers their property for lease.
Where did I argue that?
I'm saying quite the opposite; landlords shouldn't act like petty tyrants and impose their personal beliefs on other people.
The landlord's the one trying to act like they have some weight of authority behind them to make these arbitrary rules.
We're talking about what's legal and justified, not about what "people feel" is right; if such a matter went before court or a tenancy tribunal I'm fairly certain the landlord would have no legal basis for a "no alcohol" prohibition.
If such a prohibition was done on the grounds that it might impinge upon someone else's right to quiet enjoyment of their property (like a landlord living next to a granny flat), I could give that a lot more weight and credence (though that could easily be covered by a "no loud/excessive noise or parties" disclaimer which is perfectly legal as there are numerous laws governing acceptable noise levels). However, on the basis that it may offend someone's delicate sensibilities that you're quietly sipping wine next door and not bothering anyone, that's complete BS.
If a landlord can choose their tenant, as is the status quo, they can also choose to exclude tenants by any attributes they're able to ascertain in the screening process.
You can't reliably "screen" for alcohol consumption, hence the entire notion falls on its face. What are you going to do? Piss test them? Get them to swear on a Bible/Quran that they won't have a drop? Have random spot inspections for contraband booze like its 1920's Prohibition-era America?
The ease with which tenants could circumvent such restrictions really makes them pointless to consider in the first place.
And no; not a landlord, an employer, nor a government can dictate your lifestyle so long as you're free to go somewhere else.
Mate, your idealism and utopian outlook belie a naivety about what life is like for some people.
Some renters are living paycheque-to-paycheque and can only afford to live in a narrow geographical area. Landlords turning down renters that meet all of the qualifications to rent their property but don't measure up to their subjective moral/ethical standards is just discriminatory.
This is precisely the same problem with affirmative action/equality hiring processes that look at every irrelevant attribute other than whether a person is the best qualified for a particular role, to determine who should be hired.
Where did I argue that?
It's a reasonable presumption. Who else would enforce the standards you want? You're referring to laws and courts in your subsequent paragraphs.
landlords shouldn't act like petty tyrants and impose their personal beliefs on other people.
No one has mentioned anything like that here. Choosing a tenant doesn't have any effect on the lifestyle choices of any other tenants nor society at large. And if they choose a tenant who already aligns with their attributes, that individual won't be affected either.
You can't reliably "screen" for alcohol consumption, hence the entire notion falls on its face. What are you going to do?
Ask what their favourite beer is? Or about their religious beliefs if that's your actual concern?
Piss test them?
Don't be ridiculous. Do the police piss test you at an RBT checkpoint?
Who else would enforce the standards you want? You're referring to laws and courts in your subsequent paragraphs.
And you want random individuals in society to have the power to arbitrarily deny the right to housing, a basic human right, to otherwise completely qualified and eligible tenants because they don't want to agree to their Puritanical restrictions?
I'm for the government protecting basic human rights; I'm not for massive overreaches of government power and this hardly qualifies as such.
It's quite ironic you keep harping on about government interference in private affairs, yet you're all for outsourcing the same illogical bureaucracy to the petty bourgeoisie of society, who aren't accountable or answerable to anyone.
No one has mentioned anything like that here.
Except you literally have.
You're arguing for discrimination on the basis of personal beliefs which is a slippery slope to discriminating on religious/racial/ethnic grounds.
If we accept peoples views on alcohol consumption can be guided by religious views or moral/philosophical ideals (and religious beliefs are already protected from discrimination), then we accept that such views form part of an innate existential nature, like someone's race or ethnic background, hence trying to change people's personal views is like asking them to not be part of the racial/ethnic background they were born into.
As has been said already, have a look at what the actual law says as to what constitutes discrimination in this context:
It is unlawful for a landlord or real estate agent to discriminate against you:
That sounds an awful lot like trying to impose a "no alcohol" restriction to me.
Choosing a tenant doesn't have any effect on the lifestyle choices of any other tenants nor society at large.
We're not talking about other tenants or society at large.
We're talking about the plight of a hypothetical tenant who has every right to rent a particular property and a hypothetical landlord deciding not to let them due to a completely extraneous and irrelevant piece of information.
This kind of behaviour on a larger scale would certainly begin to have wide-reaching demographic effects anyway, if landlords felt emboldened to start making all sorts of crazy demands of tenants and what constituted "permissible" activities on their property.
Ask what their favourite beer is? Or about their religious beliefs if that's your actual concern?
Wow, what a brilliant idea. I guess that would be the first time someone would lie to someone else for personal gain, right?
Now you're being facetious or just incredibly naive, which is odd coming from you as your posts usually give the impression of someone who has their head screwed on straight.
Don't be ridiculous. Do the police piss test you at an RBT checkpoint?
This entire concept is ridiculous.
A supposedly fully-grown adult telling another fully-grown adult what they can and cannot do in their home.
So you hate it when Big Brother makes such impositions but the almighty landlord with his God-given right to investment properties is a law unto himself? Nice mental gymnastics, mate.
And yes, police can order saliva, blood or urine tests at roadside stops if there's reasonable suspicion that someone is under the influence of drugs. Swab tests are pretty routine at booze bus checkpoints these days.
And you want random individuals in society to have the power to arbitrarily deny the right to housing,
There is more than one home available on the market. I don't think anyone should have a right to someone else's property. I've already made this point, so I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere.
@Miami Mall Alien: Sure, alcohol consumption has never and can never harm person, property or society. :rolleyes:
Whilst I agree with you about the need to preserve certain liberties, saying alcohol consumption is less relevant than marital status is absurd- what does being single/married have to do with tenancy? What an absurd assertion.
Sure, alcohol consumption has never and can never harm person, property or society. :rolleyes:
Nice insertion of something I never said.
saying alcohol consumption is less relevant than marital status is absurd- what does being single/married have to do with tenancy? What an absurd assertion.
Marital/parental status is something a lot of lease applications will ask you to declare or at least, it can be reliably inferred from the mention of co-tenants/signers, co-dependants/children being listed on an application.
No serious lease application would ask you to declare your alcohol consumption preferences.
That's the difference. Marital/parental status is a useful piece of data to have in order for a landlord to decide to give a property to one tenant over another in cases where you have a glut of tenants applying. It indicates the presence of children or likelihood of that and it also indicates tertiary factors for consideration such as longer-term lease agreements.
That a person drinks alcohol tells a landlord absolutely nothing about what they will be like as a tenant nor should it characterise one person as a preferable choice to another.
Moreover, such a demand from a landlord seriously hints at some intense control freak complex and would be a massive red flag to avoid having them as a landlord.
such a demand from a landlord seriously hints at some intense control freak complex and would be a massive red flag to avoid having them as a landlord.
I'd much rather identify and avoid that when browsing rental advertisements than later on. More still than after I'd already moved in.
what does being single/married have to do with tenancy?
If you ever go to a sharehouse, you'll understand.
It's an issue when someone's other half is "visiting almost every day", but doesn't contribute anything.
@Miami Mall Alien: Agree. Having previously worked in R/E many years ago they had to be very careful of discrimination as they could be taken to court.
@Shells123: I think a quote from your Tenant's Union link there pretty much nails the coffin shut on the issue of whether a landlord prohibiting alcohol consumption is discriminatory or not.
while you are renting accommodation by imposing terms or conditions which are discriminatory (e.g. limiting the people you can invite to visit)
This to me sounds very much like saying "you can't have big parties" which is fairly comparable to saying "you can't drink alcohol".
Now again, things change slightly in the eyes of the law if it's a shared accommodation or not, but due to the OP's vagueness about what kind of property this ad was for (they mentioned granny flats OR houses), I'm going to say the far more common and likely option would be a house with no sharing arrangement.
I doubt any tenancy tribunal would side with a landlord if such a case came before them where a tenant complained about a landlord trying to prohibit them from drinking alcohol.
Or they just implicitly saying "no parties" in the premise.
No alcohol is odd. I kinda get it if it’s a granny flat though, as that can be almost like a flatmate/living in close proximity. I’ve flatted with an alcoholic before and it wasn’t great (noisy when drunk, constantly losing their keys, angry when hung over, took all my booze). I also know someone who had an alcoholic flat mate who they had to call an ambulance for and clean sh*t off the floor after they were unconscious and soiled themselves. Obviously this doesn’t apply to most drinkers, but perhaps this person has been burned by a bad experience.
Banning alcohol in a rental is like banning the cooking of curry and deep fried food, impossible to enforce
No pets may not be legal in Victoria at least
You can put what even you want but will the tenant accept and obey is another story. If it is a owner market then you may have a chance.
Or are you willing to lower your rent so that the tenant is happy to obey? If the tenant is not obeying your rules, what are you going to do?also how can the REA enforce no alcohol? I don't drink but I stock wine at home.
Landlords cannot put whatever conditions/restrictions they want.
It is illegal to discriminate on numerous grounds. 'No kids' for example would be illegal.
However, smoking, drinking and pets are not protected classes.
Pets is protected in Victoria now I believe.
No alcohol is odd, maybe no parties or more than overnight guests is more commonplace
In my state it's part of the legislation that a tenant cannot keep a pet without the landlord's permission. As such I charge my tenants a little bit extra for having pets 😉 They have no issue.
Weird poll questions, seems like yes and yes answers. They are not exclusive at all
OP loses no matter what.
Flap the Flapping Flappers
Have never seen no alcohol. The others are completely fair. Smokers stink the place up, same with pets.
i heard the no pet become more relaxed, is this true? very not fair for landlord…….
https://www.realestate.com.au/advice/renting-pets-landlords-…
Seems VIC has made some changes but pretty much still the same for everyone. Need permission.
In Victoria a landlord cannot refuse a tenant's request to keep a pet without reasonable grounds. Furthermore the refusal must be lodged with VCAT within 14 days of receiving the request to be valid. In a recent reddit post it was claimed that there was only two such refusals lodged in the first six months of the new scheme and that VCAT had overturned both of them.
Sucks to be in VIC then if you're a landlord not wanting pets.
How can they police no alcohol ?
Check your bin.
Throw it over neighbours fence
Smash the bottles and flush them down the toilet along with food scraps, wipes and anything that will go down.
Fatbergs don't build themselves!
Your poll options are both for the same thing
In Vic you can’t refuse a tenant with a pet, so here that one is discrimination.
Yeh, it's a pointless law/ rule though, as the owner can just not accept the applicant
You don't have to declare that you have a pet. You are entitled to have a pet after the contract had been signed.
In NSW you have to allow pets. Which I don’t personally agree with.
If you want to limit your place to a smaller pool of people e.g non drinkers and smokers. Then so be it. You should be allowed to be picky with who you rent to.
There are plenty of landlords who wouldn’t care and that’s great for them. Someone shouldn’t be forced to rent to someone they don’t want.
Should landlords be able to refuse people with kids and people of certain ethnicities too? I've seen a lot more damage from greasy cooking and poorly behaved kids than pets during inspections.
@jolakot - So long as a tenant pays on time, maintains the place and doesn't cause me grief I'm happy.
If a landlord wants to not rent to people with kids or only those who wear yellow hats then they should be allowed to. It's their place and they're reducing the amount of tenants they can pick from. Impacting their own asset/investment/cashflow.
I don't see why the government has to make rules on who/how I rent my place out. e.g. Allowing animals etc.
How would you personally feel if 90% of the rental market banned you for something inherent?
The free-market argument for discrimination (businesses/people won't discriminate because it'd lower their customer pool and thus reduce profits) has almost never worked in the real world. The only circumstances it does work in is when there's significantly more supply than demand, otherwise there's little to no cost penalty for discrimination against a minority group, given the rental can only be given to 1 party.
@Jolakot: @jolakot - I don't agree with you on this. If you are a landlord, you want your place to be rented out. You will need to keep paying for your property mortgage, rates, maintenance until it's rented out. It will be in your best. Say you're a tenant who wants single males only. It's in your best interest to find a tenant asap. If you're happy to wait till the right tenant comes along then so be it.
In the case of NSW, I don't think it's right that animals be allowed in all apartments. If someone is happy to rent their apartment to an animal owner, great and good for them. But people should be allowed to dictate who they have renting their place.
@field1985: @field1985 - Not every landlord has a mortgage. It’s my asset/investment, I should be allowed to dictate what kind of person I rent it to. At the end of the day the risk and gamble lies with me.
If the government wants people to rent to anyone then the government can offer more public housing to the people.
If you don’t like the situation then consider buying your own property.
@field1985: Loving all these downvotes from dodgy landlords. That clearly have no place in providing adequate housing, that younger generations could buy, if it wasn't for them hoarding multiple "investments".
It's not long now until enough of these boomer bastards die and our generation will roll them for everything.
@field1985: @field1985 - I am a young person with a mortgage. I worked and sacrificed to buy my place.
When the time comes to rent it out, I want someone who will maintain and care for the place.
“Hoarding” properties has not pushed prices up. Mass immigration and low interest rates have.
You seem to think landlords owe you some right, they’re the ones taking on the risk. Hence the scrutiny.
@StonedWizard: Congratulations on being drawn into the ponzi just before the collapse. I hope paying a mortgage for a property that the bank has repossessed in the coming depression doesn't bother you.
“Hoarding” by investors has unequivocally pushed prices up. Home ownership rates are at all-time lows (less then 30% own their home), while investing and renting are at all-time highs. Source
"I want someone who will maintain and care for the place."
Maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord, not the tenant. Why do landlords and landlord wannabe's like yourself have this bizarre belief? If it's your property YOU PAY to maintain it.. that's why the tenant pays you RENT.
The tenant's only responsibility is to inform the landlord of maintenance issues and allow access to resolve them.
The tenant has a responsibility to return the property in the state they received it, minus reasonable "wear and tear", which does not even include getting the carpets cleaned (unless it is specified on the lease).
You seem to think tenants owe you something?
@field1985: @Field1985 -we’ve just gone through the first recession and prices in Sydney barely moved. So long as I can keep my job then I can pay my mortgage. You seem angry that you rent.
Hoarding hasn’t pushed prices up. At the end of the day you pay what you can. If I can afford to pay more $$$ for a place then I will get it. Rates are at their lowest, so people can afford to borrow more. If rates go up, this will change.
It’s both parties responsibility to maintain and care for the place. If your place has a lawn and garden, it’s your responsibility to mow the grass and maintain the garden. This will also extend to inside the place. Leaving the place as you received it is to maintain it.
It’s all about give and take. People like yourself who seem to hate landlords will always run into problems. Landlords want a good Tennent it’s in their best interest.
@StonedWizard: It’s only the tenants responsibility to mow the grass and maintain the garden if it is stipulated on the lease or because the local council requires it. A landlord has no claim unless those conditions are met. Try taking a tenant to the Tenancy Tribunal to mow their lawn and you will be laughed out of the room.
"Leaving the place as you received it is to maintain it." No, it isn't. Maintenance relates to fixtures and appliances that are part of the property and the landlords responsibility. If a toilet breaks or the entire ceiling collapses (happened to my elderly dad when he was renting from a shoddy landlord), it is the owner/landlords responsibility to repair them and provide alternative accommodation.
When rates go up (by even 0.25%) people like yourself who are mortgaged to their eyeballs will no longer be able to meet their repayments (double/tripling), which will be the cause of the repossession I mentioned in my previous comment.
"we’ve just gone through the first recession and prices in Sydney barely moved"
If you think the recession is over you are sorely, sorely mistaken. Rental deferments, eviction bans, mortgage holidays, insolvency protections and even the income support payments are all coming to an end NOW. The recession has been well masked by the LNP tripling the debt but that is about to come to a crushing end, with further lockdowns, loss of summer trade across the country and no sign of international borders reopening to fuel the immigration ponzi. This is just the beginning.. but being a young person I guess you have zero experience of what a recession actually entails.
I honestly hope your job is as stable as you seem to believe. A bank giving you a mortgage is not a sign of this, bugs bunny could get a mortgage right now, because the banks need fresh victims for their ponzi scheme, knowing full well they can repossess "your" property when the time comes. Good luck!
@field1985: @field1985 - I’m not mortgaged up to my eye balls LOL. Even if rates double I’m still fine.
The RBA has said they won’t raise rates for at least 3 years. We’ve had 11 years of rates consistently going down. As mentioned, the government and RBA will do all that they can to keep the housing marked prices up.
This thread has started to get off topic.
I stand by my earlier comment that landlords should be able to have more control over who they want to rent to. If people don’t like those terms then inspect another place. If nobody ends up renting that place, then that’s the landlords problem to deal with.
You are lucky that the government can only dictate rules. Government provide a wealth of services that directly impact the value of a property, from public transport, hospital, police and zoning laws. Those services do not stop after you pay the stamp duty. Other people's income tax directly pay to increase the value of your property. Other countries pay Land taxes, if you paid Sydney prices you'll be getting a literal mansion in a prime location.
Ethnicity no but kids, sure. Kids are damaging as hell to life and limb lol
Seen plenty of no smoking and no pets ads.
Never seen a no drinking, although a few flatmate listings did specify vegans only and other dietary restrictions.
Imagine the reverse and specifying in a flatmates wanted ad, "must at least be able to tolerate and/or be able to enjoy the sound and smell of sizzling bacon in the morning".
Drinking is Essential
Should be protected
Inject into veins is not drinking.
What?
R u ok?
Huh? ;)
Like a true King.
A Landlord should be able to stipulate whatever conditions they want.
However if it is stupid or not policeable then they are not going to get tenants they want, they will either get zero tenants or tenants hell bent on breaking the rules on day one.
What makes you think a landlord should be able to stipulate whatever conditions they want?
I have recently seen lot of rental Ads on Facebook where the advertiser is putting one of the following restrictions
Rental ads on Facebook. There's your problem.
These sound like ads for share houses/flatmates more than an actual rental properties.
My advice would be don't rent through Facebook, Scumtree or any kind of classifieds (i.e. random "For Rent" signs with mobile numbers on picket signs in front of homes); they're the preferred advertising mediums of cowboys and weirdos who don't understand real estate laws and think themselves Feudal lords.
Look for properties through Domain.com.au, Realestate.com.au, etc that are least owner-managed or advertised through a reputable property agency. I'm not saying property agencies won't screw you around, that happens regardless, but they'll stick to the same, industry-standard lease agreements that don't have nonsensical clauses like "no alcohol" in them.
No smoking
No alcohol drinking
No Pets
No smoking and no pets clauses in lease agreements have been around in the rental market since Moses wore short pants. Nothing unusual about those.
The "no alcohol" condition however (whatever the hell that refers to; as Vanilla extract, perfumes or mouth wash could technically meet that category) is retarded, unenforceable and likely bordering on illegal/contractually void.
Probably doing you a favour if you've been drinking Vanilla extract, perforums or mouth wash.
I'm saying a supposed blanket ban on any alcohol-containing substances would cover far more beyond booze and would get into all sorts of technicalities, complications and unforeseen issues that these idiot Facebook landlords never imagined (e.g. "Oh you had a friend over and they brought you a bottle of wine as a gift? Evicted. Oh you keep some Isopropyl Alcohol around to clean your PC with? Evicted.").
The vague ambiguity of that term is just absurd.
If it was "no excessive alcohol consumption during parties", I could somewhat agree with that even if I personally think it's still infringing on the lessor's right to quiet enjoyment and to not be unnecessarily interfered with in their property.
"No alcohol" is like saying "no lewd/un-Christian behaviour". It's just patently ridiculous.
Many skin care products have alcohol too, so I guess no sunscreen or moisturiser? Lmao
I think the majority of social people would understand what it means.
I think the majority of social people would understand what it means.
It means nothing, legally-speaking, because nowhere in a state's Residential and Tenancies Act or any other relevant law, is it codified what a "no alcohol allowed" restriction on a rental property means nor that it's acceptable to discriminate based on alcohol consumption.
The landlord's fanciful imagination about what they would and would not like to happen on their rental property when it's tenanted is not a legally-sound nor contractually-binding definition.
It's too vague, too open to interpretation and runs into all sorts of absurd issues when you think of extraneous scenarios the landlord didn't foresee.
Again, if it said something like "no excess alcohol consumption during parties", then that narrows it down considerably and leaves a lot less room for interpretation; even though it's still quite discriminatory.
Any landlord stupid or arrogant enough to list something as dumb as "no alcohol allowed" on a rental ad doesn't sound like a landlord of sound mind that you want to have any dealings with whatsoever, nor do they sound like someone competent enough to be managing a rental property.
We’ve, pretty much, owned cats through most of our rental time. We never had any issues with the rental agencies. You need to clean up after them, buy your own door if you want a pet door, get the carpets steam cleaned when you leave, ensure your pet has, regular, flea/worm treatment and doesn’t scratch, or chew, what they shouldn’t. You also need to ensure you remove any faeces from the yard before you leave, as well.
Their property, their conditions.. dont like it, most likely cant afford it… buy your own place… make ur own conditions.
If I had to look for a person to share my house, say a Granny Flat, I'd be choosing carefully too. May as well be upfront as opposed to wasting people's time interviewing them to see if you like them. So why not say no pets, no smoking, no drinkers, professional opera singers preferred, if these were important to you.
Where you would draw the line would be advertising for or against ethnicity, race, religion etc because then you are stereotyping and being racist.
Would you lend your phone to anybody? Or ask any stranger to look after your kid for a few mins? Or would you make judgements, ultimately based on who think you can trust more with your property/kid? Why can't landlords to the same, as long as its not actually discrimination.
What BS… of course you can drink and of course you can smoke… it is your tenancy.
What they are trying to police is the STUPID PEOPLE who party on till 4am… is that you?
Or the smoker out on their balcony allowing their filthy smoke bellow in the neighbour's window…. is that you?
Or the yapping bloody dog that the owner allows to yap yap yap yap yap yap all day and night… is that you?
And finally…. NO… the landlord can not stop you at all…. otherwise they are contravening the Tenancy Act by denying you enjoyment of your premises. This attracts a hefty fine, and may even result in a rent reduction if they persist.
Is this a first year tute paper you are late submitting? "Affects of offering two positive choices to a population with no option to negate either on susequent debate"?
Go right ahead. Let us know of your success in obtaining the warrant to ensure no smoking or drinking, and your dealings with any attempt to remove any guide-dogs or companion animals you find.
Different states have different rules. I have my own suggestion - there should be a lower rent for ANY restrictions. This should be mandated in law and the property should be advertised/offered (lease to reflect) on this basis with set minimum percentages of discounts to keep them realistic. If you want to keep your property like a gold brick in a safety deposit box by discriminating then you shouldn’t expect to get the full market rental for it.
How’s that?
"No alcohol drinking"
Not banning alcohol on the premises, just the consumption?
"That half bottle of rum is just sitting there minding its own business. I have no idea why it is only half full."
I know for a fact you can take alcohol rectally, that has to be the opposite of consumption right?
Standard on lease terms through REA's
No alcohol however is just odd