Posted on: 29-09-04 09:35:29
For the most part I'm sure this is just a tactic used by landlords. A lot of times landlords try to come up with such things to 'dump' their less desirable apartments. eg. they claim not to have availability or in this case take cover behind things such as a 'law' so that they can make people rent undesirable apartments(undesirable does not mean bad, but ones with less demand).
It is a possibility and I have seen it happen. Of course there are laws regarding overcrowding(like only 1 person in a studio/efficiency) in most places.. but never heard of a such a law(regarding opposite sex not being able to share a room)
While I agree that there might not be any law to the effect since no one has actually been able to find one, it makes me wonder why landlords/property managers flatly refuse tenancy giving this excuse? If they do not have any apartment they would say so, just like they say that do not have 3 bedroom apt, to accomodate everyone.
Or is this excuse more for racial discrimination? that is if they do not want to rent out to a particular race/nationality/origin?
Chandresh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chandresh
Advice is free – lessons I charge for!!
Quote:
Orginally posted by chandresh
While I agree that there might not be any law to the effect since no one has actually been able to find one, it makes me wonder why landlords/property managers flatly refuse tenancy giving this excuse? If they do not have any apartment they would say so, just like they say that do not have 3 bedroom apt, to accomodate everyone.
Or is this excuse more for racial discrimination? that is if they do not want to rent out to a particular race/nationality/origin?
Chandresh
Hydro and water charges included in the rent amount. Larger number of occupants = more consumption.
agreed - higher expenses for more occupants - but would they deny tenancy just for 1 extra person, that too a child for additional expenses? Moreover, all these apartments have flexibility in rental - the property manager can always add $10-20 for additional person and then let it out.
Chandresh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chandresh
Advice is free – lessons I charge for!!
they cant ask for more money for more occupants outright unless you as a tenant offer to pay more, because then thats discrimination and is no longer negotiation...
landlords are allowed to fix how much rent they want from a unit, and have the option of negotiating down from that number, but are not allowed to enforce a higher charge because you have more children... they have an obligation to be fair in matters of rent across the board... they may not offer you the same place at a higher rental than they would to someone else because of how many children you have... regardless of who pays for the hydro...
bottom line is, if they refuse (excluding overcrowding bylaws) tenancy to a family based on how many children the family has, its discrimination... so they use these vauge "laws" to deny tenancy instead hoping the average tenant does not know any better...
ps: its not just higher utilities, but also property damage that they think about... the assumption is, the more kids you have they more they will damage the rental unit... its a fair and an unfair assumption at the same time, but landlords are not allowed to say it out loud...
pps: a lot of the times, when you add up mortgage payments, property taxes, utilities and maintainence of units, there really isnt that much of a profit margin for the landlords... it takes very little for a unit to go from being a profitable rental to one in which the landlord suffers a loss...
Agree with your comments bighead.
You are right, the wear and tear factor (that you described as damage) is pretty important too. In addition to the cost of such wear and tear on the apartment itself, one also has to consider the impact of wear and tear on common facilities within the building (ranging from the elevator to the swimming pool, etc).
As far as discrimination is concerned, I don’t think that is very practical in Toronto’s environment. If you view the attached link, you’ll see that out of Toronto’s population of about 4.6 million, about 1.7 million (representing about 36% of the population) were visible minorities. Rental market conditions are pretty soft right now with a good deal of vacancies. Would be a disaster if a rental company were to exclude 36% of the population.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/Details/details1pop2.cfm?SEARCH=BEGINS&PSGC=35&SGC=35535&A=&LANG=E&Province=35&PlaceName=Toronto&CSDNAME=Toronto&CMA=&SEARCH=BEGINS&DataType=1&TypeNameE=Census%20Metropolitan%20Area&ID=853
