Smokers?

[Jacque]

I add a special conditions page to my leases, one clause which stipulates that no smoking is to be done inside the house. Have had no trouble with it so far, but one PM I recently spoke to (QLD) said that such a condition might be considered discriminatory and therefore not allowed?
Has anyone else had any experience with this type of clause?

 

[geoffw]

At a guess, I'd suggest it would be possible to enforce.

But what may be easier to enforce might be a clause which suggests that any evidence of tobacco smoke would include an extra cleaning fee. (Just a thought).

 

[Pete]

"No smoking in premises" is in lease agreements that one of my propery managers uses.

They are a major real estate company.

Suggests that you should be OK.

 

[brains]

They are probably agreeing to the clause and then smoking their lungs out..... What next? No Laughing.

 

[natmarie73]

Unless it is specified in Anti-Discrimination legislation, it is not discriminatory. The only areas you can be caught discriminating against are areas such as race, age, sexual preference, gender, disability, pregnancy and potential pregnancy etc etc.

No legislation mentions smoking as a point of discrimination so you are OK to put this clause in if you want.

Your PM is probably a smoker.

 

[Jacque]

An old post resurrected because it's happening again!
I'm sure NatMarie was spot on, but does anyone know FOR SURE?
Asy? Kevin? JoannaK?
Be interested to hear what you guys know about this legislation....

 

[Peter 14.7]

Hi

I guess it may discourage frantic smokers but again how do you know. Smell is not a guarantee.

Does it lower your insurance?

Peter 147

 

[Lplate]

This is a Qld perspective however the reasoning should be the same.

It has got nothing to do with discrimination.

A rule against smoking is unlikely to be inconsistent with your rental regulation. So you can put it in your lease.

Problem is how do you enforce it, because a tribunal will be unlikely to find it (smoking) to be sufficient reason for eviction, even if it is a condition of the lease.

As well, on termination of the lease you are not going to get an entirely clean house. That is, you will not be able to force cleaning of all surfaces, curtains etc to bring them back to the non-smoker 'standard'. Tribunal will probably argue that it is part of the wear and tear - that smoking grime/odor/damage is one of the expected 'costs' of renting property (ie part of your 'to be expected' maintenance overheads).

Unfortunately, not many non-smoking tenants want to rent a property that reeks of fags and air freshener. You get the same problem where smelly pets have been inside.

PS Although tenants are expected to clean their grime from wall and floors, this is by ordinary cleaning methods (which of course do not remove tar) and must take into account normal wear and tear. So tenant can say they washed with soap and water (and a general lack of elbow grease) and it was as clean as s/he could get it, considering normal wear and tear.

Further, dilapitation caused by smoking is the landlord's concern - can't make the tenant pay for it. Not fair huh?

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

As a tenant and a smoker, I personally would have no problem with such a clause (I smoke outside anyway - hate the smell inside). But that's just me. Unfortunately Jacque I can't help much more than that, and I can't speak for any smokers other than myself. Oh, and I make the other people I live with and visitors smoke outside also!

 

[Jimmyjamjars]

Smoking

Dirty, filthy smokers

 

[asy]

Your PM is probably a smoker.

Most are...

I think it comes with the stress...

Jax, Nat is right, it's not illegal to say no smoking in the house, however, it's almost impossible to enforce.

Unless you go around there unanounced and catch them... Oh, wait, we aren't allowed to do that!! hehe

Seriously though, it may deter militant smokers who may see it as an infringement on their rights.

It may work, and it may not, but hey, in my opinion, it's worth the shot!

asy

 

[Gill Bates]

How about installing (sensitive) smoke alarms. This would tend make smokers not want to rent the place.
There also needs to be condition in lease that tennent not disable them.

 

[Jimmyjamjars]

Smoke Alarms

Gill,
I don't think the sensitivity is an issue, last thing you want if too sensitive is complaints from tenants every time they make toast. As for disabling them, I use 240 v smoke alarms with 9 volt battery back-up, wired into the lighting circuit, so to disable the alarms, they need to kill the lighting circuit breaker in the switchboard. The topic of this thread troubles me a bit though, I'm not a smoker but, is it really that much of a problem ?? The bottom line is the entry condition report and the exit condition report. If the walls were clean on entry but nicotine stained on exit, get them to clean them to standard or deduct bond money. I have no objections to smokers in my properties. If you had an IP empty for 6 or 7 weeks and the PM rang you and said they had someone to go in, but, sh or he is a smoker, what are you going to say. I know what I'd be saying.
JIM

 

[Jacque]

Well, after the no. of houses I've seen that scream "smokers live here" as soon as you walk through the door, I'd still say no and look for another tenant. It permeates everything and is virtually impossible to remove. When my brother moved into a smoker's house as his PPOR, the rooms needed repainting as the walls and ceilings (bedroom and living rooms) were so badly nicotine stained that nothing would get rid of it. Even afterwards, when we would go to visit you could still smell it in the bedroom.

OK for your own house, but not in mine. If you wanted a smoke at my place, I'd be telling you where to go- outside

 

[JumJones]

ok - so why not rent exclusively to smokers ????

I wonder what % of tenants would pay a slight premium for the privilege of being able to smoke inside? Being a non-smoker I dont know what value you could place on this. Maybe advertising for smokers could put you in a unique position of targetting a cross section of tenants that feel discriminated against (even though legaly that isnt the case).

If you rent a 'smoky' house to a smoker, do they even notice? You may only have to repaint when staining is a bad issue, and in that case you could arguably deduct that from a bond?


Same theory goes for pets I guess.

Thoughts?

 

[Jacque]

ok - so why not rent exclusively to smokers ????

I wonder what % of tenants would pay a slight premium for the privilege of being able to smoke inside? Being a non-smoker I dont know what value you could place on this. Maybe advertising for smokers could put you in a unique position of targetting a cross section of tenants that feel discriminated against (even though legaly that isnt the case).

If you rent a 'smoky' house to a smoker, do they even notice? You may only have to repaint when staining is a bad issue, and in that case you could arguably deduct that from a bond?


Same theory goes for pets I guess.

Thoughts?

Hehe Can you imagine what the insurance companies would say? Advertising to attract inside smokers? I can see it now- a dearer premium for the increased perceived risk.......

As for pets, I think that landlords should have the right to have a special pet bond or an increased price, as they can cause more than your normal "wear and tear" on such things as polished floors and garden beds.
Perhaps we could even selectively advertise for pets that smoke

 

[crest133]

Hi Jacque
Sometimes the glass is half full, not half empty.
Why not try increasing the rent another $10 - $20 pw, and highlight the "NON-SMOKING home available" benefit in your ads. It's a fussy niche market (like 80% of the population don't smoke, but not sure what % of renters are non smokers). There are prospective tenants out there who hate smoked homes. Unsmoked homes are hard to find and rarely advertised, so supply and demand may apply. If they think the rent is a tad high, ask them compared to what ? the other unsmoked home advertised? - there isn't one !Worth a try. good luck.
cheers
crest133

 

[geoffw]

The other side is that a valuation of a house may be affected by a house with smokers. If 80% of buyers are non smokers, and the house does not smell good, a large target market will be turned off- and a valuer may well use that when giving their val.

 

[Lplate]

I find that all tenants demand a clean, fresh house. There are many things that can affect that.

If a smoker enjoys a bit of ventilation and opens windows a bit, things are much better.

Equally, pets and cooking if not managed properly can stain and 'fug up' a dwelling.

We do not exclude smokers, I think they cop enough flack already and there are other, more serious concerns to address.

 

[wrappack]

A few random ramblings worth approx 2% of a dollar

About 30% of the population are smokers. But, if you examine the upper and lower socioeconomics, the rates are very different. Much less than 30 % of high income earners are regular smokers, but more than 30% (I think it is about 45%) of people on social security are smokers. Also, the amount smoked by each is vastly different. Again, the low income earners smoke significantly more each day than high income earners. (After all, if you are on the dole, you have plenty of time to get through 2 packs of winnie blues a day, but if you are a high income earner {particularly if you are dealing with clients/general public}, it is very hard to be a heavy smoker)

Interestingly, smoking is actually beneficial (in the short term) for depression and some psychiatric diseases like schizophrenia. Thus, when depressed schizophrenics try to give up the smokes, they often need an increase in medication.

The heavy smokers are also disproportianately affected by alcohol and other drugs (particulartly cannibis). ps did a bit of a research project in high school- all smokers had tried cannabis at some stage, whereas it was a much lower % in the non smokers.

So, if you try to screen out smokers, you will also have a smaller chance of renting to people with mental health, drug and alcohol and social problems.