I’m researching ways to fix common frustrations like unsuitable inquiries, unverified references, and personality mismatches that cost weeks of lost rent (£500-£2k).
Have you had a ‘bad match’ in the last 12 months? Do you think features like compatibility scores, verified refs, or even pre-screened candidates would be worth having? Let me know if you have experienced this too and what ways you think would solve these issues as from my time having lodgers I realised compatibility is so important for this type of lodger landlord relationship.
Any process that sifts tenants on personality or other vague factors is likely to be regarded as discriminatory and illegal. This is a business and the provision of services doesnt depend on whether you like the person or they match your personality. The fines for discrimination in letting from May this year will be £30,000 - £40,000, including taking lodgers, so I suggest you abandon the idea of a matching process and stick to regular forms of assessment and referencing.
Thanks for your reply, that is something to consider though I assume the lodger landlord relationship may be more lenient towards this, certainly you can discriminate on gender for this whereas for tenants you cannot. Still, maybe the personality matching and other factors is too much of a data and discrimination hurdle to overcome… unless limited to lifestyle e.g. cleanliness, hours in home etc
Basically you are asking what makes a good ‘Find a tenant’ service (by a lettings agent or LL)
OR already allows LLs to use screening questions, and LLs can already choose to verify whatever references they obtain. So specific factual filter/screening questions etc are already available but they vary for every LL and for different tenants (you will ask different questions if they want to have a pet for example). You could expand this to ‘what questions to ask if sharing a rental with strangers ‘ which is more widely applicable - but may be different for student houses than other HMOs.
Not sure personality is practical enough or sensible- you dont want to choose based on if they are an introvert or extrovert or whether they are shy or confident just on their actual behaviour.
If you’ve ever used any dating apps you’ll know that ‘compatability’ as determined by algorithms, data supplied and lots of chatting is no real predictor of how well people will get along in real life. One person’s view of being tidy is another’s OCD. So I’d not think it’s possible to replace face to face meetings and evidence from a tenant’s current/previous tenancies.
Ps an agreed trial period at the start would probably be good. RRA helps with this by removing 6 or 12m fixed tenancies so people aren’t tied in as long
If you have 2 applicants of a similar income and one you like better than the other is that discrimination? I have not chosen certain people in the past because of their attitude , i do not tell them why, i keep that to myself.
767.This exception does not apply to race discrimination in disposing of premises. It only applies to discrimination in relation to permission to dispose of premises where it is based on religion or belief or sexual orientation.
That’s what everyone does. However, from May, tenants can complain to the Council about discrimination if they have a grudge about not getting the property and the Council will have a legal duty to investigate it. Unless you can show concrete and reasonable reasons for choosing one over the other, its a very big civil penalty or fine. Landlords now need to be extra careful about recording all tenant interviews and every step of their selection process.
The RRA specifically adds benefits discrimination and discrimination against tenants with children to the list and makes it a legal duty for Councils to investigate.
@David122 surely even with a civil offence the council does have to have substantive evidence not just an accusation from a potential tenant. Innocent till proved guilty. They can’t just take the word of any disgruntled potential tenant.
There is no reason to disclose the reasons or rules a LL uses for choosing one tenant over another and they don’t know anything about other tenants and the best thing to do is not give them any grounds to think they may have been discriminated against. So eg say that you consider every tenant’s affordability based on the referencing and def don’t say ‘I don’t accept people on benefits’ etc
I will give an example man arrives using foul language , another arrives and talks with out swearing. Both earn the same . Guess who I will choose? I prefer certain types of friends , so I CHOOSE someone who suits my outlook on life
I have checked all that. I am thinking that some would be tenants may still complain Citing a false reason. “I am black” “I am gay” “I am on benefits” and you say to the judge “I just do not like him”. Anything can be inferred to be discrimination. whether legal or not. Seems like a future minefield
@Colin3 but ‘inferred to be’ isn’t at all the same as legally proved. There will be an awful lot of caselaw on this. I doubt any of it says choosing someone who doesn’t swear vs someone who does is discrimination under the Equalities Act.
If you give no reason or hint to tenant of why they weren’t chosen, and if asked by the Council simply say it was based on the referencing information received about affordability etc it is going to be very hard for any Council Officer or court to demonstrate that was not what you did as they won’t have access to those files, and certainly not positive evidence that you discriminated.
They do actually have to present facts/evidence to support a claim google
‘Check what you need to show the court in a discrimination claim - Citizens Advice ‘
The RRA places a duty on Councils to investigate if an applicant claims discrimination and the claim is credible. They will require written evidence from the landlord on their decision making process and the burden of proof has been changed by the RRA from beyond reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.
I have said before that I suspect Councils may be over-run with discrimination claims by disgruntled tenants and applicants as there is no downside for them to making a complaint and even beyond their legal duty to investigate, Councils are incentivised to do so because they can keep the civil penalties they impose.
@David122 there’s was no downside to them complaining at the moment. If there really are so many disgruntled tenants out there who will complain on these grounds that Councils will be “overrun” (which is your suspicion but which you’ve provided no evidence to support), that’s all the more reason they will need to prioritize their efforts on those cases where the tenant provides credible evidence that will stand up in court. Councils are not getting extra £ to deal with this and dealing with genuinely rogue landlords or blatant discrimination will take priority.
And they do still need evidence to prove discrimination not simply the tenant’s disgruntled complaining. Even with balance of probability
In these circumstances any LL can write down ‘I based my decision on the information provided by the potential tenants on areas such as affordability’ and the Council has no reason to dispute that. They cannot go on fishing expeditions requiring information about other candidates because that will breach data protection. So it will be hard for them to prove anything in the circumstances @Colin3 describes.
