It seems many tenants are suffering discrimination at present because of x30 income requirements which are a policy which many on this site agree with despite the fact there is case law outlawing discrimination against benefit tenants and nobody on benefits can rent properties with rental prices as they are. Many like me can still afford them.
Anyway the same lettings agent I’m pursuing for this discriminatory requirement and not letting me pay rent in advance has a policy of saying ‘no children’ which is direct discrimination under the equality act.
I have now have solicitor representation.
If you are suffering this sort of behaviour and want to pursue it please contact me and I can offer advice on how I have got representation as claims under the equality act are worthwhile pursuing for landlords who so blatantly breach equality legislation. You’ll see some post on this site that they have awful attitudes to discrimination legislation and blatantly do so with no checks or balances.
But when you call people bad landlords with no foundation and then delete your post that’s ok is it ?
Don’t forget to tell your solicitor about your own bad behaviour !
Also you could raise the issue that benefits people are subletting their flats at a matched up rate on air bnb
Perhaps they should take up a case for social housing against the benefits fraudsters
Whilst you are at it, could you ask the solicitor how benefits get discriminated in favour of for an Audi or BMW under an outdated premise in a cost of living crisis
Surely a taxi allowance would be more cost effective ?
This isn’t for me to reply to you, nor for your benefit, but for the benefit of tenants who are being discriminated against on benefits. Your reply will add more fuel to the fire of people seeing the wood for the trees, so keep on doing so please (and others)
Again, it is not discrimination to refuse to allow someone to rent a £1025 per month property when their monthly income is only £1250. It’s called common sense.
Play the victim all you like but I seriously hope your solicitor is a no win, no fee type because no judge in their right mind is going to agree with you on this one.
Because most landlords will prefer a long term tenant. Very young children can stay in same bedroom as parents of course but in most circumstances and bedroom sizes this becomes impractical when they grow.
Oh right, so the landlord gets to determine the practicality of all this then…..not the people themselves and that having any child is a bar to renting.
What they are saying is they don’t want a child as it will make noise and upset other tenants or they don’t want extra damage children make. This can be the only reasonable reason why it’s a bar to occupation. The occupiers liability act 1957, as far as duty of care of occupiers, states be aware ‘children will be less careful then adults’
It implies that all children will make noise and upset others or that all children will damage a property and that’s a reason we don’t want them.
That does what institutes ‘injury to feeling’ awards in equality act claims - that say a 13 year old can’t live in the two bed flat with his mum or dad because he is assumed to be noisy tearabout. He is timid and very still and not noisey and mature for his age, yet he feels treated less well and tarred with the same brush as this stereotype of children - his feelings are injured. It can make people feel very bad about themselves,
The mum feels it because she rues choices she made about having children and being treated unfavourably and indirectly discriminated because she had children. She is made to feel different to say working single professionals who the advert is for when she may be a working mum professional.
Do you get this? You still haven’t said if you think it’s wrong to say ‘no children’ in the ad?
It’s not saying the property isn’t suitable for children - it is saying ‘no children’ ie it is a condition on being at the property that you have no children, that you can’t take the tenancy up if you have children.
Also the property is a two bed property at a very low rent for the county and lowest band council tax - so it would be suitable for a mother and her son or dad with daughter etc
I only have 2 beds so it has never personally come up for me. I’m very happy renting to families as they do tend to stay a long time. I’d agree that for 2 beds families should at least be considered, for a newly done up place I would get landlords being reluctant to rent to children but if low rent it presumably isn’t. If I did have a 1 bed it is highly unlikely I would choose a tenant with kids as the best option given number of applicants. A landlord can only choose 1 tenant and most will go with best fit. It is discrimination to choose a tenant who is bet placed to afford the rent and/or would be expected to stay longer.
That’s it though, being reluctant to let to children pre supposes they will damage the place. It places them at a disadvantage before they even know what they are like and this is the whole point of discrimination legislation and the equality act (2010)
I think for anyone reading this and not agreeing - please just don’t be a landlord and go and do something different. I think they should fine landlords who have these practises and government people making enquiries as bogus tenants and then if they refuse children, fine landlords say £1000. It would soon stop.
No, I don’t agree that that’s fair. It might interest you to know that as well as being a landlord myself, I’m also a tenant. I’ve actually found it quite difficult to find a property that will allow our dog and cat and it shocked me the number of properties that state ‘no children’. Whether it falls under the legal requirements for discrimination, I’m not 100% sure.
I sympathise….It’s not only not fair but it’s a civil statutory wrong. The Equality Act (2010) is the legislation.
It is direct discrimination because age is a protected characteristic - people can’t discriminate on the basis of age. It would also be indirect discrimination to the mum or dad.
This accounts why you don’t see 18-30 holidays firms anymore or singles holiday firms advertising 20-40 or 40-60 because if a holiday company turns down some people they are worried about discrimination if they set themselves up for all ages, as would be true of a lettings agent who sets themselves up for all people. It would be a proportionate means of a legitimate aim for a company who have developed retirement flats to say that they are for over 60s or whatever, simply because they have developed the business as such and probably as planning dictates same. Also for someone like saga holidays as they don’t do under 50s holidays!
If you set yourself up to be an agent who rents to all people and their other properties don’t say ‘no children’ but the agent is simply appeasing the landlord request for no kids, when there is no proportionate means of a legitimate aim in doing so since other properties are for all ages, then it will amount to discrimination. The landlord can’t say it’s a proportionate means of a legitimate aim to refuse kids because they will be noisy or damage the flat, because that pre supposes the children will be like that and it’s what the discrimination legislation seeks to protect against in the first place ie believing unfoundedly someone will be x (noisey, damage property) because of y (young age) which is the whole reason why discrimination law is there to protect people
I’m not saying kids do cause wear and tear because I don’t carte Blanche form opinions on people and discriminate as you do sir…..’you will do what you want’.
For goodness sake open rent take this guy off your books……