Hi, I’ve just made a new listing and the box / options for Tenant Preference seem counter intuitive in light of the new Law 1st May regarding discrimination.
Surely all should be ‘accepted’ - Family & DSS/LHA applicants.
Then if your property is legally not suitable for any you can then uncheck box, and there should be a reminder / disclaimer of the law for you to double check?
Currently if I select DSS, then on the actual listing it shows this as DSS preferred, but DSS/LHA is still showing not accepted with a red X.
By the nature of me selecting DSS, listing then shows an additional line of DSS PREFERRED - but that is not what I am meaning that is potentially discriminatory, as all will be considered pending references and affordability checks.
And I still have not the option as far as I can see to show that DSS /LHA are accepted.
So if I uncheck DSS preference , then listing shows as DSS are not accepted . Which is potentially discriminatory !
Can anyone enlighten me to what’s going on and the legality of the Tenant Preference box now?
yeah that’s completely unnecessary IMO.
It’s hopelessly out of date too. The DSS hasn’t existed since 2001.
Come on OR!
1 Like
'Pets allowed ’ , Yes or No , doesn’t fit for all the possible various circumstances even under the new RRA Regulation.
2 Likes
@Steve50
I think because it is indicated as a preference only and is not a blanket ban, under the Equalities Act it is still probably legal. It doesn’t actually stop people on benefits (or with children, or pets) from applying. (I have had people ignore these preferences in ads and make contact anyway)
@dan4 from OR legal team can hopefully give the definitive view.
Must admit I thought ‘No DSS’ adverts have in caselaw been ruled as discriminatory due to Equalities Act and the RRA goes further by in practice making it a specific offence to discriminate against those on (any sort of) benefits as well as those with children. Nevertheless there are some exemptions I think and it is still up to a LL to decide in individual cases but they have to be very careful not to discriminate directly or indirectly. @David122 may know more
Best
From Steve50’s post, I believe some of those options need amendment. Any text saying families or DSS not allowed in an advert is now unlawful.
Pets are a different matter. The advice Ive read is that there’s nothing unlawful about saying pets not allowed. Tenants can still request a pet and a landlord cant unreasonably refuse.
Pets not allowed just doesn’t seem to fit the new legislation. ?
The new legislation on pets is not part of the discrimination provision, so its possible to still advertise no pets with no problem.
1 Like
@Steve50 and RRA says landlords have to consider if a pet asked for. Doesn’t say anything about how a property is advertised.
Perfectly possible a property is unsuitable for a large dog (small 10th floor no garden) and a LL can advertise preferences on that basis to indicate and a potential tenant nonetheless asks if they can have a goldfish and LL agrees
Best
1 Like
