Equality laws could affect “no benefit tenants” policies

Equality laws could affect “no benefit tenants” policies

10:52 AM, 26th February 2018, About 6 years ago 108

Text Size

Lettings agent Nicholas George recently admitted indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, settling out of court with single mother Rosie Keogh. She was paid £2,000 compensation, because her application was refused on the grounds of being in receipt of benefits.

The action was reported today on the BBC news website (Click here to read the full story) stating: “The thousands of lettings agents and landlords around the country who reject housing benefit claimants could be flouting equality laws, due a recent legal case.

Rosie tried to rent a property in Birmingham and was turned down after revealing some of the rent would be paid by housing benefit. She immediately  made a complaint on the grounds that single women are proportionately more likely to be claiming housing benefit than single men.

The agents dismissed Rosie’s complaint, which as a former paralegal she took to county court establishing the principle of sexual discrimination under the Equality Act. Rosie told the BBC: “I felt something had to be done to challenge it. I was motivated by anger at such inequitable practice.

“It made me feel like a second-class citizen. You are being treated differently and it’s women and women with children who are bearing the brunt of this because they need to work part time.”

A Shelter survey last year of 1137 private landlords found 18% preferred not to let to benefits claimants and  43% had a blanket ban.

Shelter’s legal officer commented:”By applying a blanket policy they are actually preventing good tenants from accessing the private rented sector.

“Women are more likely to be caring for children and therefore working part-time and are therefore more likely to top up their income by claiming housing benefit.”

The NLA head of policy, Chris Norris, responded to the case saying: “Cases like this highlight the very worst of what a minority of renters have to put up with when looking to secure a home in the private rented sector.”

“The number of landlords willing to rent to housing benefit tenants has fallen dramatically over the last few years, because cuts to welfare and problems with the universal credit system are making it more and more difficult for anyone in receipt of housing support to pay their rent on time and sustain long-term tenancies.”


Share This Article


Comments

Sam Wong

10:01 AM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

I take your point. It is not possible for every leasehold property to let to HB or charities. Nonetheless, where the lease terms r not an impediment, it is a better formular than what we have now. The problem is the government wants what it wants the way it wants it without regards to the effect on the landlords n, ultimately, the tenants. It can get away with it bcos it is the government. That’s bullying. What we need is a change of mind set (n policy) to make it a win-win for everybody.

Kate Mellor

10:33 AM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Puzzler at 03/03/2018 - 09:18
Yes, you’re correct Puzzler. It doesn’t create case law. Tessa said as much in her recent Landlord Law Blog post.

Edwin Cowper

11:23 AM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

First of all, because this is in the County Court it is not a precedent binding in law. It might be used to help persuade another court to make the finding but thats all
Secondly, we don't know what was argued in the court. There are - as has been pointed out - several good reasons why such a tenant may not be accepted
There may be more women than men (but the report refers to single women and single men. It does not refer to married or cohabiting women), but the decision may have been on other basis - as raised, could the person pay the rent at the levels required?
Point taken about complete bar out of benefits.
Until a case like this goes to the High Court or above there is nothing binding on County Courts

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

11:24 AM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Edwin Cowper at 03/03/2018 - 11:23
I thought the case was settled out of Court?

On that basis, one must assume the County Court never officially even heard the case.

Ann Shaw

11:56 AM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

It's a shame this wasn't properly tested in Court, and settled outside with no proper hearing. As it stands, under the Equality Act 2010, potential tenants claiming benenfits are not a 'Protected Charisteristic'. Until (if and when), statue law is changed, the usual 9 protected charisteristics will apply.

David Evans

12:36 PM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

I worked for a social landlord years ago we warned the Government that ending direct payments to landlords would lead to many problems. So the Government knew the risks and still went ahead, We are now seeing the results as predicted. It was all part of Government policy to save money under the slogan of making people take responsibility for their lives. They are constantly shifting the blame for the housing problems onto private landlords

Paul Maguire

13:13 PM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Fascinating discussion on different experiences with tenants on benefits but the point that seems to have been missed is that the legally experienced applicant Rosie Keoch didn't take the agency to Court over Benefit Discrimination but twisted it into a case of Sex Discrimination. Personally, I'd have at least gone to the first Hearing to clarify if there was a case and therefore any need to settle out of Court.

Monty Bodkin

14:26 PM, 3rd March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Paul Maguire at 03/03/2018 - 13:13
For a poxy £2K? Seems well worth it to save all the wasted time, effort and bad publicity, even though they were highly unlikely to lose IMO.

Simply change the ad's in future to "would suit full time working professional".

This doesn't help DSS tenants at all, it just means they have to go through the charade of enquiring and rejection for properties they are never going to get.

Badger

15:42 PM, 7th March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 28/02/2018 - 21:58
I have long wondered how the police get to decide just exactly what is and is not civil law.

Whereas I would most certainly be prosecuted for stealing a bag of carrots from Aldi, apparently the Durham Police inspector who firmly instructed the constable on duty at Peterhead police station not to pursue my complaint against the scrote who made off with my almost brand new washing machine is unable to see the parallel and proceed accordingly. The Peterhead bobby was most apologetic but, and as I could clearly see, in the light of a direct order from his superior his hands where tied.

It was late in the evening of a very long day at the time and I let it go.

I wish I hadn't now and had written to the Chief Constable to complain instead. A futile gesture perhaps, but at least it would have been something.

TheMaluka

22:05 PM, 7th March 2018, About 6 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Badger at 07/03/2018 - 15:42The justification seems to be that it is civil because there is a contact (AST) in place. I must remember this next time I hire a car! !! Just look at the first page of the criminal damage act, nowhere does it excuse deliberate damage because of the presence of a contract.
A great deal of antisocial behaviour is fostered by the police refusal to prosecute

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now