Letting agents who ban children are breaking equality rules – ombudsman

Letting agents who ban children are breaking equality rules – ombudsman

0:01 AM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago 27

Text Size

The Property Ombudsman has ruled that a blanket ban on letting a property to a family with children is discriminatory against women and against its code of practice for the rented sector in England.

The ruling comes after an NHS nurse called Lexi Levens challenged the practice after she and her four children had been forced to register as homeless.

That came after she and her husband had been handed a section 21 ‘no-fault’ eviction notice on Christmas Eve, but no letting agents or landlords would rent to them.

That’s despite her and her husband passing affordability checks.

‘No children’ bans are breaching equality rules

The homeless charity Shelter took up the case with the ombudsman which has now said that ‘no children’ bans are breaching equality rules that are set out in its code of practice because women are disproportionately affected.

Ms Levens said: “My situation was nothing short of distressing and humiliating. I’m so thrilled by the outcome of the challenge, this has never been about money for me, but about putting a stop to families like mine being treated unfairly.”

Shelter says that around 300,000 families, or one in five parents, in England have been unable to rent a home in the last five years because they have children.

Cannot follow a landlord’s order to do so

The ombudsman’s decision means that letting agents who are members will not now be able to impose a blanket ban on property listings – and they cannot follow a landlord’s order to do so without offering reasonable justification or evidence.

Doing so means they will be breaching the Property Ombudsman’s code of practice and will be required to pay compensation to those who have been discriminated against.

Shelter is also urging that the Renters’ Reform Bill be brought in which will make it illegal for agents and landlords to impose a blanket ban on renting property to families with children, and to those who are receiving benefits.

Shelter’s chief executive, Polly Neate, told the Guardian: “The government’s Renters’ Reform Bill – which will make discrimination explicitly unlawful – is ready and waiting. The government needs to stop stalling and make it law once and for all.”

‘Cannot be considered as treating consumers equally’

The director of policy at the Property Ombudsman, Peter Habert, said: “Whilst rental properties are investments for landlords, they are homes for tenants. To be excluded from a significant portion of the homes available simply because you have children cannot be considered as treating consumers equally.

“Prospective tenants should only expect to see these restrictions in property adverts and listings if the property is unsuitable, for example it doesn’t have enough space.”

He warns that letting agents who receive an instruction from a landlord to not let to families should ask the client to provide evidence of why a ban is appropriate – and for this reason to be given to prospective tenants.


Share This Article


Comments

Freda Blogs

12:50 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

The more and more limitations are placed on LLs on what they can do with THEIR property, including requiring lets with pets and children, whilst limiting the deposits that can be taken, consequently exposing the LL to greater financial risk, the fewer the number of properties will be made available, and rents will rise. Don't even get me started on rental reform and security of tenure!

Poor tenants. Another own goal by Shelter.

Churchills Tax Advisers

12:52 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

Why is it only discriminatory against women?

Crossed_Swords

13:13 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

The legal principle is that a single parent is more likely to be female.

LaLo

14:35 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Crossed_Swords at 22/03/2023 - 11:29
Children will ‘increase’ the chance of some damage.

Reluctant Landlord

17:10 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

if the reason for any rejection is based on affordability then this is far as I am concerned is purely a business decision and not in any way discriminatory.
A property is not suitable for 4 children (for example) if it is a 2 bed flat for example. Size is a factor taken into account for council/social housing so the same would be applicable in the PRS. This gets over the pure affordability issue if a large family could only afford a 2 bed rate, but the accommodation would not be big enough.
I tend to advertise a property to let in terms of what it is and what it offers and what it is 'suitable for' eg perfect size for a single person, or highlight it has 30 steps to flat entry etc - that way you narrow down (head off) any unsuitable applications being made in the first instance.
There is going to be a whole lot more of this coming in the pipeline if family finances are squeezed further. If you can't afford where you live the obvious choice is to downsize, but with a family this is going to be tricky (even if there are any smaller properties out there). A lot will risk going into debt as there is no where to move to, no social housing etc. LL's are going to have to evict if they have to if a rent compromise cannot be found. No LL is going to lose their own home over a tenant 'right' to rent their BTL/investment.
Interesting - it doesn't say in the article why she was evicted, even though it could have explained why. Once the S21 is abolished, we wont be getting any articles like this any more. If it were for rent arrears or ASBO behaviour for example where is the news (or sympathy) in that story??

Reluctant Landlord

17:16 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

could the reference from the previous LL states she was a nightmare and there were issues with complaints of noise/damage etc? This would be another valid reason not to offer a tenancy.

Did she refuse to give a reference? Was their no guarantor - all valid questions and if you can't give evidence then its a business decision based on risk so again made on a non discriminatory basis.

moneymanager

17:51 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

When you can't decide how to use your own property is the time that the state has appropriated it.

TheBiggerPicture

18:44 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 22/03/2023 - 12:50
You make the mistake of thinking it's your property. It belongs to the government, you are just the custodian.

Just as income is not yours, it's the governments, they decide how much you can keep.

JamesB

19:51 PM, 22nd March 2023, About A year ago

Maybe there is too much demand in my area, but I really don't understand all these rules on who you let to. My brother just advertised a flat and had over 90 applicants. Picked his favourite obviously.

The house I just sold was last tenanted by a family. When I selected those tenants I went for the couple with 2 children rather than the families with 3 or 4 that also applied. I had a choice. As long as I have a choice, who is going to make me let to somebody I don't want to let to? Nobody, that's who.

Smiffy

14:55 PM, 23rd March 2023, About A year ago

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118 at 22/03/2023 - 12:04
Club 18/30? that brought a smile! You missed out there mate!

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