Reasons for not selecting tenant and claims of discrimination?

Reasons for not selecting tenant and claims of discrimination?

17:00 PM, 8th March 2018, About 4 years ago 69

Text Size

I have had an enquiry from a disabled gentleman who has two dogs to help him with his disability and has disability benefits as his only income. He has claimed that Citizens Advice and the local council have both told him that it is illegal for a landlord to refuse to let him a property on the grounds that he is disabled or that his income is disability related. He also claims that his dogs must be allowed as they are required due to his disability.

I have told him that often landlords state no benefits or no pets due to insurance policies or mortgage limitations and that therefore they cannot make exceptions. He does not accept this as being a valid argument.

In view of discrimination being a topic of discussion in the press lately, I wondered how a landlord’s selection process stand in a legal sense.

For example, my preference for tenants for a particular property would be as follows:
1. Employed single professional
2. Employed professional couple
3. Employed single parent with one child
4. Employed single parent with two children
5. Employed couple with one child
6. Employed couple with two children
7. Any other applicants that can pass the referencing/credit checks/provide guarantor etc.

So if I were to use this list as my way of selecting from 5 applicants for the property and placed them in this order, would I be breaking any discrimination rules. I don’t think I would be as everyone is considered, but ultimately one has to be chosen and for reasons such as less chance of wear and tear on the property, more chance of a longer staying tenant, etc. this is the order I have come up with.

What are your views on this?

Thanks.

Deborah



Comments

by Mark W

19:26 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by AA at 10/03/2018 - 09:59
Wrong in law.

by Mark W

19:33 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by AA at 09/03/2018 - 16:22
Wrong in law

by Deb

20:03 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mark W at 10/03/2018 - 19:21
Are you referring to my views (I don't think I gave any, only a list of preferred types of tenants) or those expressed by others commenting?

by Mark W

20:50 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Deborah Clare at 10/03/2018 - 20:03
I made comments to AA. You need to consider that a disabled person could be a single professional with a definite income from HMG and therefore in rank 1 on your list. If you put them lower you would be in breach of DDA. Law is complex so be careful. MarkW

by Deb

21:20 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mark W at 10/03/2018 - 20:50
Exactly, as I said earlier, the disability issue wasn't a problem. Disabled people may also be employed. Single professional, disabled or not, didn't matter. Disability didn't make any difference so no need to mention it. I posted this discussion to query the man's claims that he automatically had the right to the property and could not be refused, regardless of how I considered him against everyone else using a simple list of criteria that did not place any importance on his disability. I would have thought that the right to be placed as an equal and to be considered as everyone else is considered, would have been the rule. I didn't think that having a disability gave extra rights and ruled everyone else out. I am surprised at that.

by Mark W

21:29 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Deborah Clare at 10/03/2018 - 21:20
If this person was equal first on your list then I advise to offer it to him. Simple reason going to the Equalities Tribunal will probably cost you, and he would be supported by CAB. Don’t go there is my advice. MarkW

by Monty Bodkin

21:38 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Deborah Clare at 10/03/2018 - 21:20I didn't think that having a disability gave extra rights and ruled everyone else out.
It doesn't rule everyone else out.
But as before -Why are you engaging in such arguments?
(A rhetorical question that was and is meant as advice in line with Mark W's- "Don't go there" )

by Deb

21:39 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mark W at 10/03/2018 - 21:29
Thanks for the advice. It's not something I've thought about before because it's never come up. Just shows, you really have to be on the ball with every law going, as a landlord.

by Deb

21:44 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 10/03/2018 - 21:38
From Mark W's advice, it seems that it does rule everyone else out, even if just from the fear of it going to a tribunal.
I'm not arguing, I just wanted to clarify the right way to do things. The man doesn't even want the property, which incidentally isn't available now anyway. It was just an issue which hadn't even entered my mind before and I like to be prepared and learn about things, so I thought I ask what other people thought or know.

by Sam Addison

21:49 PM, 10th March 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Deborah Clare at 10/03/2018 - 21:44
Can I thank you for posing the question Deborah. It has led to interesting and informative discussion as far as I am concerned.


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER