Right to Rent Judicial review permitted by High Court

by Property 118

2 weeks ago

Right to Rent Judicial review permitted by High Court

Make Text Bigger
Right to Rent Judicial review permitted by High Court

The High Court yesterday permitted a Judicial review of the governments controversial Right to Rent legislation which forces landlords to take on the responsibility of customs/border officials.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) is claiming that forcing landlords to check tenants have the right to reside in the UK during the tenancy is causing serious discrimination against immigrants who do not have a British passport.

Chief executive of the JCWI, Satbir Singh, welcoming the court’s decision said: “Like many other aspects of the hostile environment, the Right to Rent creates real risks of discrimination.”

“The chief inspector of borders, the Residential Landlords Association and JCWI have all provided the government with evidence of the need for a review.”

JCWI research indicated that as a result of Right to Rent 51% of landlords said that they were now less likely to consider renting to non-EU nationals and 42% were now less likely to rent to those without a UK passport. The latter figure increased to 48% when landlords were explicitly asked to consider the criminal penalties in place.

David Smith, RLA policy director, said: “Landlords will welcome the High Court decision to allow a judicial review of the Right to Rent policy which has put them in the impossible position of acting as untrained Border Police trying to ascertain who does and who does not have the right to be in the country.

“This has created difficulties for many legitimate tenants as landlords are forced to play safe and only rent to those with a UK passport. The announcement is an important step towards overturning a policy which the government’s own inspectorate had described as having yet to demonstrate its worth.”

The JCWI is seeking to crowdfunding “Challenge the expansion of landlord immigration checks” see >> https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/right-to-rent/

Separately, a letter signed by Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National, Plaid Cymru and Green party MPs was given to the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, telling him to scrap or review Right to Rent.

The letter attacking the policy indicated the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration “was particularly concerned with the lack of any monitoring or evaluation mechanisms that would allow the government to ascertain whether the scheme was having its intended effect, or whether it is creating unintended consequences.

“The Windrush scandal has drawn attention to the effects of the so called hostile environment. It also provides a stark warning of the consequences that can be expected when ministers and officials fail to respond to the repeated warnings of experts about the impact of their policies.”

The Home Office responded saying: “We noted the Independent Chief Inspectors’ recommendations on the  Right to Rent scheme and we continue to take steps to ensure it is implemented and communicated as effectively as possible.”

So no U-turn yet but watch this space!



Comments

terry sullivan

2 weeks ago

if my legal tenant sublets to illegal tenants without my knowledge--who is responsible?

Ian Narbeth

2 weeks ago

It might be instructive if the The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants pointed out the Draconian maximum penalty (Five years in prison) landlords face. Compare that to the maximum penalties for these offences:
Carrying of any offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse 4 years
Having an article with a blade or a sharp point in a public place without good reason or lawful authority 2 years
Administering drugs to obtain intercourse 2 years
Procurement of a woman by threats 2 years
Detention of woman in brothel 2 years
Ill-treatment of patients 2 years
Racially-aggravated public order offence 2 years
Offences with a similar 5 year maximum sentences include:
Female circumcision
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Abandonment of children under two
Setting spring guns with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm
Failure to disclose information about terrorism
Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds
Putting people in fear of violence
Does this "Tory" Government really think that letting a house or flat to someone who should not be in the UK deserves a maximum punishment greater than for the offences listed? True, no landlord has been sent to prison, yet, for five years for this offence but why threaten such harsh punishment? If it is to "encourage" good behaviour then please explain why such encouragement is not warranted for the other offences.

moneymanager

2 weeks ago

The R to R checks haven't precluded me from letting to foreigners although those of my non British tenants tend to be well funded and well documented ME senior students. It has though sometimes taken longer and I have been levying a small fee to do all such checks (to make it clear that it hasn't been for my benfit), will of course fee charging will put a stop to that and may make me less inclined to let; unintended consequence 1)

Unintended consequence 2 is far more serious, the delusion in Government that the policy is, or even can, achieve its desired effect.; I can let to a perfectly entitled individual and then the right to 2peaceful enjoyment2 kicks in and the country's security is stuffed.


Leave Comments

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

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

What information is it reasonable for a freeholder to demand?