There is no suggestion that letting agents are breaking the law, but could landlords who advertise for their own tenants be guilty of discrimination if they specify race or even gender?
Three years ago, agents in Lincoln were found to be breaching the Race Relations Act by specifically excluding migrants as tenants. This was on the request of their landlords, which makes us wonder if it still happens, and if so, how agents deal with it.
Now a new BBC investigation has found adverts in London and Birmingham in which landlords specify race – for example, Asian or Filipino only.
The law on equality seems pretty clear – and for it to apply to agents, landlords (including live-in landlords), and tenants looking to house-share.
The Equality Act says it is “unlawful for a person who has the authority to dispose of premises (for example, by selling, letting or subletting a property) to discriminate against or victimise someone else in a number of ways including by offering the premises to them on less favourable terms, by not letting or selling the premises to them or by treating them less favourably”.
An Equality and Human Rights Commission spokeswoman says it has written to letting agents in the past to explain that “usually they cannot specify that a prospective tenant is British, Asian or otherwise”.
The Commission also says that rental adverts specifying ‘female’ or ‘male’ only might also be against the law – as might be ‘gay’.
There is much more on the link below – and it is an interesting talking point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18588612
%20(002).png)
.png)
Comments
Some landlord’s refuse to accept recipients of DSS because they do not wish to disclose that they are letting properties on the rental market. Whenever a DSS claimant makes an application for housing benefit (social welfare rent payments), the landlord is registered on the local council’s records and as a result also with the Inland Revenue services.
discrimination is discrimination
30 years ago when I was out and about as a young man,these comments were a no no...we would never dream of saying I don't want to socialise with x because of his colour or religion
are we saying 30 years on, its acceptable?...if so boy have we gone backwards
The linked article quotes a lawyer saying the law is ambiguous and needs testing in court.
I suspect it will hinge on whether the person letting the property is doing it as a business. There was a recent case over a bed and breakfast owner who turned away a gay couple. They argued that as it was their "home" they could choose who they allowed into it.
The judge ruled (if I remember rightly) that by offering a bed and breakfast service they were running a business and therefore could not discriminate. The fact that their business involved customers sleeping in their home didn't stop it from being a business.
It seems logical that the same rules would apply to lettings which would mean only the most informal house-sharing arrangements could escape discrimination legislation.
Industry Observer: Some properties are only available to retired persons or those "over 50" as they have specific planning permission for housing such groups.
Dave: "No DSS" is in fact discrimination against anyone who claims any sort of benefit so would discriminate against the disabled for instance, and is therefore a criminal offence and is allowed by newspaper advertisers because they and agents don't know any better. I wish agents would also stop using the term as it has been obsolete as the 'Department of Social Security' has not existed for over a decade.
"No HB or LHA claimants" is another matter and perfectly legitimate as that is often part of the mortgage deed requirement not to let to such persons, and landlords do often not want this type of person.
Get used to it, we've had 'positive' discrimination - which seems to be acceptable to the people who can't be challenged about it, government, councils, police etc - in this country for years.
On the one hand we have companies being forced to employ more people of a certain gender/race/ability to make the numbers 'equal', on the other we have failing standards because of it when we employ people without the qualifications or skills we need to meet a target because they'll be allowed to sue us if we don't.
While the anti racist lobby remains bigger than the common sense lobby, it will always discriminate against the weaker majority by forcing minority views upon it.
Will the law loop in DSS tenants on the basis that you can not dicriminate on their economic standing?
Insurance companies do this now so if this is outlawed premiums will inevitably rise.
Kick out the green wellie brigade I say.
there seems to be confusion amongst the people in particular young people
on one hand they are anti racist with a vengeance,on the other hand they seem to want to promote minority views or cultures whatever they do.
The fact is that even 30 years ago some of these adverts would never have seen the light of day
The law is clear,you should not discriminate,particularly in writing,against anyone
we've gone backwards imo
@Anti Discrimination
Please confirm to me the name of the Statute that makes age discriimination illegal
...yet Prince Willy would not have been allowed to marry a Roman Catholic....or a ginner.
It's the way I tell 'em!
Discrimination seems very selective - for example, how do they get away with having a "National Black Police Officers Association"
Wikipedia quote:- "Membership of the NBPA is "not based on colour" but is restricted to officers of "African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin"
I have seen it all now - try advertising a property where you say, "The tenancy will only be available to caucasian applicants, but this is not based on colour".
I would like to report SAGA for discrimination.
Since age discrimination is now illegal, how do the government get away with reducing HB for under-35s which has resulted in landlords advertising "No unemployed under 35"?
For heavens sake - next it will be illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of economic standing
The fact is, you should be able to freely chose with whom you share your home.
I detest discrimination in all forms, but would not want to live with someone I didn't like
It's a no brainer - of course it is against the Law if there is Statute making discrimination in that area illegal - which it is on race, colour or creed, ethnic background or sex orientation.
Discrimination on age and being a student or on LHA is not (yet) illegal
In reality, we would all be selective about choosing who we live with.
Next Michael Saville will be saying I cant be selective about who I want to marry.
@Nadia Brinkley on 2012-07-05 08:56:57
Agreed!
What a nonsense, in almost every respect regarding freedom, this country has become - supported by the likes of Michael Saville, Most of us know and obey the law but do not have to agree with it.
Common sense tells me otherwise Michael Saville. Yes we need laws to protect vulnerable people however what about perhaps i) 4 existing occupants in a house-share or ii) a landlord looking to share his own home with a lodger. The law needs to be different in house-share cases to protect and find favourable 'complimenting' sharers. Its just wasting everyone's time to not be able to specify who you share your own home with because the likelihood is the 'discriminated' against group are those who won't fit in anyway and the wrong newbie could even present a danger to other existing living there. We can't reach the ridiculous situation where the law tells us who people MUST take into their own home..
Of course this is breaking the Law! Any decent ARLA trained Letting Agent (and any with common sense or decency) would know that you cannot discriminate against a potential tenants race, gender or sexual orientation. If your landlord wants to then don't accept their instruction. Bizarrely, the law says you CAN discriminate against a potential tenants age ! I'm sure this will change soon.