Equality laws could affect “no benefit tenants” policies

Well that's it then. No more "No DSS" adverts. "No pets' as it would discriminate against assistance dogs etc - disability discrimination. So the stock phrase will be " All applicants must pass the credit referencing process before being considered for the tenancy on this property"

Or because someone ( Shelter) will find data confirming single parents on benefits are disproportionally likely to get into debt then will this be indirect discrimination? As stated above what about the clauses in insurance policies about not being covered if the property is occupied by a benefits tenant?

What a can of worms? And they wonder why landlords are exiting the sector.

Reply to the comment left by Gary Nock at 26/02/2018 - 12:17
Well, it may be time to neutralise all communications to be sensible about it.
If you said “no one with a criminal record or a CCJ” too would that be discriminatory?
Passports checked ✅
Visa checked✅
Work elegability checked ✅
Employers...bank...Uncle Tom cobblies aunt written to ✅

Oh no it’s not a business it’s a pastime pursuit being a Lanlord

Reply to the comment left by Gary Nock at 26/02/2018 - 12:17
I might be wrong but I think if you have a no pets policy guide dogs for the blind / deaf etc have to be accepted. Know social housing with no dogs policies accept them.

Reply to the comment left by Martin Crossley at 26/02/2018 - 12:28
What about a shared house where an individual resident (already) lives and has a serious allergy to dogs...do you turn away the guide dog owning blind person or kick out the allergy suffering incumbent?

What about snakes 🐍 and exotic pets like a Tarantula or similar ? Discriminatory?

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 26/02/2018 - 12:35
No idea what I'd do other than say that shared accom would not really be suitable for any large animals.

Reply to the comment left by Richard Mann at 26/02/2018 - 12:49
We actually have a student house and they keep 2 rat pets and 2 snakes (veterinary students). Zero problems so far.... Fingers crossed.
It is of course reflected in AST.

Reply to the comment left by Gary Nock at 26/02/2018 - 12:17
"Or because someone ( Shelter) will find data confirming single parents on benefits are disproportionally likely to get into debt then will this be indirect discrimination?"

I would have thought that that technically counts as direct discrimination. Try changing 'benefits recipients' to 'coloureds' as Fergus Wilson did and see what happens. However, there would probably be a defence in that benefit recipients are financially troubled by definition, even if they do all demonstrably have the ability (if not the willingness) to pay.

I think the issue here is a blanket discrimination policy which many landlords have. We personally look at applications on a case by case basis and have found it works well. We have some excellent, long term tenants who are on benefits. Experience teaches you what questions to ask and to probe and expose any inconsistencies and red flags in an application. As has been mentioned by another, if the tenant can meet the affordability criteria a landlord places on their applicants and passes all other criteria what objection should we have to renting them a property? We do ask for a guarantor for most housing benefits tenants, but that could even be questionable in terms of discrimination if we can’t justify it in terms of being borderline for income affordability etc.

I think because there is a shortage of housing for low income & benefits tenants there will be increasing scrutiny on the various causes. Landlords will be first in line, but I believe the pressure will then move onto lenders and insurers who place blanket bars on landlords from letting to HB tenants. As has been pointed out in another comment it is a ludicrous situation. You can’t ban a tenant from being made redundant and if they do lose their job, you can’t ban them from applying for the benefits they are entitled to claim. There is no means of instantly ejecting a tenant who becomes in receipt of benefits therefore through no fault of our own we can find ourselves in breach of our mortgage terms and technically our property at risk. It’s an unfair term in my personal non-lawyerly opinion and the scrutiny of government and policy makers is finally being forced to take notice of it. With any luck this issue of a serious lack of housing for benefits tenants will finally force councils to amend there own policies and practices towards private landlords and start treating us as a stakeholder in the housing sector rather than an evil nemesis.

Anyway I’m off to read some more fairy stories...those fairytale endings get me every time. 😉

Reply to the comment left by H B at 26/02/2018 - 13:07
Race holds protected status. Financial viability does not.