Discrimination (Part 2)
Discrimination (Part 2)
Housing Benefit – It seems absurd that such a fuss is being made about this topic. The reason being that it has been Illegal for landlords and agents to have blanket bans on renting to tenants in receipt of benefits since July 2020. This was the case of “Jane” in the District Court of York. District Judge Victoria Elizabeth Mark declared for the first time that “rejecting tenancy applications because the applicant is in receipt of housing benefit was unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex and disability, contrary to […] the Equality Act 2010.”
This case was a clear warning to other landlords and letting agents that they would risk legal action if they continued to bar housing benefit tenants from renting or worse operated a “blanket ban”. The historic hearing took place virtually on Wednesday 1 July, involving Jane, a single mum-of-two. After a letting agent refused to rent any property to her because she received housing benefit and had children. This ruling ensured that no family is unjustly discriminated against when looking for a place to live.
All prospective tenants, whether they receive Universal Credit (housing benefit is now wrapped up in UC) or not, will have to be fairly considered on their merits. However, landlords will still have the ultimate say, so long a decision is based on affordability and NOT if the tenants need to receive or claim any benefits! Can affordability be attained without counting benefit payments is less clear? The key will be whether they are able to be successfully referenced.
Do remember that if a tenant does receive UC, any rent arrears claim cannot include this part of the payment!
Conclusion – Landlords can still be discerning, so long as they can show a fair and reasonable rationale for the decision reached. A question that will need to be considered with each application will be, is the property suitable for the proposed tenant? Each application will need to be assessed on individual circumstances, so it will be a lot more time consuming. Landlords will need to KEEP ALL EVIDENCE showing the decision pathway, in case of a future challenge or for a future referral.
Superior agreements (Freeholder, insurance, mortgage) that are discriminatory, will in the future be deemed non effective and not be able to be relied upon!
Where current insurance restrictions are in place, they will end at the end of the policy or on renewal, so any restriction will have a limited lifespan. The ban will apply to all new policies straight away once the Bill becomes law.
There are two takeaways from this part of the legislation:
- Tenants will know their rights and some will be looking for reasons to complain and challenge some decisions. In turn landlords will need to understand what will be expected of them. If they don’t act in the correct manner, then it could cause a lot of unnecessary stress!
- Landlords will need to evidence any decision on a case by case basis – no blanket decisions will be allowed and if there are many enquiries for a property, the decision making will need to be both transparent and consistent.
Penalties – Civil penalties could be brought against landlords and anyone acting on their behalf (any third party involved in the decision process) up to £7,000. For repeated offences, this fine can rise to £40,000 and in some cases multiple penalties could be issued, for any continued breaches, which if enforced could lead to an unexpected large sum! Tenants will be able to use all routes to challenge a decision made by the landlord if they consider it to be unfair. Initially complaining to the local Council, then the Redress (Ombudsman or Redress) Schemes and ultimately the Courts if they wish to challenge a decision.
Given local authorities are bereft of cash, discrimination cases are going to be seen as “low lying fruit” as they can be easy to prove, but a lot harder to defend. Landlords will have to be very professional in dealing with potential tenants going forward, in order to avoid both a fine and a lot of unwanted and unproductive work defending a challenge to the decision outcome!