To think being single should be recognised in law as an unreasonable basis for discrimination?

[OneLovelyDay]

I've just discovered (learning to drive later than others) that apparently it's unreasonable to charge women less for car insurance, but apparently fine to charge single people more than married people.

There's loads of things like this that discriminate against single people, although some not as directly. I'm thinking things like council tax discount, which should be 50% for living alone, not the 25% it is.

More broadly, it's interesting how society has accepted (to some degree) alternative family arrangements but not singleness/childlessness. I could marry and start a family with another woman and it would fit with societies' expectations (and financial incentives) more than being single, or having children alone by sperm donation.

I find being single totally an acceptable thing, don't feel the need for a partner in a day to day sense. But hoping for a family and a ticking biological clock reminds me that it's not my choice to be single. So I don't think it's acceptable for society to discriminate like this. (But also even if someone chooses to be childfree and single that should be respected and treated as legitimate and fulfilled life!)

I was reminded of it particularly harshly in the first lockdown in 2020, when people not living with a family were not supposed to go within two meters of another human, and there was no outcry. It was a real jolt in terms of realising how society views us as different/weird/not normal (thus not entitled to the same basic humane conditions, in that instance).

Fortunately most of my friends are either single or not the joined-at-the-hip with partner type. But sometimes these things crop up and I'm suddenly reminded that my life and needs are not considered as legitimate as those in couples or with children. At the moment this is happening a lot as I'm about to take a drop in income and so going through bills working out where to save money.

I just think it should be illegal to discriminate for things like car insurance based on single status, and more broadly that people should consider this issue and not treat single people differently, in the same way people have started to consider racism, homophobia etc.
AIBU?

It is not always cheaper to have car insurance with someone else
Sometimes, it is cheaper as a single person

If you have only recently passed your driving test, you will be classed as an inexperienced driver

The protected characteristics under the EA meant to give some defence against discrimination are for things that can't be changed - race, age, sex (despite what some poor misguided souls may think about the latter), disability etc. A pregnant woman is protected because although pregnancy is time-limited, once she is pregnant she can't briefly be not-pregnant during her pregnancy to avoid being discriminated against. Whereas it is entirely possible to change one's relationship status. So YABU on that score.

That's not to say I agree with some of the additional surcharges etc levied upon single people, but it's not grounds for discrimination.

But a lot of this is because a single person is choosing to have all to themselves what a couple share.

So if a single person lives with another single person, they pay exactly the same council tax as a couple. But if they choose to have a property all to themselves and not share, then that is obviously going to be more expensive than a shared property (in council tax, rent, purchase price, utilities etc). If a couple choose to live separately rather than sharing, they pay exactly the same as a single person living alone. There's no premium for being single, a person pays a premium if they choose to have the whole property to themselves and not share.

Ditto with a hotel room. If a single person shares with another person, they pay exactly the same rate as two people in a couple sharing. But, if they want a whole room to themselves, rather than sharing with someone, then obviously it costs more - because they have a whole room not half a room.

It may not be a choice to be single, but its absolutely a choice to live alone/not share a room etc.

I can't think of a situation where a single person pays more for getting the same as someone sharing. Typically they pay more because they get more. An individual person having exclusive use of anything is always going to cost more per person than the shared equivalent.

Ted27, absolutely. As I said, I know there are downside to being single too, and especially when children are involved. My point was just that being in a couple has practical and emotional negatives too. As I also really hope I made clear, I know everyone has problems and strains to deal with; they're just of different stripes.

*But a lot of this is because a single person is choosing to have all to themselves what a couple share.

So if a single person lives with another single person, they pay exactly the same council tax as a couple. But if they choose to have a property all to themselves and not share, then that is obviously going to be more expensive than a shared property*

Your fatal assumption here is that everyone who is single is single by choice.

Agree in part.
I think pandemic highlighted it and I was also outraged it took so long for bubbles to be introduced and even then, mot everyone had a bubble arrangement available...so they just havent had any close contact with anyone in over a year?
I'm not single but I do not have children and whilst I was very happy with how flexible and tolerant my workplace was for parents who had to wfh and juggle home schooling (not blaming any of that on them!)..there was a bit of an assumption that childless people like myself would pick up the slack and work really late into the night and exhaust ourselves and compromise our mental and physical health, as if we had nothing better to be doing..purely because others have had children (blaming the work structure, not parents!)

The thing that really annoys me is when it actually costs more as a single person than the total cost for a couple, due to special offers etc.

I wanted to rent a holiday villa a few years back, and for one person the total cost including flights would have been, say, £1,500.

For a couple, there was a special offer, meaning that it would have cost £500pp - so £1,000 in total.

I didn’t book...

I couldn't agree more with the single hotel supplement, I always found it ridiculous.

When staying in London with friends as a single person amongst couples (only talking 8 years ago), my couple friends were paying £90 each for a large double hotel room. Mine would have been a single box-style room for £120 .... no thanks. I just checked in as a couple and said my partner was arriving later. Why should I have been penalised for taking up the same amount of rooms, but less space and water

@Lockheart

*But a lot of this is because a single person is choosing to have all to themselves what a couple share.

So if a single person lives with another single person, they pay exactly the same council tax as a couple. But if they choose to have a property all to themselves and not share, then that is obviously going to be more expensive than a shared property*

Your fatal assumption here is that everyone who is single is single by choice.

No, I said that in my post.

They may not be single by choice, but it is a choice to live alone (rather than in a flat share/get a lodger) and it is a choice to have a hotel room to themselves, rather than sharing with someone else.

In any case, regardless if they choose it or not, the point is that the extra cost is because they are getting more. A whole room, not half a room - a whole property, not half a property etc. It's not a charge for being single, its a charge for having non-shared exclusive use. The same charge applies regardless of relationship status.

*apologies, that should read the couple were paying £90 between them so £45 each

it is a choice to have a hotel room to themselves, rather than sharing with someone else.

Not if you don’t have anyone else to go with! (Although I actually don’t have a problem with paying the whole room rate, provided it’s as good as / the same room that a couple would get - which it isn’t always)

@DilemmaADay

I couldn't agree more with the single hotel supplement, I always found it ridiculous.

When staying in London with friends as a single person amongst couples (only talking 8 years ago), my couple friends were paying £90 each for a large double hotel room. Mine would have been a single box-style room for £120 .... no thanks. I just checked in as a couple and said my partner was arriving later. Why should I have been penalised for taking up the same amount of rooms, but less space and water

So the couple were paying £180 for a large room.

You had the option of paying £120 for a small room, or £180 for a large room.

Seems absolutely fair to me. You chose to opt to pay the extra £60 for a larger room, which is your prerogative, but many would have preferred a smaller room and to save some money.

it is a choice to live alone (rather than in a flat share/get a lodger)

In your twenties, I'd agree with you re the flat share. I'm in my 30s and in a flat share. I assure you I'm here through necessity, not choice. Ive seen what MN thinks of men in their 30s who still share a flat - it was not complimentary - I assume the same is thought of women who are sad enough to have to houseshare in their 30s. There comes a time as an adult when you need your own space. I'd like to have more storage than one fridge shelf and one freezer drawer, for starters.

For the lodger, you're assuming that a single person is able to afford a property with more than one bedroom.

it is a choice to have a hotel room to themselves

How is this a choice if you don't have anyone to share with?

@OneLovelyDay car insurance is higher due to the perceived risk based on piles of EVIDENCE! You're more likely to be reckless single than if you had children who depend on you or a partner who you love. Yes, not every single person is reckless but the stats show that odds on a single person is more likely to take chances on the roads than a non single person.

@mrsm43s

so you think that at the age of 56 I should house or even room share

@JoveWhenHeSawMyFannysFace

it is a choice to have a hotel room to themselves, rather than sharing with someone else.

Not if you don’t have anyone else to go with! (Although I actually don’t have a problem with paying the whole room rate, provided it’s as good as / the same room that a couple would get - which it isn’t always)

But it still is a choice. You are choosing not to go with a friend or a relative or advertise for a travelling companion. And I assume you are not happy for the hotel to sell the other spot in your room to a stranger. You want the whole room to yourself - why can you not see that a whole room is more expensive than half a room. You are getting more, so it costs more. The extra cost is because, for whatever reason, you want the whole room to yourself.

I love the way intermittent implies that it is better to be single as you have no one to care about

whilst I was very happy with how flexible and tolerant my workplace was for parents who had to wfh and juggle home schooling… there was a bit of an assumption that childless people like myself would pick up the slack and work really late into the night and exhaust ourselves and compromise our mental and physical health, as if we had nothing better to be doing

I agree those who are childless/child-free, whether in a couple or not, get a raw deal in some things.

This is not my experience as I don't work for an organisation any more, but I've heard similar from friends without kids –colleagues blithely declining meetings or skipping out of work early to play with the kids/take them somewhere etc.

I only have an issue with this because I'd bet my bottom dollar that if someone without children tried to decline a meeting or leave work early to, say, go and visit a friend, or go for a run, they'd get quite short shrift.

[quote Ted27]@mrsm43s

so you think that at the age of 56 I should house or even room share[/quote]
No, not if you don't want to, totally your choice. But you have to accept that your choice not to, and to have exclusive use is going to be more expensive than sharing. The extra cost is because of your choice not to share, not because of your relationship status.

You are choosing not to go with a friend or a relative or advertise for a travelling companion

You are assuming that someone has a friend or relative who wants / can afford to go on that particular holiday at that particular time.

I'm not even going to respond to the "advertising for a travelling companion" as that is patently ridiculous.

And I assume you are not happy for the hotel to sell the other spot in your room to a stranger.

Call me old fashioned but I'd rather not share a double bed with a stranger who I've had no choice in.

I'm a picky bitch me.

I love the way intermittent implies that it is better to be single as you have no one to care about
I don't know why people are not understanding me. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I did not say and do not mean that single people 'have no one to care about'; what I'm saying is that someone in a couple has support, yes, but also has to handle the worry about their partner becoming ill or incapacitated. Which does not mean that single people do not have worries or cares; it means that people in couples have worries too.

You are assuming that someone has a friend or relative who wants / can afford to go on that particular holiday at that particular time.
How it usually works is that people discuss and agree on a holiday they want to go on and the timings.
That goes for couples as well as single people.

You're right. It's an acceptable "ism"

You want the whole room to yourself - why can you not see that a whole room is more expensive than half a room. You are getting more, so it costs more

Erm, I said I didn’t have an issue with paying the full room rate as long as the room was equivalent?

And not always a choice not to share - not going into medical history here, but there’s no way I could share a room with anyone but a very close friend or partner.

What difference does it make if singledom is a choice or not?

This is life. Some people are lucky, some aren’t. Should healthy people opt out of paying NI because they never use the NHS? Should unhealthy people pay more because they use the service more? No, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles (without wanting to sound glib) and as a society we have agreed to share the burden.

But, we haven’t agreed to share the burden of singledom equally. Why should we?

So, so tired of people wanting others to make up for their “misfortunes”. Sometimes, yes it’s absolutely morally the right thing to do. There’s no moral imperative, in my mind, to burden non-single people, or happily single people, financially because some people are single and unhappy about it. How can that be right?