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?

Tbh I don't think there's discrimination as such. More it's in some aspects being financially clobbered over and above the mere fact of being solely responsible for household outgoings.

Married tax allowance is annoying too.

@ilovesooty

The single person supplement in hotels etc feels very unfair. Pay a supplement to get a nasty little room. Not to mention the deals on Wowcher etc where there isn't even a choice of paying a supplement for a hotel and evening meal deal. Couples only.

DH and I were both single for a long time before we got together and obviously suffered from this. We ran a B&B for a few years and our USP was not charging a single supplement. Yes it meant a slightly lower income but I'm still proud we did that, especially as we had a lot of week night single occupancy.

The mortgage on a single salary is a joke these days. Completely unfair.

It's been unfair since the very first joint salary mortgage 50 odd years ago.

Very few hotels have single rooms, whether I person, 2 or even 4 occupies the room makes no difference to the hotel cost basis (mostly hotels charge extra for breakfast and if there's one person it is cheaper). The rubbish truck still has to do the same number of miles whether they are picking up rubbish for one or two, car insurance is odd but you can put a friend on it.

I think that something can be an issue, worth tabling and discussing as a society to see where reforms can be made, without using words like “discrimination” and “privilege”, which muddy the waters and present the issue in an off-putting way.

I’m gay, disabled and my peers are all married or partnered. The first two involve systemic disadvantages based on characteristics I was born with and cannot change. The third is sometimes incredibly frustrating, upsetting, and financially punitive, but is not in the same league.

It’d be like suggesting that women are discriminated against for being infertile or childless. We’re often subjected to horrifically insensitive comments and can bear the brunt of carrying workloads, but it’s not discrimination. The two things should bd kept separate if we’ve a hope of a useful societal conversation.

Not really a question of legal rights, but when my mother was young is was very hard for a woman, particularly a working class women, to find a job that paid enough to live independently. Unless you got married you stayed with your parents, often in overcrowded living conditions, or, if you were really lucky, maybe you could afford a room in a boarding house. There was definitely a financial coercion element to women getting married. Back in the eighties and nineties I knew young, single people in low-paid jobs who were able to buy their first home. Now it feels like you need to be in a couple to afford even the basic cost of living. We're going back to the times when you had to please a man and put up with him if you don't want to live with your parents or in shared accommodation.

my car insurance went up when my husband died, we had both been insured to drive each others cars as the named driver, but I was insuring my car in my name only, and it was increased specifically because I was single ie. widowed. When i queried this , I was told it was because on long journeys I wouldnt be sharing the driving! Although it seemed ridiculous to me, I was too stressed by all the admin involved to argue.

Family discounts at attractions are for families of four or lour. I have 2 kids and never get a discount, though arguable need it more

For 'family' attractions i.e. kids' attractions, the people running it are probably basing it on the children getting the benefit and only needing an adult to supervise them. The second adult is often unnecessary - and could potentially be the cause (deterred by the extra supervisory cost, wants to do something else/cheaper etc.) for them losing the business altogether.

I've always thought it's crazy, though, when things for children have a high-priced adult ticket and much cheaper ones for the young actual beneficiaries of the activity/performance.

a supplement is an additional charge not a discount.

I’ve been totally priced out on some holidays where the single person supplement was more that 50%.

You can see it both ways, though. Suppose the cost is £100 each based on two adults occupying a room, but a single person is charged a supplement of £50, that's an additional charge to them but a room discount being given by the hotel, who could have got £200 for it had they reserved it for a couple/two occupants. From their point of view, they are giving a 25% discount on a room worth £200. Otherwise, they could either just say 'no, the room costs £200 irrespective' or simply refuse a booking from a single person.

It would only be indisputably an additional charge and not a discount if they (bizarrely) charged a couple £200 or two friends £300 for the same room.

my car insurance went up when my husband died, we had both been insured to drive each others cars as the named driver, but I was insuring my car in my name only, and it was increased specifically because I was single ie. widowed. When i queried this , I was told it was because on long journeys I wouldnt be sharing the driving! Although it seemed ridiculous to me, I was too stressed by all the admin involved to argue.

It is a bummer, but from the insurer's pov, they (or the industry as a whole) were previously receiving two premiums on vehicles from a couple who, one would assume, would often be travelling together in just one of them. Now there's just you, all of your travelling will be concentrated in just one car, so there's more risk in that car overall - and you're still saving overall because (tragically), you only need to insure one car now.

It would only be indisputably an additional charge and not a discount if they (bizarrely) charged a couple £200 or two friends £300 for the same room.

I was looking at doing a tour a few years back where the single supplement was more than the base cost. Can’t remember the exact figures, but something like £1,000pp with a single room supplement of £1,250. I did check in case that was the total cost not the extra amount but no, they were charging £2,250 for lone travellers and £1,000pp for each member of a couple.

@trixies but women are discriminated against for being infertile/ childless! That’s definitely a thing. And these can also be things that women “cannot change” and may be “born with”.

@Bizawit Do you mean discriminated against as a substitute for upsetting/aggravating/financially punitive or do you mean in the legal sense i.e. be excluded from accessing benefits available to the comparator (parents)? Because as it happens, I’m infertile and struggling to think of an example of the latter.

@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

I always do this to avoid being put in a shitty single room backing onto an alley.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

I would much rather hotels charge on a per room basis, then I can decide if I want to pay it or not

What I really hate is seeing a price quoted and find in the small print an extra charge.

I use Premier Inn a lot, I’ve just booked a room for £30, it would be the same cost no matter how many people are in there.
I suppose you could argue that its a £15 single person supplement as it would be £15 per person if two people shared.
In this case I dont see it that way, £30 is good value, I had other options in nearby hotels which cost more, and it wouldnt slap on another tenner at checkout as a supplement.

I think its the feeling of being ripped off that irks. I have paid small single person supplements in the past, but there is a point where its just excessive.

I think I mean that they suffer from systematic forms of prejudice/ exclusion/ judgement/
Disadvantage on the basis of their status as being childless.
I’m not sure what your definition of discrimination is? You say that single people don’t suffer from discrimination, even though they do suffer legal forms of exclusion from certain entitlements/ benefits available to married couples. Now you are saying that’s a necessary condition for discrimination? And where are the examples of this in relation to the other forms of discrimination you mention?

Anyways we may be derailing the thread a little bit, so I may respectfully bow out.

As a final comment, I do personally think there are lots of different types of discrimination and diff forms discrimination can take. Some forms of discrimination are more pervasive/ arguably worse than others, but all are worthy of discussion and often they are quite different/ hard to compare.

That was @trixies

sorry I have only read part of the thread, but have been wanting to say, I have always heard of this the other way around.
Single/widowed pensioners not living together with new partners because they would lose a large part of their pension, and as I recall that would not be easily regainable if they split up or someone died.

Also for taxes and welfare (UK) being assesed as a couple means that if one earns and the other doesn't they have a tax band assessed on one person (ie a higher tax band than if that money was assessed across 2 people) but if they are on benefits their income is assessed together = worst of both worlds. This also promotes financial abuse where the earner can control their partner's access to money and the partner has no recourse to public funds as an individual human being. Nor can they earn without this being disclosed to their partner.

So there are definitely swings and roundabouts.

I was looking at doing a tour a few years back where the single supplement was more than the base cost. Can’t remember the exact figures, but something like £1,000pp with a single room supplement of £1,250. I did check in case that was the total cost not the extra amount but no, they were charging £2,250 for lone travellers and £1,000pp for each member of a couple.

That is outrageous. All I can possibly think is that they underprice the rooms in the expectation of making it up through copious sales of overpriced food and alcohol - and one person will obviously buy less food and booze than two - but that's very underhand indeed.

I can see pushing for expanding discrimination law on things like employment rights particularly around leave and maybe around insurance, though as others said, things like job titles and many other things come into play too.

For council tax, it could be interesting to see how the numbers break down if we include everything include the bins, fire, police, adult social care, and so on.

The child benefit for your friends might be protecting their ability to get a pension in later life if they are not working enough on their partners, and will be taken away from them in tax. This could protect them from sex-based divides in latter life.

Part of it is that there are pros and cons to different lifestyles & circumstances and not all of those cons or risks are ameliorated on a social level. There is space for debating just how much they should be.

As for living with others - I'm open the the idea of a lodger/houseshare, but once you're in your 30s there's a lot fewer people to choose from who are in the same position and want to share. It's a lot harder, and certainly not a choice, to find someone you can happily cohabit with.

There are some sites dedicated to this, like www.nestful.io/, but yes, in general, it's harder to find good arrangements without friends who are interested in this too and finding appropriate housing.

I find the new builds are less suitable for this which may cause issues in the future. As a pp said, we may get to a time when the rise in single-adult households needs incentivized in the other direction towards older adult living together. It's hard to find a balance.

I choose, even near 40 with four children, to live in a 3-adult household. One of us is single. Some things are cheaper, some things are more expensive living this way. I find the most savings in energy by dividing the load. This would depend on the other people one lived with. I do aspire in old age (on the statistical assumption that I'm the last one standing both due to sex, age, and current conditions) of having a Golden Girls arrangement with my friends who will likely remain in rentals so they've more secure housing in older age, though it may be awkward to arrange legally.

As a long term singleton myself I totally agree

The council tax thing has always pissed me off it SHOULD be a 50% discount

Shocked to learn there's discrimination in car insurance too

your bin isn’t emptied half as often, your car doesn’t do half as much damage to roads

Bin may well be half or even less full though, not everyone drives personally I think road maintenance should be covered by road tax not council tax

Hotel rooms single supplement yes!

Present giving yes!

Also drinks rounds - couples only paying once whereas singles paying for the couples twice!

@Lockheart yes! To food packaging too especially items with a very short shelf life eg my Tesco have stopped offering half cucumber portions recently, bagged salads as you've mentioned and as I'm housebound and rely on deliveries I've found ordering soft items loose is pointless as they always arrive damaged!

I buy a 400g loaf of bread - but it's more expensive than an 800g budget loaf but I was getting sick of mouldy bread left over! I have a small kitchen and a small freezer so that isn't really an option

But holidays for couples involve two flights/train tickets; two lots of meals out; two lots of tickets to sights/museums etc.

Paid for from 2 incomes

Single supplements often bump the price of hotel room up to MORE than the price 2 adults would pay, I don't mind paying the full room price but as I had dd too so often the room WAS fully occupied but dd "didn't count" and I'd be paying MORE than a couple would have paid - in total

I certainly don't see why a singleton should pay more than the cost of a double room for a less than half the size of a double room single room.

Why is he earning LESS than nmw? That's surely a choice he's made assuming it's due to being self employee/freelance? And also includes choosing to work in an industry or way that means he isn't being paid even nmw. It may even mean his choice of employment isn't really viable and he should do something else

Being single isn't necessarily a choice it hasn't always been for me and not having someone to share the costs of being single is rarely a choice too

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

Totally agree!

You are incredibly naive if you think there is no link

Totally agree

It also impacts healthcare, how authorities treat you, access to facilities...

Are you seriously comparing paying for all bills alone versus paying for your DP's leisure membership?! i know - bonkers right?

@VienneseWhirligig that's disgusting on the house insurance - did you go to an insurer who didn't penalise you/cost less?

@IntermittentParps you do seem to be rather hijacking/merailing the thread! If your dp isn't earning enough that's nothing to do with whether he's married or single and you don't have to continue to support him, indeed in your shoes I would be having stern words with him - but that really is a whole OTHER thread

You are right - it is more expensive to be single. People who have not lived as a single adult for a while dont really get it.
Exactly

I just don’t think you’re in a position yet to understand what the OP is going through. You are at a stage in your life when the majority of your peers are in the same situation as you, and you are not facing the same kind of structural life challenges.

I'm afraid I agree. It's as you get older that you realise just how skewed towards benefiting couples our society is

Family discounts at attractions are for families of four yes! So many times Dd and I "didn't count" as "a family"

Why isn't it 25% extra per extra adult if there are more than two in the household then? Extra adults use more council services just as a single person uses less.

Excellent question

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast no, single person supplement is an ADDITIONAL cost if you dare to "under occupy" a room - even if you don't really and there are 2 in the room but one is a child. Often the total cost is MORE than what the total cost would be for 2 adults occupying. Essentially single adult travellers/tourists are taxed

@Bizawit I should’ve used “e.g.” rather than “i.e.”. I use discrimination to mean being at a systematic disadvantage compared to a comparator class. In a previous job, I was told not to disclose my sexuality as my boss was homophobic and it would’ve impeded my career progress. In another I was overlooked for promotion due to a disability issue. Those are examples of discrimination. They are why sexuality and disability are recognised protected characteristics.

When I say excluded from accessing benefits, an example might be that parents are unable to access particular career opportunities due to childcare. Or, people with certain disabilities unable to advance in the workplace or access transport due to needs which could easily be catered for.

Single people being ineligible for tax breaks given to married people is a slightly different issue, because tax breaks aren’t for “partnered” people, but “married” people. People who aren’t single but who aren’t married also wouldn’t benefit. Discrimination in the legal sense would be a situation where a person in a gay marriage couldn’t benefit. That would be preventing access to a arson with an “equivalent” status, on the basis of sexuality. Preventing access to a single person isn’t because they aren’t part of a couple, because couples are also prevented (unless they are married). The distinction in law between married and non married couples is there for a host of reasons that aren’t relevant here.

In short language matters. I have had insensitive and hurtful comments, and been judged, for being a single childless 30 something, but I have not encountered discrimination.

@mrsm43s

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.

Well said.

@EsmaCannonball

Not really a question of legal rights, but when my mother was young is was very hard for a woman, particularly a working class women, to find a job that paid enough to live independently. Unless you got married you stayed with your parents, often in overcrowded living conditions, or, if you were really lucky, maybe you could afford a room in a boarding house. There was definitely a financial coercion element to women getting married. Back in the eighties and nineties I knew young, single people in low-paid jobs who were able to buy their first home. Now it feels like you need to be in a couple to afford even the basic cost of living. We're going back to the times when you had to please a man and put up with him if you don't want to live with your parents or in shared accommodation.

So true. We still see it on MN every day, women staying with abusive men because they don't see how they could cope with the bills themselves.

I agree with just about everything you say, graphista...

However, Family discounts at attractions are for families of four yes! So many times Dd and I "didn't count" as "a family"

We're a family of 3: two adults and one child and the family tickets are often based on a second adult ticket being roughly half price when there are two children. Therefore, we don't get the family 'discounted' ticket, because it's still dearer than two adult and one child tickets. Maybe we should get a pro-rata discount, but if you're going to offer group discounts for just two or three people, it seems silly to have standard prices in the first place.

As I said before, I think they calculate a sweetener based on a second adult, as they will often only be there for strictly unnecessary additional supervision (if you discount the whole idea of 'a nice family day out', of course) - and if people see that they're paying a load more for that extra adult, it could result in the whole family going elsewhere instead.

Not the main point of this thread, I know, but there are also additional costs in hotels from another angle, if you have three children (however small): the children are older teenagers now, but family members had unexpected twins the second time around and, once they're out of a cot, that usually takes you out of the realms of a value family room and having to split the family across (and pay for) two separate rooms.

Why is he earning LESS than nmw? That's surely a choice he's made assuming it's due to being self employee/freelance? And also includes choosing to work in an industry or way that means he isn't being paid even nmw. It may even mean his choice of employment isn't really viable and he should do something else
*
Being single isn't necessarily a choice it hasn't always been for me and not having someone to share the costs of being single is rarely a choice too*

How can you put these two paragraphs one after the other and not for one second comprehend that being in a low paid job can be just as much not a choice, as being single. it would be just as easy to say your choice of single lifestyle isn't viable and you should do something else. Except I'm competent enough to realise whilst both can be choices both can also be states one gets 'stuck' in and it can be just as hard to find an alternative job as it can be to find a partner.

Shocked to learn there's discrimination in car insurance too

@Graphista - there isn't. It's a highly competitive market - if two people are applying for car insurance and the only difference between them is one is single and one is married, the insurer will charge the lower premium to the one that their stats show will on average have a lower claim rate. If they didn't, you can be sure one of their competitors would and so mop up that corner of the market!

It's no more discrimination than charging younger drivers more because they have more accidents.