Is this illegal discrimination?

[loopyapp]

I am a single parent of four boys, two of which have a wide range of disabilities and additional needs. I am their full time carer and as a result our income is entirely benefits. Their dad is very supportive financialy and has acted as my guarantor for 5+ years.

So.. With that said is this illegal discrimination?

Ask for council housing. Surely you will be a priority.

If it's a term of their mortgage, then can you call it ‘getting away with it? It's certainly not fair but that doesn't just mean for you. It could be that they are discriminating but equally if they follow the rules and it's an agreement as part.of their mortgage would you expect them to ignore it?

Landlords need evidence that you can afford to pay the rent. The agency when we rented ran credit checks, if you (and your guarantor if using one) passed it and you had documentation for benefits they accepted them, but the rent could be no more than 1/3 if your income.

What % of your income is the rent ?

Yet again we have people piling in with legal "advice" that don't know the law. The courts have decided that "No DSS", "no benefits" and similar policies are indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and disability as they disproportionately harm women and the disabled. So those saying it is not discriminatory are wrong.

refusing to even consider an applicant based on the fact they are a sole carer for two disabled children
It is not based on this though, it is based on the family's income and if they are self sufficient or need state support.
Wasn't there a rule that is the housing benefits were claimed fraudulently by the tenant, the landlord had to pay back the rent payments he had received?
This alone would make me avoid tenants on benefits and I'd be interested to hear from someone who disagrees as it seems such a risky loophole.

Please listen to prh47bridge here. The recent court case is significant in establishing what is (and isn’t) discriminatory.

@moochingtothepub

What % of your income is the rent ?

Its less than a 3rd for both me and their dad the guarantor.

As I say I have zero interest in forcing myself onto someone who doesn't want me but I've a mind to report them for discrimination. They've been daft enough to put into writing that the reasons for refusing to even consider us is that I am not working.

@LovelyLovelyWarmCoffee

refusing to even consider an applicant based on the fact they are a sole carer for two disabled children It is not based on this though, it is based on the family's income and if they are self sufficient or need state support. Wasn't there a rule that is the housing benefits were claimed fraudulently by the tenant, the landlord had to pay back the rent payments he had received? This alone would make me avoid tenants on benefits and I'd be interested to hear from someone who disagrees as it seems such a risky loophole.

As per my earlier post, it is illegal discrimination to refuse a family because they need state support.

In the event of a fraudulent housing benefit claim, the landlord only has to pay back if they committed or colluded in the fraud, e.g. by assisting a false address fraud or continuing to receive benefit when they know the claimant has vacated the premises.

The problem is though @prh47bridge is that no one is going to litigate it are they (financial barriers to legal system is a particular hobby horse of mine). And if a landlord can dress up a refusal in some other way then they can legitimately argue the fact of being in benefits was not THE reason for refusal. Or they will insist on rent being paid upfront (this us what I do for overseas students) again putting in a barrier not directly related to being in receipt of benefits

@VanCleefArpels

The problem is though *@prh47bridge* is that no one is going to litigate it are they (financial barriers to legal system is a particular hobby horse of mine). And if a landlord can dress up a refusal in some other way then they can legitimately argue the fact of being in benefits was not THE reason for refusal. Or they will insist on rent being paid upfront (this us what I do for overseas students) again putting in a barrier not directly related to being in receipt of benefits

Shelter have helped people to litigate and I'm sure they will continue to do so. Yes, a landlord may be able to dress it up in some other way, but the courts will try to look at the reality of the situation. It may be, for example, that the courts will decide that insisting on rent up front is discriminatory due to the impact on benefits claimants.

@VanCleefArpels

The problem is though *@prh47bridge* is that no one is going to litigate it are they (financial barriers to legal system is a particular hobby horse of mine). And if a landlord can dress up a refusal in some other way then they can legitimately argue the fact of being in benefits was not THE reason for refusal. Or they will insist on rent being paid upfront (this us what I do for overseas students) again putting in a barrier not directly related to being in receipt of benefits

This landlord in particular has actually put it in writing. I am very tempted to report them to shelter.

Well good for Shelter - sounds like a class action would be good!

It's not discrimination if their mortgage doesn't allow it

A number of people have made comments along these lines. Yes, it is discrimination even if their mortgage doesn't allow it.

The vast majority of buy-to-let mortgage providers have removed such restrictions from both new and existing mortgages. If any lenders are still operating such a policy, it is likely to be legally unenforceable on the grounds that it is illegal discrimination.

A landlord is, of course, entitled to ensure that the tenant can afford the property. But a blanked ban on people in receipt of benefits is illegal.

@LovelyLovelyWarmCoffee

refusing to even consider an applicant based on the fact they are a sole carer for two disabled children It is not based on this though, it is based on the family's income and if they are self sufficient or need state support. Wasn't there a rule that is the housing benefits were claimed fraudulently by the tenant, the landlord had to pay back the rent payments he had received? This alone would make me avoid tenants on benefits and I'd be interested to hear from someone who disagrees as it seems such a risky loophole.

Would you also avoid “Blacks, Irish and dogs”?

Are you looking to move to a new place? Did they say that they wouldn't consider your application at all just because you're on benefits?

Or could it be that they had other offers and they decided to go.for someone they deemed more financially secure?

I think you’re missing the point. Ruling out an applicant on benefits, in favour of a “more financially secure” employed applicant, is likely to be unlawful discrimination, as prh47bridge explains above.

But there is no compulsion to choose a person on benefits. If given two sets of tenants, one on benefits and one self-funding, the LL isn't forced to choose the one on benefits. So it's not hard to guess which they'll choose if given the option.

I am looking to move as our current home is too small. It is over 3 stories with the bathroom at the top amd that is a huge challenge for DS3 and his additional needs.

The outdoor space is useless amd DS2 manages his ADHD impulses and tics if he is well exercised. We've lived here 2 years and rent is paid in full often early (benefits is paid a few days before rent day). I paid rent a week early for the same reason for the 2.5yrs at my previous address and prior to that I was employed.

I have explained that my entitlement isn't based on monthly attendance interviews and has no commitments attached to it as the DWP recognise my childrens needs out way my availability to work. Given the current situation my income is 100% more guaranteed than a fair few employed people.

I have offered to have the housing element paid directly to the LL or EA and their dad has offered to actually pay the outstanding rent directly rather than pay me CM.

The word for word response was (still cant load a friggin picture!)

"We are sorry to inform you that we have cancelled your upcoming viewing at xxxxxxxxxx as the landlord has stipulated they will only accept working applicants. Apologies for any inconvenience"

I would LOVE to work. I would LOVE for DS2 to be neurotypical and not have the learning disabilities he does so he could manage wrap around care and going too and from mums and dads house like other kids without it causing crippling anxiety for him. I would LOVE for DS3 to not have epilepsy and Arnold chiari malformation and be at the constant edge of will he/won't he need horribly invasive surgeries.

However that is not to be and to have total strangers not deem us worthy of a nice home that meets everyone's needs because societal norms meant it was me that gave up my wonderful career to care for them and not their dad is undoubtedly discrimination.

"We are sorry to inform you that we have cancelled your upcoming viewing at xxxxxxxxxx as the landlord has stipulated they will only accept working applicants. Apologies for any inconvenience"
Said like this, yes, it's discrimination but could be discrimination by proxi if their insurance/mortgage company make it a condition.

@dontdisturbmenow

"We are sorry to inform you that we have cancelled your upcoming viewing at xxxxxxxxxx as the landlord has stipulated they will only accept working applicants. Apologies for any inconvenience" Said like this, yes, it's discrimination but could be discrimination by proxi if their insurance/mortgage company make it a condition.

Thank you, I've decided to ask Shelter to help. Ive no intention of forcing them to take us but they need pulling up on it if it's unlawful.

@loopyapp what have the Council said about your priority for / availability for social housing?

They were dumb enough to put it in writing, definitely contact Shelter! That’ll definitely make them change their minds. The next time they’ll just reject people with no explanation whatsoever

[quote VanCleefArpels]@loopyapp what have the Council said about your priority for / availability for social housing?[/quote]
Yes but sadly we live rurally and there just isnt anything available within 20 miles of the childrens schools. They can't offer anything less than a 3 bed as only 2 kids can share a room and where we are there are only 4 3 bed or bigger council houses. All of them have long term tenants in. I personally know 3 of the families and they aren't leaving any time soon.