How much trouble could I be in for refusing to offer this person a tenancy?

[Imalreadytorn]

Name change for this as I am aware that landlords aren’t always popular even under normal circumstances.
Please note I am posting in Legal for advice, not in AIBU.
Briefly I have had a room become available in a house share. Existing tenants have been there 4 - 6 years. They are a real mix, but get along well although I wouldn’t describe them as friends.
It’s a nice room and there’s been a lot of interest. So far no one has ticked all the boxes I think are necessary to gel with the other tenants.
I’ve had a viewing today and the applicant is clearly ND. A really nice person but spoke and walked about without stopping the whole time. I felt completely out of my depth after a viewing appointment which lasted about 5 times the usual length. Added to that there were numerous messages before the appointment ( 16 texts and calls during my 90 minutes journey there). Since the viewing I have had 12 text messages, even though I explained that I couldn’t make any decisions until I finished my appointments and got home, likely to be at least 9.00pm.
I’m not at my strongest right now, and even at my best I would struggle to meet the frequent need for information/ reassurance/ interaction from this individual.
One of the existing tenants who was in the shared area for part of the viewing has already messaged me expressing concern. ( he works incredibly long hours and the others know to give him space when he gets home exhausted).
The applicant has a housing support worker who has already called me ( I didn’t answer as driving) quite forcefully confirming that full rent will be met due to disability and is easily afforded due to PIP.
I cannot offer this person a tenancy, it’s unfair on the others, but I can’t deny that it is due to behaviour, which is clearly linked to disability.
Unfortunately I haven’t found a suitable tenant so the advertisement is still running.
I assume that I have no ‘defence’ and will just have to accept the consequences?
How likely is it that action will be taken?
I have 2 house share properties

In terms of discrimination, if such behaviour (excessive communication) was due to the person's disability, a LL could well be expected to put up with it. How the LL managed the behaviour (eg by turning off phone) or the effects it may have on their MH, would not be the disabled person's problem to solve.
Really? So a person would legally be expected to tolerate any levels of intrusive behaviour or be labelled discriminatory?

*In terms of discrimination, if such behaviour (excessive communication) was due to the person's disability, a LL could well be expected to put up with it. How the LL managed the behaviour (eg by turning off phone) or the effects it may have on their MH, would not be the disabled person's problem to solve8

This is absolute garbage. Sending continued, unwanted communication when it isnt wanted is the legal definition of "harassment' from a legal point of view. Google it if you dont believe me.

This person is breaking the law and disability isnt an excuse. If this were the case then the law wouldnt apply equally to everyone, but it does. Thank goodness.

Landlords lying about rooms being taken was precisely why discrimination legislation had to be brought in in the first place.

The honest thing to do is to say they would not fit in with the existing tenants in what is in effect a shared household. This is so obviously true it seems unlikely they would be so foolish as to attempt to prove otherwise.

Surely think of the other tenants? You have no written proof that the new.person is ND, any of the existing tenents could be ND and this level of communication could be overwhelming for them.
Just state its not a good fit with existing tenents.

Have you got a closing date for applications?
You could state that you’re going through the list of applications still as lots have applied!

Perhaps a landlord could be expected to (but wouldn't in practice), but I really don't think a house share of working tenants could be expected to. Equally a landlord offering lodging in their own house wouldn't be expected to offer a room to someone they couldn't get on with.

If this person has a disability support worker and is claiming disability benefits, OP needs to keep her refusal as neutral as possible and not invite questions, otherwise she would be inviting exactly that because the Equality Act 2010 potentially would support the person if, without a cast iron reason, there was even a hint that the refusal was because of disability.

No. She isn’t. The support worker will be aware of how difficult it is to place someone with this kind of disability into suitable housing. So they will use every available means to try to talk OP into agreeing. The plain fact is that it will cause problems for the other tenants and when it does, OP will get no help with sorting it out, because the authorities have placed the person, so job done. OP is not discriminating because of the protected characteristic per se, but because she knows that she will be unable to provide the reasonable adjustment required to accommodate it. That isn’t discrimination or illegal.

For what it's worth, I absolutely think you have done the right thing for your sake and that of your tenants.

If you have now filled the vacancy, can you respond to the email saying no longer available, maybe as you have found a suitable tenant, but that you were also concerned regarding the amount of contact you had and meeting their requirements? I have a feeling you aren't the first LL to be in this situation with this tenant and I'd say they are looking for completely the wrong kind of housing. This person needs a flat of their own.

Yes. Businesses (a LL is one) can't discriminate due to disability. Direct discrimination is pretty obvious, indirect discrimination more nuanced. Indirect discrimination is treating everyone the same regardless of their needs. If someone is basically, in laymen's terms, "needy" as a direct result of their disability, to discriminate against them based on this is illegal. It's not uncommon for ND people to go into "waiting mode" and be unable to deal with anything until the previous action is completed. As one example, this could cause a person to send excessive texts due to needing an answer on whether they've got the tenancy before they can get on with the rest of their life, like cooking tea or applying for another rental. As the support worker hasn't finished hassling OP, the tenant doesn't yet have their answer (in their eyes).

I remember a case of a dentist who was taken to court and lost, over their refusal to treat an autistic child who was swearing and using other abusive language (during a meltdown most probably), the court deemed the behaviour as due to the child's autism, therefore the refusal to treat was discrimination.

Businesses can't say "your disability is causing me a problem therefore I don't want to be involved with you". That's illegal.

@Snowflake2

Businesses can't say "your disability is causing me a problem therefore I don't want to be involved with you". That's illegal.
To what extent though. Obviously if the behaviours extended to biting the dentist or taking so much time that other patients are being pushed back too long or causing the dentist to feel so anxious that they have a panic attack then it would not be illegal to refuse to treat.

I feel bad for the prospective renter.
I imagine they’re very difficult to place - or to rent to - and it’s probably hard to control all the anxious texts & calls.
It must be near impossible to live like that.
You were right not to rent to them @Imalreadytorn— exactly right. I’m happy for you that you’ve now rented the room.
It must be exhausting to live inside that mind every single day. I wonder how many other landlords have had to say no. And after every “no,” the anxiety ratchets up by another 500 decibels.

I'm not interested in a debate with you (or anyone). I was answering another posters question about discrimination. A lot of people have been posting saying things like they wouldn't accept it from non disabled so won't accept it from disabled. I was pointing out it's not that simple when you're talking about a business. What private individuals have for their own standards of behaviour from who they want in their lives is one thing, businesses have to be more careful.

I doubt the OP wants to debate it in court either. Which is why my advice to her is to keep quiet, refuse to communicate with the support worker and not give the excessive amount of calls/texts or any other strange behaviour as a reason for not taking on the tenant.

Businesses can't say "your disability is causing me a problem therefore I don't want to be involved with you". That's illegal.
They can say “The adjustments required for me to be involved with you are beyond what is reasonable”. That’s absolutely legal.

Just say that you have liaised with all the existing tenants and, as yet, a suitable fit has not been found. You need to consider all the people who have been there 4-6 years and their way of life. If you introduce this person into the mix will they be working or there all day? Will the other tenants start to move out despite the fact they have been there 4-6 years? I would put in a clear but short boundary of you are still advertising and have had lots of enquiries which you need to go through. I think the candidate you mention probably needs somewhere with more support than is on offer where you are. Good luck and your post is very sincere which is to be commended. Think of yourself and your future.

I have no idea about the legal side of things but it sounds like the housing support worker just wants to find a place for their client without taking into account whether it’ll actually be suitable for them.

My concern would be that they would need a certain level of social interaction and support which would which would end up being passed into the other housemates.

I once lived with a lovely friend who has now had a diagnosis of Asperger’s. This was while I was studying and working at the same time. TBH the constant chatting an monologues during the little time I had to relax really got to me, constantly talking over TV programmes etc.

Yup. People are seriously misunderstanding the law here. For example, take the job of a postman or delivery person - if you are physically unable to walk or drive then you can't do that job. End of. The employer cannot make "reasonable adjustments" to accommodate that person doing the job therefore it would not be illegal not to hire them. Employers are required to make reasonable adjustments to allow individuals with disabilities to complete their role (for example, installing software on a computer that aids with reading/typing or ensuring adequate disability access to the office etc). The key here is "reasonable". If you are unable to make reasonable adjustments then it is not discriminatory.

@MonkeyChips

it has nothing to do with this thread though, there are plenty of threads about this if that's what you want to discuss.

Even those adjustments are sometimes unreasonable. For example if it would cost an excessive amount for the employer to purchase the software, or if it’s not possible to install disability access in a listed building. Only reasonable adjustments are legally required.

Yes, exactly - very true.

I think in this situation the support worker should be looking for supported housing. As a landlord I think the individual would continue to ask you as many questions with issues/concerns. Plus if your other tenants were to move out because of one tenants behaviour you will have a bigger problem.

Speaking from personal experience being ND I would not be able to cope with this person at all and it would be my worst nightmare having someone who constantly harassed me living with me. I don’t know anyone ND or NT who would personally be able to cope with it either and nor should they have to. The law states that everyone has the right to go about their daily lives without risk of being harassed or having unwanted communications being forced upon them. Rightly so.

Totally agree with this. I’m ND too and I’d struggle living with this person. It’s likely they have poor boundaries if they were calling at midnight. So I can’t imagine how things would turn out for your existing tenants whether they’re ND or not. It’s actually a good thing you’re taking everyone into consideration. I don’t think this is disability discrimination.

Obviously this is not for OP to worry or enquire about, but I wonder if the PIP is enough for them to get a one bed flat? Seems it would be better for them.

Please desist from phoning and messaging me, it is bordering on harassment and is causing me stress. I will be in touch with all apllicabts as soon as I have made a decision.

That poster is spouting bollocks.

The measurement is 'reasonableness'.

If it reasonable to contact your landlord repeatedly over anything after 10pm, expecting a response immediately?

Yes it is, but only in an emergency situation. So if there was an immediate threat to life or the property (eg water leak or smelling gas).

Is it reasonable to be doing this over a matter relating to anything else? Well a single email, sent at your convenience at this time because it suits your lifestyle, but doesn't expect an immediate response is fine.

Beyond that it fails to pass a reasonable expectation test and no court is ever going to demand you adhere to that level of service. Because it's unreasonable and would have a significant impact on your life.