Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Court case: Single mother v letting agent - refusal to let to benefit claimant

53 replies

troubedownmill · 12/03/2017 23:37

Not sure if this is in right section - please advise!

A single mother is taking a letting agent to court with a claim of indirect discrimination because they refused to let to her because she claimed housing benefit.

“Although the receipt of benefits is not one of the protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010, 2 the Act also protects against indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs where a policy, which is not discriminatory in itself, is likely to impact disproportionately on people who are protected under the 2010 Act.3 So; for example, if Housing Benefit claimants are predominantly female or from an ethnic minority group, a refusal to let to Housing Benefit claimants might amount to indirect discrimination against these groups with protected characteristics.” (quoted from “Can private landlords refuse to let to Housing Benefit claimants?” House of Commons Briefing Paper Number 7008, 1 November 2016)

Statistics obtained by her MP from the Department of Work and Pensions prove that single women constitute more than 50% of people that claim housing benefit. Her argument is therefor that Housing Benefit claimants are predominantly female and a refusal to let to Housing Benefit claimants amounts to indirect discrimination.

More significantly, females tend to have a more significant caring role than men. As of February 2016, 63% of HB claimants with children (including single men, single women and couples) are single women; 94% of single claimants with children are women. This caring responsibility means that single mums often have to take lower paid part time work and therefor are reliant on housing benefit to house their family. A key feature of the court claim is that refusing to let to HB claimants impacts disproportionately on a group who are reliant on HB.

There has been plenty of recent press coverage about how the private rented sector is increasingly turning its back on those reliant on HB.

Verging on the offensive are the ill informed comments that use words like "scum" and "lazy" to describe HB claimants. The comments fail to acknowledge that many benefit claimants are people who do have jobs, work hard and are top rate tenants. It would be interesting to see an analysis of what types of tenants prove to be problem tenants - I suggest that single mothers on HB would form a minority group compared to single men with no caring responsibilities and couples.

If this case is successful then not only will it benefit single women, it could also benefit other groups that are protected by the equality act, in particular disabled people, who, again, due to their circumstances often find themselves reliant on HB and therefor also victims of landlords "no benefit" practice

OP posts:
troubledownmill · 22/03/2017 13:17

BBC Radio 4's You and Yours will be covering the story in tomorrow's programme - on air from 12.15 to 1pm

HillysChair · 22/03/2017 13:27

Trouble, great post

Dragongirl10 · 23/03/2017 20:55

The problem is that statistically HB tenants are something like 50% more likely to default....so of course most LL won't take that risk..who would?

The simple answer is to pay the rent direct to the LL then that problem is solved

New posts on this thread. Refresh page