Discrimination?

[Lootman]

Not sure whether this belongs in Property Investing or some general/ethical forum but I'll ask it here as it does raise legal issues. This is something that has bothered me for a long time, on and off anyway.

I was a landlord from 1978 to 2010, with 15 units and over 100 tenants. So, experienced, and yet this stumped me. It was over 20 years ago, so hopefully any liability is time-limited out. Anyway:

I advertised a flat for rent in Muswell Hill, in the Standard as you did back then. I got a good number of responses and I knew it would easily rent.

One lady in particular impressed me over the phone. I invited her to a viewing and interview the following Saturday at 11 am. I asked her to phone me that morning to confirm she was coming. She rang that morning to confirm. And then very casually mentioned that she was blind. This totally threw me and I only had a minute to decide how to respond.

I figured that a blind tenant would be additional risk and liability, for no extra reward. This was up two flights of stairs and had no special accommodation for any form of disability. It was also an animal-free building. I didn't want her but felt sure that it would be totally illegal to reject her for those reasons.

I figured that if she came, saw the place, liked it, offered to pay the asking rent and I had no other issue with her, and then I rejected her anyway, it would look awful. I decided it was better to end this there and then, so I told her that I did not think this would work out, and that I had a great deal of other interest.

She got angry and said she would sue me for discrimination. She never did.

Reflecting upon it more, I felt trapped. She may not have been under an obligation to tell me she was blind in the initial discussion. But at the same time, would that not be the very first thing anyone would notice about her if they met her in real life? Was holding out on that information a form of bad faith? Should she not have been open and upfront about it? Was she trying to play me? Or was she simply treating it as a minor issue, which ideally it should be?

Or am I just rationalising what was illegal behaviour and prejudice on my part? And was I lucky to get away with it?

[richlist]

She would have been in receipt of one or more of the myriad of benefits paid by the Gov't.

Surely you are free to choose NOT to let to applicants who are:
* in receipt of benefits.
* not working.
* with pets.

[didds]

She got angry and said she would sue me for discrimination. She never did.

I'm wondering exactly what she would have sued you "for". I'm not sure discrimination on ability to see, especially 20 years ago, was a civil case?

(rhetorical question!)

didds

[Lootman]

She would have been in receipt of one or more of the myriad of benefits paid by the Gov't. Surely you are free to choose NOT to let to applicants who are:
* in receipt of benefits.
* not working.
* with pets.

She probably had a job else she would not have been my top candidate. (I actually worked with a blind guy in the 1990's in the City). I did take some tenants on benefits back then, although stopped at some point. But yes, I believe it is not illegal to discriminate based on source of funds.

A blind dog probably counts as a service animal rather than a pet, legally.

She got angry and said she would sue me for discrimination. She never did.

I'm wondering exactly what she would have sued you "for". I'm not sure discrimination on ability to see, especially 20 years ago, was a civil case

It's definitely illegal to discriminate against protected groups, i.e. to deny housing based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. I'm guessing disability is a protected class. But there has to be exceptions e.g. rejecting someone in a wheelchair when there are stairs.

[midnightcatprowl]

Sorry but I think you were wrong, you did discriminate (for no good reason) and you could have found yourself in a difficult or maybe even disastrous situation by doing so. Even if the person concerned did not decide to take legal action against you they could easily have found a local paper or radio station which would have loved to have run this sort of story with their own embellishments! So your potential tenant was probably rather kind or maybe found a more welcoming landlord very quickly and in the rush of moving forgot about you!

If the registered blind person concerned did have a service dog one thing you can be sure of is that the dog would have been trained to the highest standards and would probably make a better tenant than the average human. N.B. I was until fairly recently a shopkeeper and we always welcomed both service dogs and service dogs in training into the shop and their behaviour was an example both to humans and canines.

If a registered blind person lives independently and even, in addition, is in full time employment, that person will already have learned how to deal with many more challenges than the average member of the public and so is less likely to pose challenge to a landlord than the average non-disabled person.

[didds]

It's definitely illegal to discriminate against protected groups, i.e. to deny housing based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. I'm guessing disability is a protected class. But there has to be exceptions e.g. rejecting someone in a wheelchair when there are stairs.

Yes - I accept that totally. But wouldn't that be a criminal matter? If its civil what recourse would/could she have sought in reality??

didds

[dionaeamuscipula]

She would have been in receipt of one or more of the myriad of benefits paid by the Gov't.

Surely you are free to choose NOT to let to applicants who are:
* in receipt of benefits.
* not working.
* with pets.

Actually a blanket ban on pets IS against the law.

DM

[gryffron]

Actually a blanket ban on pets IS against the law.

Against what law? I can see that a blanket ban has been judged to be an unfair and unenforceable contract term. That's not the same as "against the law".

Gryff

[richlist]

I'm a landlord, have been for 20 years. I've let to every race, nationality colour, sex, sexual orientation etc etc under the sun but......I have always been able to find legitimate ways for NOT letting my properties to people who I consider unsuitable.

[chas49]

Actually a blanket ban on pets IS against the law.

Against what law? I can see that a blanket ban has been judged to be an unfair and unenforceable contract term. That's not the same as "against the law".

Gryff

Presumably it could be seen as discrimination against assistance dog users?

[melonfool]

This would be illegal under the Equality Act 2010, but not illegal 20 years ago as far as I can see (NPI). I don't *think* the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act extended to service providers, I think it was only employers, but I may be wrong.

I'm not sure why people are talking about it being 'criminal'. You don't 'sue' (which just means 'issue proceedings against' really) people for criminal acts, you report them to the police, so anyone suing anyone individually is doing so under civil law (mainly, ignoring public law).

Re pets - it's a breach of the Human Rights Act (apparently) to have a blanket pet ban (not pet blanket ban, that would be legal), though landlords get around it by saying 'no dogs' or 'no cats'. However, the dog one could be indirect against blind/deaf/other disabled people, so as a PP said, better to find another way really.

Blind, and other disabled people, have enough difficulties in life without never being able to rent somewhere because someone else has decided what they are and are not capable of. Hence the law.

I doubt the OP broke the law 20 years ago, but they would be breaking the law if they did it now.

Mel

[pochisoldi]

Re pets - it's a breach of the Human Rights Act (apparently) to have a blanket pet ban

The Human Rights Act doesn't give anyone the right to own a pet, nor does it give the courts the ablility to overturn a contract or any other part of law (e.g. Theresa May's "you can't deport me because I've got a cat" myth). Even a claim under the article 1 right to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" would need to weigh the landlords rights under that article, against the tenant's.

A blanket pet ban will be thrown out on the basis that it is an unfair contract term, being overbroad, and not weighed in such a way to permit the tenant freedom to use their property in a tenant like manner, and the legitimate desire of the landlord to prevent deterioration of the property on the other. For example (quoting the OFT), it would prevent a tenant having a fish in a bowl.

The Equality Act, effectively prevents landlords from banning assistance dogs (which aren't pets anyway), so any landlord who does not make an exception for assistance dogs (belonging to the tenant or their visitors) is lining themselves up for unnecessary legal action.

The biggest problem is how do you word such an exemption to prevent someone claiming that their overgrown rat/little yorkshire terrier is an assistance dog...

PochiSoldi

[chas49]

This would be illegal under the Equality Act 2010, but not illegal 20 years ago as far as I can see (NPI). I don't *think* the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act extended to service providers, I think it was only employers, but I may be wrong.

DDA1995 s22 prohibited discrimination in relation to disposal of premises (which includes the right to occupy) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/199 ... es/enacted) so the OP may well have been in breach of this. Since the time limit under the Equality Act for such matters is 6 months less one day I think he's safe now.

[UncleEbenezer]

This would be illegal under the Equality Act 2010, but not illegal 20 years ago as far as I can see (NPI). I don't *think* the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act extended to service providers, I think it was only employers, but I may be wrong.
Mel

I think you are wrong. The DDA offered disabled people the right to demand reasonable accommodation not just in employment, but also as customers in a shop, or users of a community building, or indeed a website. Hence for example the massive expansion in access ramps.

I recollect quite a fuss about the problems of providing ramps in old churches, and no doubt other such listed/historic buildings: they vigorously opposed any absolute requirement and got the language of "reasonable adjustment".