Graham ..............
#1

This from an article in todays independent:

Estate agent has to pay 3,000 to single mum after discriminating against her

It's not very often that we see discrimination like this being prosecuted. It will be interesting to see if there are more like this in the pipeline or is this a one-off.

A Dublin-based estate agent has been ordered to pay €3,000 to a single mother after being found to discriminate against her status when renting an apartment.


On April 17, 2016, she saw a two-bedroom apartment for rent and emailed the letting agent to state: "I'm a single mum with one toddler. I'm looking to rent using the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme. Could you let me know if this would be agreeable. Thank you."
In reply, the estate agent stated: "HAP is acceptable but the landlord is looking for a couple here I'm afraid, apologies on this. Kind regards."


I would wonder if the EA in this case thought he was safe by avoiding 'the landlord doesn't want a HAP tenant' response.

1 person has thanked this post
....... Registered User
#2

What a fool to put that in an email.

Why didnt he just thank her for her interest but that the apartment was already gone?

22 people have thanked this post
Samuel T. Cogley Registered User
#3

A couple of things - no pun intended.

Don't mis read it like I did this actually isn't about HAP - HAP was acceptable. This IMHO has no bearing on licencee arrangements in the LL's own home.

....... Registered User
#4

Where does it say it was the LLs own home?

Wheeliebin30 Registered User
#5

Should be allowed rent your house to whoever you want end of.

33 people have thanked this post
pilly Registered User
#6

EA was an idiot full stop. Deserves a fine.

Why not just say the place is gone or not reply at all?

10 people have thanked this post
TheChizler Registered User
#7

Plenty of people on here have said they wouldn't openly rent to people with children, could this change their views?

pilly Registered User
#8

TheChizler
Plenty of people on here have said they wouldn't openly rent to people with children, could this change their views?



No. Clever people just do it right.

20 people have thanked this post
Samuel T. Cogley Registered User
#9

....... said:
Where does it say it was the LLs own home?


Side conversation pre-emption.

Samuel T. Cogley Registered User
#10

TheChizler said:
Plenty of people on here have said they wouldn't openly rent to people with children, could this change their views?


Views no. How they handle it also probably no, but maybe.

1 person has thanked this post
....... Registered User
#11

Wheeliebin30 said:
Should be allowed rent your house to whoever you want end of.


If you cant then why bother going to the trouble of interviewing, checking references etc?

Why dont the government just insist you have to rent to the first person who answers the ad?

2 people have thanked this post
Tombo2001 Registered User
#12

If I applied for a job as a district court judge; and the district court told me that I couldn't be employed as I didn't have a law degree, and stated clearly that it was a firm no as they wanted someone with a law degree; would the judge rule in my favour in a discrimination case.

Just trying to figure out where this ends......

1 person has thanked this post
Samuel T. Cogley Registered User
#13

Wheeliebin30 said:
Should be allowed rent your house to whoever you want end of.


No you shouldn't.

You should be allowed to choose who you share with, but if you enter into business you can't discriminate on the enumerated grounds. One would think we'd be past the days of no Blacks, no dogs, no Irish.

12 people have thanked this post
endacl Registered User
#14

Wheeliebin30 said:
Should be allowed rent your house to whoever you want end of.


You are. You just can't say you're doing that.

2 people have thanked this post
The_Conductor Moderator
#15

TheChizler said:
Plenty of people on here have said they wouldn't openly rent to people with children, could this change their views?


Rough rule of thumb recently seems to be a sliding scale of deposit requirements- with a higher number of months deposit required for tenants in different categories who are likely to incur a greater level of wear and tear over and above 'normal' for a landlord. I suspect it would be similarly be found to be discriminatory- however, it is a reflection of the lower maintenance costs a landlord is likely to encounter/incur with certain classes of tenants.

E.g. there is one nice apartment on the RTB's database in Galway city at roughly half what its open market rate is- I was talking to the owner last weekend- and she said she was happy to get 1,100 for it- its an executive class unit- on the basis its only used a couple of times a month by the American she is letting it to- and is kept in pristine condition (he has a housekeeper who visits before and after each visit). She (the landlord) is happy- and the yank is getting a really nice unit for half the going rate- and has had it for 7-8 years.........

Swings and roundabouts......

3 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!