Declining Prospective tenants

shannon2012

Hello,

Do the equality laws apply to prospective tenants?

If a property is advertised and a tenant (3 professionals) ring to enquire can you tell them that you only want to rent to a family?

I am presuming this may be classed as discrimination due to marital status?

godtabh

Dont give them a reason. Just tell them that you have chosen to look at alternative tenants.

Mrs OBumble

How do you know they aren't family? (brothers and sister or cousions, for example).

the_syco

godtabh wrote: »

Dont give them a reason. Just tell them that you have chosen to look at alternative tenants.

This. Don't give a reason. If you don't like them for whatever reason, even if it's your gut (actually, especially if it's your gut), don't rent to them.

shannon2012

I have received abuse from callers on the phone because I choose not to rent to 3 professionals or 2 couples who want to share the house.

I previously rented to 3 professionals and the property was left in a terrible state after they moved out.

People seem to take it very personally if you do not want to rent to them.

Ray Palmer

shannon2012 wrote: »

I have received abuse from callers on the phone because I choose not to rent to 3 professionals or 2 couples who want to share the house.

I previously rented to 3 professionals and the property was left in a terrible state after they moved out.

People seem to take it very personally if you do not want to rent to them.

What are you saying to them?

People generally don't like to be discriminated against so not really a surprise they give you abuse when you are breaking the law on discrimination. You are doing this either way and it is not acceptable, all people can tell you here is how not to be caught. I would tell you not to do it at all.

Are you really surprised people take a personal discrimination personally?

Eldarion

godtabh wrote: »

Dont give them a reason. Just tell them that you have chosen to look at alternative tenants.

Very much this. You are not required to specify a reason why you chose not to rent to someone and in fact doing so can land you trouble so it really is as simple as don't specify one.

shannon2012

Ray that is why I asked my original question as I do not want to offend anyone.

I also do not want to waste both other peoples time and my time by showing the property despite knowing in advance I will not be renting to them.

I will go with godtabh's advice.

Thank you all for you comments.

Ray Palmer

shannon2012 wrote: »

Ray that is why I asked my original question as I do not want to offend anyone.

I also do not want to waste both other peoples time and my time by showing the property despite knowing in advance I will not be renting to them.

I will go with godtabh's advice.

Thank you all for you comments.

You are offending people and are breaking the law. If you don't want to do that don't break the law.

I don't think you get this, it is an offensive thing to do. All you are doing is hiding your discrimination. Don't waste anybody's time by not discriminating.

As a LL you are tied to the laws. It is both morally and legally wrong. You can get away with it but maybe you should just not do it.

ted1

godtabh wrote: »

Dont give them a reason. Just tell them that you have chosen to look at alternative tenants.

this would be my standard line "there's people coming to look at it tonight, i'll take you number and call you back if its still available"

Victor

shannon2012 wrote: »

Do the equality laws apply to prospective tenants?

Yes, but note that there are certain exceptions, some of which were subsequently withdrawn.

Graces7

shannon2012 wrote: »

I have received abuse from callers on the phone because I choose not to rent to 3 professionals or 2 couples who want to share the house.

I previously rented to 3 professionals and the property was left in a terrible state after they moved out.f
a
People seem to take it very personally if you do not want to rent to them.

if they respond with abuse then you are right not to let to to them. as others have said, no need to explain as by doingso you lay yourself open to abuse

never any excuse for verbal abuse.

it is your property.

if they think they are hard done by they should try being refused for being on ra which is totally discriminatory

Graces7

shannon2012 wrote: »

Ray that is why I asked my original question as I do not want to offend anyone.

I also do not want to waste both other peoples time and my time by showing the property despite knowing in advance I will not be renting to them.

I will go with godtabh's advice.

Thank you all for you comments.

wise decision

Santa Cruz

ted1 wrote: »

this would be my standard line "there's people coming to look at it tonight, i'll take you number and call you back if its still available"

A bit of ingenuity is all that is required

"I have been inundated with calls. There are five coming tonight. I don't want to waste your time but give me your number anyway. Do you work locally" i.e what do you do for a living and can you afford the rent?

conorhal

Santa Cruz wrote: »

A bit of ingenuity is all that is required

"I have been inundated with calls. There are five coming tonight. I don't want to waste your time but give me your number anyway. Do you work locally" i.e what do you do for a living and can you afford the rent?

Well that's what I used to do when looking for a flatmate when I had to bury the last one under the patio replace one after they left.

I put an ad up on daft and organised a couple of days over one weekend during which I'd show the place to four of five prospective flatmates a day, but always mention that there was a number of people coming and that it was only fair that I made a decision once everybody that had expressed an interest had a chance to view the room.
Then I'd pick the least wierd one and hope for the best.
I assume the same system applies when a landlord is looking for a tennant. It was always a good tip to offer a cup of tea or coffee, that way you could have a nice informal chat to sound them out. You'd be amazed at some of the things people would say over a cuppa. Things like 'I don't really do cleaning, I'm kinda lazy' (seriously I kid you not!) or the classic, 'I like your room, I can't wait to take that over when you move out...' It goes without saying that I never even bothered to text those two to say 'sorry, the room has been let, good luck with your search though.'

Ray Palmer

conorhal wrote: »

I assume the same system applies when a landlord is looking for a tennant.
'

You know what they say about assuming. There are two distinct set of rules for sharing with a person versus renting out a property. If you are sharing you have a choice to say things like "women only" and similar. As a LL you CANNOT it is illegal. No if,ands or buts you are under the control of discrimination laws.

Discrimination is a set thing and you will hear people talk about legal and illegal discrimination. There is no such thing discrimination is illegal things that are not legally discrimination are not discrimination as it is a legal term. People use it in everyday language incorrectly in the same way they use chance, probability and possibility.

You can refuse RA tenants and it is not discrimination it may be prejudicial but not illegal and not discrimination. You refuse to take single people it is discrimination based on martial status and illegal.

Baby01032012

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You know what they say about assuming. There are two distinct set of rules for sharing with a person versus renting out a property. If you are sharing you have a choice to say things like "women only" and similar. As a LL you CANNOT it is illegal. No if,ands or buts you are under the control of discrimination laws.

Discrimination is a set thing and you will hear people talk about legal and illegal discrimination. There is no such thing discrimination is illegal things that are not legally discrimination are not discrimination as it is a legal term. People use it in everyday language incorrectly in the same way they use chance, probability and possibility.

You can refuse RA tenants and it is not discrimination it may be prejudicial but not illegal and not discrimination. You refuse to take single people it is discrimination based on martial status and illegal.

Ray,

What you are saying is similar to someone choosing a bank in which to place their investment. I can't see the bank ever taking a case against an individual because they chose to place their money elsewhere. It's the landlords investment business and it's their business who they decide to place I'm their property.

Ann Landers

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Do you work locally" i.e what do you do for a living and can you afford the rent?

Not impressed with nosey parker questions like that myself. Anyone, no matter what their pay, can lose their job overnight. I certainly wouldn't be disclosing my salary.

Grandpa Hassan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You know what they say about assuming. There are two distinct set of rules for sharing with a person versus renting out a property. If you are sharing you have a choice to say things like "women only" and similar. As a LL you CANNOT it is illegal. No if,ands or buts you are under the control of discrimination laws.

Discrimination is a set thing and you will hear people talk about legal and illegal discrimination. There is no such thing discrimination is illegal things that are not legally discrimination are not discrimination as it is a legal term. People use it in everyday language incorrectly in the same way they use chance, probability and possibility.

You can refuse RA tenants and it is not discrimination it may be prejudicial but not illegal and not discrimination. You refuse to take single people it is discrimination based on martial status and illegal.

This same thread comes up from time to time, and the same hyperbole thrown around about discrimination

A LL can rent their property to whomever they like. It is not the same as withholding a service, as might be the case in an instance of illegal discrimination by a service provider. The LL only has one house, and once a tenant is chosen then it is gone....there is no more service to provide. So no withholding of a service, for which you might get in trouble, occurs.

Just don't go telling people that you haven't chosen them because they are male, or not a couple. You are effectively telling them that you are discriminating, when the reality is that you have just chosen the person who you want to live in your house. It is perfectly ok to choose based on your gut feeling, and no reason needs to be given. 'I have rented it to someone else' is all anyone ever needs to know

ted1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You know what they say about assuming. There are two distinct set of rules for sharing with a person versus renting out a property. If you are sharing you have a choice to say things like "women only" and similar. As a LL you CANNOT it is illegal. No if,ands or buts you are under the control of discrimination laws.

Discrimination is a set thing and you will hear people talk about legal and illegal discrimination. There is no such thing discrimination is illegal things that are not legally discrimination are not discrimination as it is a legal term. People use it in everyday language incorrectly in the same way they use chance, probability and possibility.

You can refuse RA tenants and it is not discrimination it may be prejudicial but not illegal and not discrimination. You refuse to take single people it is discrimination based on martial status and illegal.

You really need to seperate text book from real world. Landlords choose who they will let their house too

srsly78

Sure they choose, but if they say out loud they are discriminating based on xxxxx then they leave themselves open to legal action.

yankinlk

ted1 wrote: »

You really need to seperate text book from real world. Landlords choose who they will let their house too

+1

refusing ra is more like discrimination imo, but choosing the best (least weird) of a pile of applicants is my right as homeowner. also totally agree with let the prospects talk over coffee. i have heard some tenants drop clangers when i let them talk...

conorhal

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You know what they say about assuming. There are two distinct set of rules for sharing with a person versus renting out a property. If you are sharing you have a choice to say things like "women only" and similar. As a LL you CANNOT it is illegal. No if,ands or buts you are under the control of discrimination laws.

Discrimination is a set thing and you will hear people talk about legal and illegal discrimination. There is no such thing discrimination is illegal things that are not legally discrimination are not discrimination as it is a legal term. People use it in everyday language incorrectly in the same way they use chance, probability and possibility.

You can refuse RA tenants and it is not discrimination it may be prejudicial but not illegal and not discrimination. You refuse to take single people it is discrimination based on martial status and illegal.

Descrimination is a fact of life, you have to be descriminating, or you'd otherwise have to accept the very first person that responded to your ad.
I actually shudder to think where that would have left me flatmate-wise (some absolute nutters would occasionally apply for the room) I'd imagine that it's no different for a landlord.
When I said that I 'assume' that's how it also works for landlords, what I meant was that I know that's how it works for landlords because working any other way would soon see you broke or commited to the loony bin.
At the end of the day, like myself looking for a flatmate, they are going to make their decision based on who's most likey to pay the rent on time, not trash the place and best suits the property. The reality is that most of the legislation just means that, as the OP pointed out, a lot of prospective tenants end up wasting their time and energy viewing properties that they won't get a call back about.

I've mentioned before on this board that we probably need to provide tax incentives to encourage large management companies to build housing and apartments exclusively for the rental market. A large management company can be less 'descriminatory' because on agrigate most tenants will work out, where as a landlord with one or perhaps two properties needs to be pretty choosy or risk financial ruin if they pick the wrong tenant. One of my big problems with this idiot nation of ours is the belief that we don't need to get the basics right or look at the structural issues, we just pass a bill or a law or start a new quango and then wash our hands of the problem, leaving the underlying causes of the problem unaddressed. So anybody that thinks equality legislation will address the problem is just kidding themselves, it's just the kind on 'zero cost to the government', quick'fix that looks like we're doing something, kind of nonsense that our legislators are fond of.

Ray Palmer

conorhal wrote: »

Descrimination is a fact of life, you have to be descriminating, or you'd otherwise have to accept the very first person that responded to your ad.

You are mixing up discrimination ( actual legal term) with prejudice(not a legal term).
A LL is perfectly able to not pick somebody and it not to be prejudicial nor discrimination. To decide before you even meet the person based on their marital status is illegal.

I am a LL I know what it is like to interview people and decide not to let to them. People use the word discrimination incorrectly as you have.

Very difficult to police is something I agree but telling somebody or advertising things like "women only" are not allowed by LL, they are allowed by tenants sharing. It does come up here quite often usually about RA which isn't discrimination. "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs" is illegal if you don't think it is you are simply wrong. Saying it over the phone is no different. You can still do it in your own mind but it doesn't mean it isn't illegal just impossible to prove.

conorhal

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It does come up here quite often usually about RA which isn't discrimination. "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs" is illegal if you don't think it is you are simply wrong. Saying it over the phone is no different. You can still do it in your own mind but it doesn't mean it isn't illegal just impossible to prove.

I think you'll find that 'no dogs' is just prejudicial

One of the problems is that what is descrimination and what's prejudicial is a moving post. One of the Dail technical group (RBB I think) has proposed a bill to make it illegal to descriminate againt RA applicants. I think we'd be better served by politicans that address the underlying structural issues in the market instead.

Ray Palmer

conorhal wrote: »

I think you'll find that 'no dogs' is just prejudicial

One of the problems is that what is descrimination and what's prejudicial is a moving post. One of the Dail technical group (RBB I think) has proposed a bill to make it illegal to descriminate againt RA applicants. I think we'd be better served by politicans that address the underlying structural issues in the market instead.

The point is discrimination is not a moving post it has a very clear definition. It isn't moving anywhere. You cannot discriminated against somebody on RA because it isn't discrimination, not covered by the 9 grounds.

Being refused a service by not having financial means is not discrimination and by calling it discrimination belittles actual discrimination.

Groups recommend lots to the Dail and they don't happen or completely impractical.

Graces7

glad to see so much skill and commonsense from almost all the lls here.

victor;many thanks for tidying my post. this one armed lark is beginning to pall already and still a month to go:mad: