Estate agent to pay €3,000 to single mum for discrimination

Graham

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Wheeliebin30

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

pilly

EA was an idiot full stop. Deserves a fine.

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

TheChizler

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

pilly

TheChizler wrote:

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.

Samuel T. Cogley

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Side conversation pre-emption.

Samuel T. Cogley

TheChizler wrote: »

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tombo2001

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......

Samuel T. Cogley

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

endacl

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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

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

The_Conductor

TheChizler wrote: »

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......

aloooof

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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......

Silly comparision, imo. You're not qualified to work as a judge if you don't have a law degree. Single mother's are perfectly capable tenants.

Samuel T. Cogley

aloooof wrote: »

Silly comparision, imo. You're not qualified to work as a judge if you don't have a law degree. Single mother's are perfectly capable tenants.

Actually :pac:

No requirement for a law degree to become a solicitor, solicitors can be apointed as Judges so no requirement for a law degree to be a judge even in the higher courts.

Fun fact for the day.

aloooof

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Actually :pac:

No requirement for a law degree to become a solicitor, solicitors can be apointed as Judges so no requirement for a law degree to be a judge even in the higher courts.

Fun fact for the day.

Well, I've learned something today!

Mr McBoatface

EA was an idiot, didn't even have to reply to the email. Or a simple I'm sorry another offer has been accepted pending reference checks.... blah blah.... blah.

weldoninhio

What does this mean for all of the ads on Daft that state Female only?? Should I get emailing and see how much money I can make??

Samuel T. Cogley

weldoninhio wrote: »

What does this mean for all of the ads on Daft that state Female only?? Should I get emailing and see how much money I can make??

Thanks for rendering my previous posts not OT - you're talking about sharing.

Bob24

pilly wrote: »

No. Clever people just do it right.

Actually this shows the stupidity of the law.

The EA here is not being punished because he doesn't want a single mother. He is being punished because he is being upfront about it.

Any EA/landlord with the same restrictions will have no problem as long as they make up another excuse. I am not necessarily blaming them, but essentially with this kind of judgement society is rewarding lies and condemning honesty.

This is also really sad about the state of our moral values when out of two landlords applying the same restriction:
- one who is honest about it is called "stupid" on this thread, receives a fine, and is described here as deserving it because of their stupidity
- one who would lie about their real motives but do exactly the same thing is called "clever" on this thread and would have no problem whatsoever

.......

This post has been deleted.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

What does this mean for all of the ads on Daft that state Female only?? Should I get emailing and see how much money I can make??

If they're houseshares or owner occupied then they can say they prefer whoever they want. But I imagine if you complained about a letting ad the ad would be changed but they'd still only rent the room to a female. You don't see as many ads which say rent allowance not accepted anymore, but I've no doubt those landlords are still preferentially choosing tenants who aren't on rent allowance!

Impossible to enforce in the current market as long as LLs aren't idiots and don't openly say these things.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Thanks for rendering my previous posts not OT - you're talking about sharing.

Nah, I have seen ads for bedsits which aren't shared or owner occupied that have specified single female. Quite a few actually.

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah, I have seen ads for bedsits which aren't shared or owner occupied that have specified single female. Quite a few actually.

For a bedsit to be legal it's going to technically have to be a sharing situation.

If it's on an ad for a full apartment/house yes you can cash-in if you can show you were discrimiated against personally. You won't have standing if you just screenshot a load of ads and send them off (IMHO).

If it's a sharing situation it's fine to put in what your requirements are for the 'tenant' as they're closer to guests than actual tenants.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

For a bedsit to be legal it's going to technically have to be a sharing situation.

If it's on an ad for a full apartment/house yes you can cash-in if you can show you were discrimiated against personally. You won't have standing if you just screenshot a load of ads and send them off (IMHO).

If it's a sharing situation it's fine to put in what your requirements are for the 'tenant' as they're closer to guests than actual tenants.

Yeah there's no real way to enforce it, unless you've been very obviously personally discriminated against. Even then, my friend was looking for a place as a single mother on HAP and a lot of the time when she showed up to viewings pregnant/with a pram she'd be turned away at the door. She probably could have taken a case against some of those EA/LLs but she had neither the resources or time to do so.

Tombo2001

I think when you bring up the 'this is getting us back to the days of no blacks no dogs no Irish'

That's a completely misguided comparison. Its inflammatory and shows more interest in confrontation than resolving what is a real issue in the rental market.

To suggest for example that a landlord doesn't want a single mum because they are misogynist - that's just daft.

So on what basis are people saying this is discrimination, and not an economic decision.

This isn't the same is selling a bar of chocolate in a shop, or a cake to a gay couple.

The difference with this commercial transaction is that 'In return for a monthly rent of 1500, I will entrust you with an asset worth 500'000'.

Insurance companies are fully allowed to segment the market. There are some people they wont insure. Full stop. Nobody is calling them racist or misogynist, its accepted as a commercial decision. Banks do the same; a lot of people they just wont lend to.

A bank lends you a loan, you pay them interest. A landlord lends you a house, you pay them rent.

Landlords clearly have a view that COMMERCIALLY they prefer some tenants to others, and that some tenants are higher risk than others.

So why cant they express that in who they conduct business with?

For example - would a landlord be allowed say - if you are a couple, I will rent to you for 1500 a month, and 1 months deposit. If you are a single parent in HAP, I will rent to you at 1500 a month and 4 months deposit.

Graham

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The family status ground?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Michael D Not Higgins

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is, under family status as being a parent of a child under 18 and civil status as being a single person.

Fian

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It is, under family status as being a parent of a child under 18 and civil status as being a single person.

Possibly also even gender - not many men are single mothers.

FishOnABike

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Gender, marital status, family status..... EA must have been going for the hat trick

Lux23

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is discrimination against marital or family status so yes it is.

To be honest I would imagine we will see more of these cases in the coming months and years. So many landlords are woefully (and wilfully maybe) ignorant of their obligations under a variety of legislation and seem to expect special treatment.

Samuel T. Cogley

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're right - it's two of them


http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/EqualStatusActsConsldtd_00_04.pdf/Files/EqualStatusActsConsldtd_00_04.pdf

pilly

I think we've established it's discrimination.

To me though the main problem was stupidity.

I understand why there are laws against discrimination, just don't think they ever work in practice.

mel123

Two questions:

1. Why would they not name the estate agent?
2. Why would you not rent out to a single mother, like whats the logic of it? i know it happens, but i never really thought about why...is it cause a kid will give your place more ware and tear, or you think no fall back if she doesnt pay rent i.e no partner to support her?

Markiemarkso

I think it is unfair the estate agent was fined when it was the landlord who stipulated he/she wanted to rent to a couple. The estate agent is only the "middle man." The case should have been against the landlord

Graham

Markiemarkso wrote: »

I think it is unfair the estate agent was fined when it was the landlord who stipulated he/she wanted to rent to a couple. The estate agent is only the "middle man." The case should have been against the landlord

The EA is the professional who should arguably know better and should have advised his client appropriately.

Samuel T. Cogley

mel123 wrote: »

Two questions:

1. Why would they not name the estate agent?

Why twist the knife. Why open yourself up to potential legal action if your jouros aren't that accurate at the best of times.

mel123 wrote: »

2. Why would you not rent out to a single mother, like whats the logic of it? i know it happens, but i never really thought about why...is it cause a kid will give your place more ware and tear, or you think no fall back if she doesnt pay rent i.e no partner to support her?

Well you can draw your own conclusions in reagrd to HAP being mentioned but irrelevant here. But also a single person, especially one with a child is less secure than a couple who are both working. Also there is the wear and tear issue.

the_syco

And this is why EA's either give bullsh|t answers or no answers; because if they answer truthfully, they get fined!

mrslancaster

LL's need to be very careful these days - they need to make sure they know all the legislation. I think that soon it will be too onerous and small LL's will get out of the business and leave it to the big operators so the 'easy-come-easy-go' days will be gone.

A single mum with a young child receiving HAP would probably be a very reliable tenant IMO as she would be unlikely to do anything that might leave her and her child open to becoming homeless and she would probably want to be settled for school.

Don't understand why the LL had an issue to be fair unless s/he didn't want the bother of all the paperwork the council wants..??

quadrifoglio verde

mel123 wrote: »

Two questions:

1. Why would they not name the estate agent?
2. Why would you not rent out to a single mother, like whats the logic of it? i know it happens, but i never really thought about why...is it cause a kid will give your place more ware and tear, or you think no fall back if she doesnt pay rent i.e no partner to support her?

With regards to number 2, excess wear and tear.

Parents have a place in grand canal dock, rent is the same as it was in 2010. Tenant has been there since 2007.
He stays there 4 days a week, flies in on Monday and flies home on Friday. The cooker and washing machine have literally never been used, as his employer looks after that for him.
In the last 10 years, they've only been called about a problem with the place once

Now compare that wear and tear to the wear and tear caused by a child. You just simply can't

The ideal tenant is someone who is going to be there very little. Someone who is mainly going to be using the place to sleep. Someone who isn't going to have loud parties.
A professional couple in their late 20s onwards is ideal. They're generally past the "let's trash the place" parties of the early 20s, they're not going to be there all the time, they'll tend to eat out a lot and if they stop paying the rent and you get an order for rent against them, you can chase them for it.

Ray Palmer

Do landlords have to accept HAP? I thought it was an agreement with the local council with a number of clauses. RA I understand can't be refused but HAP is a whole different deal.

Graham

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Do landlords have to accept HAP? I thought it was an agreement with the local council with a number of clauses. RA I understand can't be refused but HAP is a whole different deal.

From: http://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-good-and-services/what-does-the-law-say/housing/

On the 1st January 2016, the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 introduced “housing assistance” as a new discriminatory ground.

This means that discrimination in the provision of accommodation or related service and amenities against people in receipt of rent supplement, housing assistance payments or other social welfare payments is prohibited.

Mrs OBumble

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well you can draw your own conclusions in reagrd to HAP being mentioned but irrelevant here. But also a single person, especially one with a child is less secure than a couple who are both working. Also there is the wear and tear issue.

I reckon a clever lawyer could have some fun fighting something like this: the LL wanted two people who were working, s/he didn't care about their family status (ie whether they were f****ing each other or not), just the overall income stability.

Of course it would be hard to argue in a one-bed. But in a two or three quite easy: I just care that you have two incomes coming into the house.

FishOnABike

Could the "any payment under the Social Welfare Acts" inserted in section 3(b) of the Equal Status Act 2000 by section 13 of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 be interpreted broadly as including any of Jobseekers Benefit, Jobseekers Allowance, Family Income Supplement, Disability Allowance, etc... effectively preventing a potential LL from looking for any proof of income or employer references from a tenant?

Samuel T. Cogley

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I reckon a clever lawyer could have some fun fighting something like this: the LL wanted two people who were working, s/he didn't care about their family status (ie whether they were f****ing each other or not), just the overall income stability.

Of course it would be hard to argue in a one-bed. But in a two or three quite easy: I just care that you have two incomes coming into the house.

Well as a thick wannabe my take would be there's at least two grounds of some fairly clear legislation

The_Conductor

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Do landlords have to accept HAP? I thought it was an agreement with the local council with a number of clauses. RA I understand can't be refused but HAP is a whole different deal.

Yes- they have to accept HAP- however, the rent level does not have to have any cognisance of the HAP levels for a given area- aka if a landlord is seeking 6 months rent as a deposit and monthly rent of twice the local HAP limit- it is entirely acceptable- and if the HAP applicant can line their ducks up in a row- then all is well and good.

I'm helping someone let an executive apartment in Galway this week- we put a test add up on DAFT and had 15 applicants within 30 minutes. 9 of the 15 asked if HAP applicants were acceptable, we replied- of course they are. And they are. However, this is an executive letting of a 3 bed- marble floors, underfloor heating, US satellite tv links, 360Mb broadband included in the price and weekly house keeping/house cleaning. The other 6 applicants are on behalf of multinationals in the greater Galway/Shannon area (funnily enough two of them are from the same company- someone obviously isn't talking to their colleagues).

HAP is not a scheme under which landlords can discriminate- however- at the same time- if a prospective HAP tenant is applying for a property that a landlord is aiming at a different market altogether- its not fair to try and suggest if they don't get it- that somehow they have been discriminated against. The lack of HAP discrimination- simply puts a prospective tenant on a level playing field with any other prospective tenant- and they still have to satisfy any other conditions a landlord may impose on prospective tenants (such as the rent level, the number of months deposit being sought, the terms of the rental- such as whats included and what is not, valet/housekeeping (in an executive letting) etc etc).

Just because a HAP tenant does not get a property- does not mean they have been discriminated against- however, in the case here- the Estate Agent was nuts to put in writing what he put in writing- even if it was the express wish of the landlord. The EA should have known better- and hopefully the fine will serve as a shot across the bow of any other EA's (and indeed landlords) who may be unfamiliar with the law.

myshirt

Yeah, he walked into that one and gave her a slam dunk case.

However, don't be fooled, it is not much harder to argue a successful case where you don't have the benefit of this type of error in your arsenal. The perception out there is that of you don't write it down or say it, you'll be grand.

My own view is that this HAP scheme and the RPZ are too heavy handed. Yes, if you want to participate in this economy you must behave yourself and act responsibly. You can't cherry pick the good things and seek to exclude yourself from the not so good aspects. Participate in this economy, or don't. However, government need to take ownership for this issue and not transfer the legwork to others.

Cuddlesworth

None of this is new. In the job world, you never give a reason as to why you did or didn't hire one person over another for fear of any mistake or bad wording leading to a discrimination lawsuit.