House Sharing issue

Shinners29

Hi all, I'm really hoping someone will be able to advise on this. My boyfriend is trying to move out of his current house share. He moved in last November and has not signed any lease or agreement. His current flatmate is staying in the house, and M is trying to fill the room. However his flatmate is making things extremely difficult as he will not tolerate anyone who is isn't male, single and a native English speaker. Most of the people applying to see the room are not Irish and the flatmate will not entertain seeing them. To top it all off the property manager is backing him! I have it on an email that he is only allowed show it to a single Irish/English male. Is this even legal? Surely it is complete discrimination? And they are actively blocking the room being filled and dragging out the whole situation.
Can anyone help or has anyone been in a similar situation? Should he just walk away as he isn't in any way legally contracted to the house?
Thanks in advance. Any advice much appreciated.

messy tessy

Why would your boyfriend be trying to find a new housemate for his old housemate or have I misread that? Is there an issue with your bf getting his deposit back?

Michael D Not Higgins

He can walk away but he shouldn't expect the return of his deposit if he does so. The flatmate is within his right to decide who he lives with. It is discrimination but is not covered under equality legislation and is therefore legal.

Shinners29

Sorry yes I probably wasn't very clear. He is trying to fill the room to get his deposit from the person moving in.
And the property manager is trying to tell him he is responsible for the rent being paid until the suitable candidate is found, and yet are making things very difficult given their blatant racism

joeguevara

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

He can walk away but he shouldn't expect the return of his deposit if he does so. The flatmate is within his right to decide who he lives with. It is discrimination but is not covered under equality legislation and is therefore legal.

It is covered under equality legislation and is illegal to discrimination on one of the nine grounds - race being one.

Shinners29

joeguevara- do you know where I could find any legal info relating to this? I have been googling but not getting very far

joeguevara

Shinners29 wrote: »

joeguevara- do you know where I could find any legal info relating to this? I have been googling but not getting very far

The confusion is that the Flatmate is refusing anyone not Irish/English. That's none of their business. It is up to the landlord/property manager whether they allow it or not.

The Property Manager refusing to allow non Irish/English in makes it illegal.

The Equal Status Acts 2000–2015 apply to lettings and accommodation. Landlords cannot discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community.
In addition, since 1 January 2016, you cannot discriminate against a tenant or potential tenant because they are getting Rent Supplement or any other social welfare payment, or a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). This means that you cannot state when advertising accommodation that Rent Supplement or HAP is not accepted and you cannot refuse to rent accommodation to someone because they are getting a social welfare payment. Read more on the website of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (pdf).

However, check the lease tenancy agreement to see if they are allowed to sub let out their rooms.

Browney7

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

He can walk away but he shouldn't expect the return of his deposit if he does so. The flatmate is within his right to decide who he lives with. It is discrimination but is not covered under equality legislation and is therefore legal.

But if he has signed no lease or agreement, on what grounds can the person who has his deposit keep the deposit other than "I say you fill the room or else?"

Small claims proceedings will probably have to be initiated or else mentioned to rectify deposit issue

messy tessy

messy tessy wrote: »

Why would your boyfriend be trying to find a new housemate for his old housemate or have I misread that? Is there an issue with your bf getting his deposit back?

This is a pretty standard way of working in rooms let separately house shares where the person moving out finds a replacement for them and gets their deposit back by taking the deposit from the person moving in.

joeguevara wrote: »

It is covered under equality legislation and is illegal to discrimination on one of the nine grounds - race being one.

Its house sharing, its not covered under any equality legalisation nor should it be. People in house shares should be able to choose who they want as they are living with them. I always specified "males only" when looking for housemates for example as I always lived in all male houses and a female would have have changed the dynamic of the house.

joeguevara

Maci Acidic Hardware wrote: »

This is a pretty standard way of working in rooms let separately house shares where the person moving out finds a replacement for them and gets their deposit back by taking the deposit from the person moving in.



Its house sharing, its not covered under any equality legalisation nor should it be. People in house shares should be able to choose who they want as they are living with them. I always specified "males only" when looking for housemates for example as I always lived in all male houses and a female would have have changed the dynamic of the house.

It is illegal to refuse someone accommodation on their race. What you think it should be and the law are two different things.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

It is illegal to refuse someone accommodation on their race. What you think it should be and the law are two different things.

Its not illegal for a person living in a house share to refuse another person moving in the same as it's not illegal for an owner occupier to refuse anyone they want. These rules only apply to LL's.

Baby01032012

Nox001 is correct. Law only covers where the landlord in conducting his business discriminates. It doesn't cover the non commercial / business, social situation where someone decides who they want to live with...same as someone discriminating against who they go for a pint with or even marry.

con___manx1

He should move out once he has given the required notice and if the landlord doesn't give back the deposit bring him to the small claims court.

Shinners29

Problem is he has no receipt of deposit. Typical house share, it went to the person leaving

joeguevara

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Nox001 is correct. Law only covers where the landlord in conducting his business discriminates. It doesn't cover the non commercial / business, social situation where someone decides who they want to live with...same as someone discriminating against who they go for a pint with or even marry.

This is a commercial situation....property manager being the landlord stipulates Irish/English only. It's not like someone owns a house and doesn't want someone living with them. This is not house share, it's a business and a person cannot be discriminated on race.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

This is a commercial situation....property manager being the landlord stipulates Irish/English only. It's not like someone owns a house and doesn't want someone living with them. This is not house share, it's a business and a person cannot be discriminated on race.

It's not the LL stipulating this, it's the other person living in the house. The LL is not involved at all as is often the case in this type of rooms let seperately houseshare.

Baby01032012

joeguevara wrote: »

This is a commercial situation....property manager being the landlord stipulates Irish/English only. It's not like someone owns a house and doesn't want someone living with them. This is not house share, it's a business and a person cannot be discriminated on race.

I can only go by what the OPs says.

Quote "However his flatmate is making things extremely difficult as he will not tolerate anyone who is isn't male, single and a native English speaker. Most of the people applying to see the room are not Irish and the flatmate will not entertain seeing them."

The property manager might be backing him up by saying yeah of course you can choose who you live with...that's hardly the same as landlord putting an ad on daft stipulating Irish only etc. Discrimation would never be upheld here.

Now back to OP. If not on lease sounds like they were a licensee not a tenant as not in lease. Therefore they have no rights. No 0 chance of deposit back. If they were a tenant they would still have to find a suitable tenant to replace them i.e. Reassign lease. And boyfriend would be liable until suitable tenant found.

pilly

My advice would be to walk OP. Deposit can't be that much. Write it off and move on.

Teyla Emmagan

A native English speaker is not a "race". So discriminating against someone who does not speak English as their first language is not racism. If the flatmate turned down a black American chick or a big Maori fella it might he racism but not otherwise.

Peregrinus

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

A native English speaker is not a "race". So discriminating against someone who does not speak English as their first language is not racism. If the flatmate turned down a black American chick or a big Maori fella it might he racism but not otherwise.

So what? Discrimination on the grounds of race is not the only form of discrimination that people find objectionable.

Teyla Emmagan

Peregrinus wrote:

So what? Discrimination on the grounds of race is not the only form of discrimination that people find objectionable.

Discrimination against someone because their English is **** won't be upheld under the law I'm afraid.

Peregrinus

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Discrimination against someone because their English is **** won't be upheld under the law I'm afraid.

Per the OP, the discrimination is against people who are not native English speakers. There's no suggestion that the discrimination is based to any extent on the standard of a prospective tenant's English; just on the fact that it's not his native language.

That's discrimination on the grounds of "race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins", which is unlawful unless it can be brought within one of the exceptions in the Act. Which (on the facts stated in the OP) I don't think it can be.

Peregrinus

Baby01032012 wrote: »

The property manager might be backing him up by saying yeah of course you can choose who you live with...that's hardly the same as landlord putting an ad on daft stipulating Irish only etc.

It wouldn't make any difference. The property manager (acting on behalf of the landlord) is discriminating on the grounds of national origin by refusing to consider non-Irish applicants just as much as he would be if he specified non-Irish applicants in the ad. In both cases applicants are being treated less favourably on the basis of their national origin, which is precisely the behaviour against which the Act is targetted. And it makes no difference at all the that the landlord/property manager is doing this in order to accommodate the wishes of an existing tenant/licensee. Discrimination doesn't cease to be discrimination just because someone else has asked you to discriminate.

cruizer101

Is there anything stopping the op bf from just reassigning the lease without the say so of the housemate and ll. There was no lease originally to sign so won't be a new one. They move in new tenant get their deposit back done and dusted.

Now it is a bit of a ****ty thing to do but is there anything actually wrong with doing it.

Peregrinus

Even though there's nothing in writing, there is a contract between the BF and the landlord under which the landlord provides accommodation to the BF, and the BF pays rent to the landlord. The way for the BF to get out of this contractual relationship (without losing his deposit) is for the landlord to enter into a similar contract with a new tenant. The landlord can't be "placed" into a contract against his will or without his knowledge, and the new tenant would be very unwise to pay the BF the amount of the deposit without having spoken to the landlord, agreed the rent and arrangements for payment, etc.

Hypothetically, if the BF were to do this and the new tenant did fall for it the landlord would find out very quickly (because the racist sitting tenant would complain/object) and would ask the new tenant to leave. BF would then have the problem that the landlord was chasing him for rent, plus the angry rejected new tenant would be chasing him for, at a miminum, the return of the amount he had paid to BF.

joeguevara

Maci Acidic Hardware wrote: »

It's not the LL stipulating this, it's the other person living in the house. The LL is not involved at all as is often the case in this type of rooms let seperately houseshare.

Check the OP...the property manager is stipulating it too...that is discrimination.

SteM

cruizer101 wrote: »

Is there anything stopping the op bf from just reassigning the lease without the say so of the housemate and ll. There was no lease originally to sign so won't be a new one. They move in new tenant get their deposit back done and dusted.

Now it is a bit of a ****ty thing to do but is there anything actually wrong with doing it.

I know things are bad in the property market but would you move into a room where you know you're not wanted by the landlord and your housemate? Sounds like it would more hassle than it's worth to me.

joeguevara

Baby01032012 wrote: »

I can only go by what the OPs says.

Quote "However his flatmate is making things extremely difficult as he will not tolerate anyone who is isn't male, single and a native English speaker. Most of the people applying to see the room are not Irish and the flatmate will not entertain seeing them."

The property manager might be backing him up by saying yeah of course you can choose who you live with...that's hardly the same as landlord putting an ad on daft stipulating Irish only etc. Discrimation would never be upheld here.

Now back to OP. If not on lease sounds like they were a licensee not a tenant as not in lease. Therefore they have no rights. No 0 chance of deposit back. If they were a tenant they would still have to find a suitable tenant to replace them i.e. Reassign lease. And boyfriend would be liable until suitable tenant found.

The property manager is backing the racist flat mate. That is a commercial situation where the property manager says only Irish/English can apply. That is discrimination under the equality acts.

cruizer101

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even though there's nothing...

Fair enough my only previous similar experience would have been in shared student accommodation where things were bit more casual.

I'm surprised op can't get English speaker mind, there is lots of people out there looking for accommodation

Mrs OBumble

joeguevara wrote: »

The property manager is backing the racist flat mate. That is a commercial situation where the property manager says only Irish/English can apply. That is discrimination under the equality acts.

No they are saying only native English speakers.

There are lots and lots of other races besides the English/Irish who are native English speakers.

Peregrinus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No they are saying only native English speakers.

There are lots and lots of other races besides the English/Irish who are native English speakers.

It doesn't matter. If someone is rejected because he's not a native Anglophone, that's discrimination on the grounds of national or ethnic origin. It makes no difference whether the landlord will only consider Irish or English applicants, or is so broadminded as to also consider the Scots. All that matters is that he won't consider people of the applicant's nationality.

Alf Veedersane

There's a lot of semantics about the phrasing of whether they are a native English speaker etc.

If it's two people living together, one can want a person to have a good standard of English so that they can be on talking terms and have a decent level of interaction if they so wish.

Of course it could be racist but racism isn't the only plausible reason they might want someone with a good level of English, especially when it's just the two of you.

Peregrinus

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There's a lot of semantics about the phrasing of whether they are a native English speaker etc.

If it's two people living together, one can want a person to have a good standard of English so that they can be on talking terms and have a decent level of interaction if they so wish.

Of course it could be racist but racism isn't the only plausible reason they might want someone with a good level of English, especially when it's just the two of you.

Reread the OP. It doesn't mention the standard or level of English at all. The issue is not whether prospective tenants are competent English speakers; it's whether they are native English speakers.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Check the OP...the property manager is stipulating it too...that is discrimination.

The property manager is likley saying "I'm not getting involved it's up to "Mike" to choose who moves in". He is right too as he doesn't have to live in the house to the other house mate should be able to choose who ever he wants.

The property manager not getting involved does not equal him being guilty of discrimination.

I don't see why people think the roommate shouldn't be allowed choose who they live with, it doesn't make them racist they may just prefer the dynamic in the house with another Irish person and there is nothing wrong with that.

Alf Veedersane

Peregrinus wrote: »

Reread the OP. It doesn't mention the standard or level of English at all. The issue is not whether prospective tenants are competent English speakers; it's whether they are native English speakers.

The OP may not have worded it correctly. It has been known to happen.

Like I said, it may have been borne out of racism but it also might not have been.

Peregrinus

Maci Acidic Hardware wrote: »

The property manager is likley saying "I'm not getting involved it's up to "Mike" to choose who moves in". He is right too as he doesn't have to live in the house to the other house mate should be able to choose who ever he wants.

The property manager not getting involved does not equal him being guilty of discrimination.

I don't see why people think the roommate shouldn't be allowed choose who they live with, it doesn't make them racist they may just prefer the dynamic in the house with another Irish person and there is nothing wrong with that.

It's not up to Mike who chooses to move in; it's up to the owner of the property, for whom the property manager acts. The owner of the property is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of national or ethnic origin, and he doesn't get an exemption from this just because one of his other tenants would like him to.

Mike can choose who he lives with by buying his own property, and letting rooms in it to people who meet his requirements. Or he can leave a rented room if he doesn't like his co-tenants, and look for a room in a house where the other tenants are more to his liking, and then hope that none of the other tenants leave. What he can't do is rent a room in a house and then demand that the landlord discriminate unlawfully in letting all the other rooms in the house. And if the landlord does agree to do that, that's not "not getting involved"; it's the complete opposite.

Alf Veedersane

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not up to Mike who chooses to move in; it's up to the owner of the property, for whom the property manager acts. The owner of the property is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of national or ethnic origin, and he doesn't get an exemption from this just because one of his other tenants would like him to.

Mike can choose who he lives with by buying his own property, and letting rooms in it to people who meet his requirements. Or he can leave a rented room if he doesn't like his co-tenants, and look for a room in a house where the other tenants are more to his liking, and then hope that none of the other tenants leave. What he can't do is rent a room in a house and then demand that the landlord discriminate unlawfully in letting all the other rooms in the house. And if the landlord does agree to do that, that's not "not getting involved"; it's the complete opposite.

In reality, a tenant will often be left to find a replacement for someone that has moved out, whereby the tenant is left to put up the ad and screen as they see fit.

kippy

joeguevara wrote: »

Check the OP...the property manager is stipulating it too...that is discrimination.

Christ.
Look, the person remaining in the house has to get in with the new person moving in. You cannot just force then to live with someone without any input just because it suits your boyfriends agenda. If the person living in the house has a set of rules that might be deemed racist or otherwise there is very little you can do about that.
I don't the the person remaining in the house or the agent are acting any way improperly here. Would you not act the same in the same boat?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not up to Mike who chooses to move in; it's up to the owner of the property, for whom the property manager acts. The owner of the property is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of national or ethnic origin, and he doesn't get an exemption from this just because one of his other tenants would like him to.

Mike can choose who he lives with by buying his own property, and letting rooms in it to people who meet his requirements. Or he can leave a rented room if he doesn't like his co-tenants, and look for a room in a house where the other tenants are more to his liking, and then hope that none of the other tenants leave. What he can't do is rent a room in a house and then demand that the landlord discriminate unlawfully in letting all the other rooms in the house. And if the landlord does agree to do that, that's not "not getting involved"; it's the complete opposite.

In rooms let seperately house shares it's the current tenants or the person moving out who pick the new person in the vast majority of cases. The LL or property manager simply does not get involved and if you don't understand that you don't understand what's happening in the op.

I was fully responsible for filling rooms in houseshares many times in my time houses sharing, my LL's would barely even know that a person was moving out and a new person in as they never came near the houses. I always choose the person I wanted and for example clearly stated in the ad that it's "males only" and professionals or post grad students only. Both of which I was fully entitled to do as a person who would be sharing the house with them.

Peregrinus

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The OP may not have worded it correctly. It has been known to happen.

Like I said, it may have been borne out of racism but it also might not have been.

We can only meaningfully discuss the problem as stated in the OP.

Of course if the facts are other than as stated in the OP, then our views might be different. We can go further into that if and when Shinners29 returns to correct any misstatement in the OP.

But unless the OP is wildly misstated, it's not very likely that the demand he is for competence in English. We're told that the flatmate "will not entertain seeing" applicants who don't meet his requirements. If he's dismissing applicants that he has never met, it can't be on the basis of their competence in English.

kippy

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not up to Mike who chooses to move in; it's up to the owner of the property, for whom the property manager acts. The owner of the property is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of national or ethnic origin, and he doesn't get an exemption from this just because one of his other tenants would like him to.

Mike can choose who he lives with by buying his own property, and letting rooms in it to people who meet his requirements. Or he can leave a rented room if he doesn't like his co-tenants, and look for a room in a house where the other tenants are more to his liking, and then hope that none of the other tenants leave. What he can't do is rent a room in a house and then demand that the landlord discriminate unlawfully in letting all the other rooms in the house. And if the landlord does agree to do that, that's not "not getting involved"; it's the complete opposite.

That's not his it works in the real world for numerous reasons.
Poor Mike is looking like the bad guy in all of this.

Peregrinus

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

In reality, a tenant will often be left to find a replacement for someone that has moved out, whereby the tenant is left to put up the ad and screen as they see fit.

That may be the reality, but if the tenant left to screen applicants screens them on grounds which are prohibited under the equal treatment legislation, the landlord will have no defence when sued for discrimination. Landlords may frequently choose to run that risk but, the point is, it's a risk. You can't escape your legal obligations by letting someone else carry them out on your behalf and them disclaiming all responsiblity for the way they do it.

Alf Veedersane

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can only meaningfully discuss the problem as stated in the OP.

Of course if the facts are other than as stated in the OP, then our views might be different. We can go further into that if and when Shinners29 returns to correct any misstatement in the OP.

But unless the OP is wildly misstated, it's not very likely that the demand he is for competence in English. We're told that the flatmate "will not entertain seeing" applicants who don't meet his requirements. If he's dismissing applicants that he has never met, it can't be on the basis of their competence in English.

It wouldn't really be 'wildly misstated' if the OP had meant someone with a good standard of conversational English. People don't always parse their posts before posting them.

It's not racist to want to be able to easily converse with a roommate rather than essentially be on nodding terms. It's just a better atmosphere to live in.

But maybe it is racist.

Either way, the person remaining has been left to find a tenant. It happens and it's not out of the ordinary so it would be very hard to find to sanction the LL on the grounds of discrimination.

Alf Veedersane

Peregrinus wrote: »

That may be the reality, but if the tenant left to screen applicants screens them on grounds which are prohibited under the equal treatment legislation, the landlord will have no defence when sued for discrimination. Landlords may frequently choose to run that risk but, the point is, it's a risk. You can't escape your legal obligations by letting someone else carry them out on your behalf and them disclaiming all responsiblity for the way they do it.

How do you prove discrimination?

If a landlord is directly letting a property, are they legally required to accept the first person that arrives with rent or are they allowed choose between parties meeting their criteria?

Peregrinus

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

How do you prove discrimination?

It can be difficult in practice, obviously, depending on the circumstances. But, completely hypothetically, if the BF has heard the other tenant telling the property manager "I won't consider anyone who isn't Irish or English/a native English speaker, so don't send them along to see the place", there's the evidence you'd need right there.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If a landlord is directly letting a property, are they legally required to accept the first person that arrives with rent or are they allowed choose between parties meeting their criteria?

Provided the "entry criteria" to be considered at all are not any of the forbidden grounds (gender, religion, race, etc) the landlord can choose between the qualified applicants on any basis at all provided, again, he doesn't choose on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds. He can take the first one who comes along. He can take the richest one who comes along. He can take the one with the best references. He can take the one whose second cousin is the Landlord's dentist. He can take the one who is a Scorpio. Etc. There are no rules about what grounds the landlord must choose on; only about the grounds he must not choose on.

Alf Veedersane

Peregrinus wrote: »

It can be difficult in practice, obviously, depending on the circumstances. But, completely hypothetically, if the BF has heard the other tenant telling the property manager "I won't consider anyone who isn't Irish or English/a native English speaker, so don't send them along to see the place", there's the evidence you'd need right there.


Provided the "entry criteria" to be considered at all are not any of the forbidden grounds (gender, religion, race, etc) the landlord can choose between the qualified applicants on any basis at all provided, again, he doesn't choose on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds. He can take the first one who comes along. He can take the richest one who comes along. He can take the one with the best references. He can take the one whose second cousin is the Landlord's dentist. He can take the one who is a Scorpio. Etc. There are no rules about what grounds the landlord must choose on; only about the grounds he must not choose on.

It would be relatively easy for the LL to suggest the grounds for not considering people were valid, is all I'm saying.

Peregrinus

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It would be relatively easy for the LL to suggest the grounds for not considering people were valid, is all I'm saying.

As the landlord appears to have abdicated all responsibility in the matter, his assurances that only proper considerations were brought to bear might not carry that much weight!

Yeah, if this ever did get to a court or tribunal there'd obviously be an evidentiary issue. And its' never in anybody's interests, in a court or tribunal, to say "yes, I discriminated on the grounds of race/sex/religion". And yet successful discrimination cases are brought.

In a case like this, there might already be evidence of the co-tenant, or someone else, saying that he was making decisions on this basis. It's evident from this thread that many people see nothing wrong, or nothing seriously wrong, with this, and if the co-tenant is of that view its entirely possible that he has said things that might be embarrassing to him if repeated before the tribunal.

The other possibility is that the Equality Authority (or someone else) becomes involved in investigating a complaint, and they observe that Seamus, Mick, Jim and Liam were all shown the room while Sinead, Miguel, Abdul, Francesca, Pavel, Vikram, Ursula, Bao Xi and Marie-Claude were not. They'd likely ask the property manager to point to the criteria other than gender and national origin which were used to filter the applicants down to Seamus, Mick, Jim and Liam.

Alf Veedersane

Peregrinus wrote: »

As the landlord appears to have abdicated all responsibility in the matter, his assurances that only proper considerations were brought to bear might not carry that much weight!

Yeah, if this ever did get to a court or tribunal there'd obviously be an evidentiary issue. And its' never in anybody's interests, in a court or tribunal, to say "yes, I discriminated on the grounds of race/sex/religion". And yet successful discrimination cases are brought.

In a case like this, there might already be evidence of the co-tenant, or someone else, saying that he was making decisions on this basis. It's evident from this thread that many people see nothing wrong, or nothing seriously wrong, with this, and if the co-tenant is of that view its entirely possible that he has said things that might be embarrassing to him if repeated before the tribunal.

The other possibility is that the Equality Authority (or someone else) becomes involved in investigating a complaint, and they observe that Seamus, Mick, Jim and Liam were all shown the room while Sinead, Miguel, Abdul, Francesca, Pavel, Vikram, Ursula, Bao Xi and Marie-Claude were not. They'd likely ask the property manager to point to the criteria other than gender and national origin which were used to filter the applicants down to Seamus, Mick, Jim and Liam.

All of the above may have been shown the room and Jim might have been offered the room. In which case it's very difficult to prove anything.

Peregrinus

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

All of the above may have been shown the room and Jim might have been offered the room. In which case it's very difficult to prove anything.

The OP says not. Unless you were male, single and Irish, you're not seen at all.

I agree that if all applicants are shown the room, and Jim gets it, and nothing is said to anybody about the basis for that decision, a successdful discrimination case will be very hard to mount. But that's not the picture the OP paints.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

As the landlord appears to have abdicated all responsibility in the matter, his assurances that only proper considerations were brought to bear might not carry that much weight!

Yeah, if this ever did get to a court or tribunal there'd obviously be an evidentiary issue. And its' never in anybody's interests, in a court or tribunal, to say "yes, I discriminated on the grounds of race/sex/religion". And yet successful discrimination cases are brought.

In a case like this, there might already be evidence of the co-tenant, or someone else, saying that he was making decisions on this basis. It's evident from this thread that many people see nothing wrong, or nothing seriously wrong, with this, and if the co-tenant is of that view its entirely possible that he has said things that might be embarrassing to him if repeated before the tribunal.

The other possibility is that the Equality Authority (or someone else) becomes involved in investigating a complaint, and they observe that Seamus, Mick, Jim and Liam were all shown the room while Sinead, Miguel, Abdul, Francesca, Pavel, Vikram, Ursula, Bao Xi and Marie-Claude were not. They'd likely ask the property manager to point to the criteria other than gender and national origin which were used to filter the applicants down to Seamus, Mick, Jim and Liam.

But the co-tenant can legally discriminate on any grounds he wishes you appear to keep missing the point. This could never end up at any type of tribunal for that very reason.

Peregrinus

Maci Acidic Hardware wrote: »

But the co-tenant can legally discriminate on any grounds he wishes you appear to keep missing the point. This could never end up at any type of tribunal for that very reason.

No, the co-tenant can't legally discirminate on any grounds he wishes. If he were letting a room in his own house, which he also lives in, he would have an exemption under the Equal Status Act. But that's not the case here. That exemption doesn't cover this case.

This property belongs to the landlord, and only the landlord can let it. The landlord doesn't live there, and cannot let it in a way which discriminates on the prohibited grounds. He may for convenience and a quiet life leave it to the property manager, or one of the existing tenants, or the two of them together, to handle the matter and make the relevant decisions, but in that case they're acting on his behalf, and they are subject to the same non-discrimination obligations as he would be if he handled the matter himself. And he remains responsible for how this is handled regardless of whether he handles it himself or delegates it to others.