Media: 'Professionals only' - Daft.ie ordered to block discriminatory terms in ads

The_Conductor

Article in today's Indo spelling out new DAFT rules for advertising property to let.



Gordon Deegan

August 20 2019 5:38 PM



The country’s largest property website, daft.ie has been ordered to block discriminatory advertising using terms like “professionals only” or “rent allowance not accepted”.

It comes after a three year long legal battle between Daft Media Ltd and the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHREC) which took the case.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) said that Daft Media Ltd must “refrain from publishing, displaying or permitting to be published or displayed on its website” discriminatory adverts.

It has also been told develop a methodology to identify, monitor and block discriminatory advertising on its website based on a list of terms of trigger words and phrases provided to them by the IHREC.

The WRC has made the ruling after finding that some rental adverts on daft.ie breached the Equal Status Act on the grounds of family status, age and on the rent allowance ground.

And it rejected daft.ie’s contention that it was a ‘mere conduit’ for online content and that EU law provisions rendered Daft Media Limited immune from the complaint by the Commission.

At any one time, daft.ie lists approximately 70,000 properties for sale or to rent while 2.5 million unique users visit the site each month.

The success of the business has generated millions of euro in dividends over the years for co-founders of the business, brothers, Eamonn and Brian Fallon.

In bringing the complaint, the Commission undertook a review of the daft.ie website in May 2016 and identified a number of adverts that discriminated on HAP, age and family status grounds of the Equal Status Acts.

These adverts included terms directed towards prospective tenants, which read “rent allowance not accepted”; “suit family or professionals only”; “would suit young professionals” and “references required”.

The hearing in the case was heard over three days in March and October of last year and January 11 this year.

In a submission to the WRC, Daft Media Ltd asserted that it is not an advertiser or a publisher but that it is an Information Society Service Provider (ISSP) as defined in the EU e-Commerce directive and that it is not responsible for the content of the material which appears on its website.

Daft Media Ltd argued that the IHREC claim refers to three specific adverts and that any finding made can only be made in respect of these adverts and cannot be extended to include all discriminatory grounds.

It stated that already, any adverts uploaded to the site that contain terms that have been previously reported as discriminatory are diverted to a queue of pending adverts for review.

However, as part of her lengthy ruling, WRC adjudication officer Orla Jones found that Daft Media Ltd “has a vicarious liability for advertisements placed on its website by third parties where these constitute a breach of the Equal Status Act”.

Commission member Tony Geoghegan, who has been a long-standing advocate for homeless people in Ireland, welcomed the ruling.

He said: “In the context of the current crises in homelessness and housing, this ruling marks a significant step in efforts to curtail discriminatory advertising particularly around rental accommodation.”

Daft Media Ltd was contacted for comment on the WRC ruling, but declined to comment.

The_Conductor

On the basis of 3 discriminatory advertisements- it appears that DAFT are going to have to fundamentally change their business model. It also appears that its a movable feast- the terms to be outlawed can be notified at will to DAFT and they have to nuke any advertisements using them. Lots of apartments might suit a professional for example (code for its got a tiny kitchen and its wholly impractical to try and cook there on a regular basis (or) its spec'ed improbably high and the landlord is going to have to demand several months rent as a deposit to ensure any accruing damage can be rectified).

I genuinely think that all of these rules are highlighting the necessity to let unfurnished units on the Irish market- with appropriate deposits (appropriate being benchmarked as x number of months rent as a deposit- looking at the multiples in use in other markets that have properties let at comparable rent levels). By all means hold the deposit in escrow- however, collect it and insist on collecting it.

All the changes really demand a seachange on the parts of landlords- which I argue *has* to include giant strides towards letting unfurnished units on the Irish market.

DubCount

I never knew "references required" was discriminatory language. Cant HAP recipients get references from previous landlords or character references?

Soon, landlords will have to hire out the lotto machine to select tenants randomly.

This ruling is a pointless pursuit. There must be an endless line of expressions landlords intent on discriminating can use to replace the banned ones. This wont help HAP recipients who face discrimination, continuing to face discrimination.

A victory for the "homelessness industry", but no solution to the real world problems.

Sarn

All it does is waste people’s time. Instead you’ll be discriminated against when you go to view. The reason you didn’t get the place will never be disclosed.

el Fenomeno

I mean they can outlaw what they want - any half-arsed landlord can still find out with ease if their prospective tenant is a "professional" (and what "professional" is code for) or not.

Duckjob

Won't the same precedents set now have to apply to employment law also? Ie will employers soon not be allowed to check out a prospective new employees work references because to do so is "descriminatory" ?

Seems like a crazy direction to be heading legally.

ste

Sarn wrote: »

All it does is waste people’s time. Instead you’ll be discriminated against when you go to view. The reason you didn’t get the place will never be disclosed.

This!
Landlords can use email to screen ppl also. "Tell me about yourself". Or is that discrimination?
Might be good for agents who can offer screening services.

Homer

Just kicking the can down the road where landlords will decide once they meet prospective tenants and ask the relaxant questions about employment and previous references etc. Some people (IHREC) have too much time on their hands.

Subutai

The_Conductor wrote: »

On the basis of 3 discriminatory advertisements- it appears that DAFT are going to have to fundamentally change their business model. It also appears that its a movable feast- the terms to be outlawed can be notified at will to DAFT and they have to nuke any advertisements using them. Lots of apartments might suit a professional for example (code for its got a tiny kitchen and its wholly impractical to try and cook there on a regular basis (or) its spec'ed improbably high and the landlord is going to have to demand several months rent as a deposit to ensure any accruing damage can be rectified).

I genuinely think that all of these rules are highlighting the necessity to let unfurnished units on the Irish market- with appropriate deposits (appropriate being benchmarked as x number of months rent as a deposit- looking at the multiples in use in other markets that have properties let at comparable rent levels). By all means hold the deposit in escrow- however, collect it and insist on collecting it.

All the changes really demand a seachange on the parts of landlords- which I argue *has* to include giant strides towards letting unfurnished units on the Irish market.

The next alteration to the Residential Tenancies Act is likely to include a limit to one month's rent for deposits. The only reason it wasn't included in the 2019 Amendment Act was a lack of time for the Minister to consider it, but he was positively disposed.

Not sure why one would let unfurnished though. It's a significant saving for to let furnished as one can claim the furniture (which is really my own furniture, I can put the old stuff in the rental) against tax.

Augme

Duckjob wrote: »

Won't the same precedents set now have to apply to employment law also? Ie will employers soon not be allowed to check out a prospective new employees work references because to do so is "descriminatory" ?

Seems like a crazy direction to be heading legally.

I don't see why the same precedent will have to be set. Employment and service provision is covered by different legalisative acts.

Although even now most multinational companies have stopped giving out work based character references. They will only give out details of employment duration. It's seems most companies feel that giving out a character reference is too much of risk.

Cuddlesworth

Duckjob wrote: »

Won't the same precedents set now have to apply to employment law also? Ie will employers soon not be allowed to check out a prospective new employees work references because to do so is "descriminatory" ?

Seems like a crazy direction to be heading legally.

No, the act is specific to receipt of "rent supplement", not against un-employed in general.

Its a stupid law. Stupid laws lead to stupid court cases.

Writing into the Ad anything discriminatory against rent supplement is the same as saying(in the eyes of the law) no Blacks, no travellers, no Jews, no un-married/men/women/children/(although they seem to care little about that) etc. Saying things like "references only(implying work references)" is just the same as trying to skirt round the issue for the others, although I can't think of a good example of that. You could even argue that requesting months of deposit in advance, or proof of funds is discriminatory to rent supplement as well.

Whats interesting is how they are pushing so hard on this and not the tons of other equal status act abuses in rental adverts.

Salary Negotiator

I wonder if the government have thought about addressing the issues that make landlords reluctant to rent to non-professionals.

the_syco

Subutai wrote: »

Not sure why one would let unfurnished though.

If it's not there, it can't be broken, doesn't need to be replaced when it gets broken, nor does it get worn from use.

It'd also mean that if you're on HAP, you probably won't rent the place that you need your own furniture.

Augme

Sarn wrote: »

All it does is waste people’s time. Instead you’ll be discriminated against when you go to view. The reason you didn’t get the place will never be disclosed.

I don't disgree but I also think this is a poor argument against having rules in place. If that was the attitude then we should also scrap discrimination laws in employment as employers can just not give jobs to black/gay/women/Muslims etc if they don't want to.

If the attitude is that "you'll just be discriminated against at interview stage" then maybe steps should be out in place to ensure that it is harder to discriminate against to fix that problem instead of just not bothering to do anything to fix it at all.

Subutai

the_syco wrote: »

If it's not there, it can't be broken, doesn't need to be replaced when it gets broken, nor does it get worn from use.

It'd also mean that if you're on HAP, you probably won't rent the place that you need your own furniture.

It's stuff that'd otherwise be in a skip, break away - a month's deposit covers it. Meanwhile some nice new furniture and appliances for yourself is coming out of money otherwise going to tax.

Easy to avoid HAP by seeking bank statements and employment references.

screamer

Subutai wrote: »

It's stuff that'd otherwise be in a skip, break away - a month's deposit covers it. Meanwhile some nice new furniture and appliances for yourself is coming out of money otherwise going to tax.

Easy to avoid HAP by seeking bank statements and employment references.

Landlords looking for bank statements... that’s a step too far. No way I’d give that level of personal detail to anyone.

Cookie_Monster

Subutai wrote: »

Not sure why one would let unfurnished though. .

having lived in a country where 95%+ of rentals are unfurnished I'm not quite sure anymore why anyone would let a place fully furnished.

Atlantic Dawn

The iron fist comes down on ads featuring sensible comments like "not suitable for couples" on a 6ft by 6ft box room yet broadband providers can offer clearly falsely advertised "unlimited", "no limit" etc broadband packages without a sweet fook being given.

jay0109

More Lefty BS...this country is on a serious downward spiral

Sarn

Augme wrote: »

I don't disgree but I also think this is a poor argument against having rules in place. If that was the attitude then we should also scrap discrimination laws in employment as employers can just not give jobs to black/gay/women/Muslims etc if they don't want to.

If the attitude is that "you'll just be discriminated against at interview stage" then maybe steps should be out in place to ensure that it is harder to discriminate against to fix that problem instead of just not bothering to do anything to fix it at all.

When it comes to renting out a property it is a big risk for the LL. No one is saying that you should be able to discriminate based on race, family status, religion etc. LLs want to make sure that the rent will be paid and if there are issues they’ve a better chance of getting rid of the tenant or getting some money back. Checking references gives some idea.

If you employ someone, it is a lot easier to get rid of them then a bad tenant.

hmmm

jay0109 wrote: »

More Lefty BS...this country is on a serious downward spiral

No-one seems to want to tackle the real problem (the small number of anti-social tenants). Instead landlords are somehow expected to vet tenants to protect both themselves and the neighbours who will have to be alongside the tenant, and yet at the same time they have few tools in order to do so, and can be down tens of thousands if they get it wrong.

Subutai

screamer wrote: »

Landlords looking for bank statements... that’s a step too far. No way I’d give that level of personal detail to anyone.

All that matters is the running total and the regular salary. Everything else can be redacted, in line with DPC advice.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

having lived in a country where 95%+ of rentals are unfurnished I'm not quite sure anymore why anyone would let a place fully furnished.

It's an allowable expense, and so essentially free furniture and appliances as revenue do not police which house it is placed into.

screamer

Subutai wrote: »

All that matters is the running total and the regular salary. Everything else can be redacted, in line with DPC advice.



It's an allowable expense, and so essentially free furniture and appliances as revenue do not police which house it is placed into.

Don’t care, my salary is private as is my running total. Talk about giving a landlord carte Blanche to up your rent. Crazy stuff.

screamer

screamer wrote: »

Don’t care, my salary is private as is my running total. Talk about giving a landlord carte Blanche to up your rent. Crazy stuff.

The LL is handing you the keys to a property worth several 100 thousand and you expect not to be able to do something as basic as produce a bank statement. Would you try to apply for loan and expect to be able to do it without a bank statement?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hugh Big Umbrella wrote: »

The LL is handing you the keys to a property worth several 100 thousand and you expect not to be able to do something as basic as produce a bank statement. Would you try to apply for loan and expect to be able to do it without a bank statement?

Are landlords qualified to analyse finances?

Hobosan

It's great that this has been tackled.

Whether you like this specific outcome or not, it does logically lead to the possibility of removing the "free to a loving home" requirement for pet animal adverts.

As proud Chinamen, I'm sure we can all agree that this may work to our advantage.

Hobosan

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Are landlords qualified to analyse finances?

Yes, most of them learn the basics by 3rd class.

nuac

Prohibiting a LL from seeking references is crazy.

This is going to make daft fairly useless for a lot of folks while looking for a place to stay.

An alternative, Facebook etc will surely emerge.


Banning “suit family or professionals only” lolz :pac:

I always thought it meant : "this place isn't cheap as chips or battered to f*ck so not student suitable"


I don't think we're going to be able to legislate our way to rental happiness but we're going to cause agony trying. :cool:

Steve

Just saying, those begrudging the Fallons for making a few bob from Daft need to realise they are also the owners of boards and are financing the forums we post on.

That aside, everything the government has done insofar as meddling in the private rental sector in the last decade has failed - I am hesitant to believe that imposing punitive legal sanctions on the advertisers will have any better outcome.

Subutai

screamer wrote: »

Don’t care, my salary is private as is my running total. Talk about giving a landlord carte Blanche to up your rent. Crazy stuff.

Grand so, plenty of other fish in the sea.

What the rent is set at has nothing to do with your finances. That's your business, the rent is the landlord's.

Seeking bank statements in this way is in line with DPC guidance, and the means by which one ensures they rent only to someone from whom they can recover damages if necessary.

overkill602

Leftist lunacy continues however most markets don’t use similar terms in advertising but higher risk here and delinquency encouraged by our politicians with no will to address antisocial or non-payment of rent will ensure continued shrinkage

Requesting 1 year bank statement proving rent was paid on time especially in an area where demand is high is not unreasonable.

The_Conductor

Sarn wrote: »

All it does is waste people’s time. Instead you’ll be discriminated against when you go to view. The reason you didn’t get the place will never be disclosed.

If twenty people queue for a property (which isn't unusual)- and a landlord or an agent asks a prospective tenant- tell me why I should give you my property instead of another of those who are viewing the property- is this now also illegal? When you choose one person over another- by definition, you are discriminating against the person who wasn't chosen. It was up to now fine to do this- providing you studiously kept away from discrimination as defined by the act- now, with this half baked measure- discrimination no longer has a definition- its whatever the homeless bodies/organisations/industry want it to be, on a day by day basis.

If we really want to get rid of more housing stock from the rental market- this is yet another damn good reason to do so. On the brightside- it'll drive some more supply into the secondhand market- however, secondhand supply doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment, even in Dublin.

The_Conductor

overkill602 wrote: »

Requesting 1 year bank statement proving rent was paid on time especially in an area where demand is high is not unreasonable.

And where someone is not in a position to show a history of paying their rent on time- alongside a statement from their last 2 landlords to the effect that they're good decent tenants who moved for 'listed reasons' (which can be verified by a prospective landlord).

If a landlord is not allowed to conduct due diligence on a prospective tenant they may (if they're unlucky) end up with a nightmare- and they may have sanctions taken against them at the RTB by third parties (including any or all of the neighbouring properties).

Different people have different rights and obligations towards different parties. You cannot hand someone all the rights, and someone else all the obligations- and then wonder why the person with all the obligations decides to tell you to take a hike.

Old diesel

nuac wrote: »

Prohibiting a LL from seeking references is crazy.

Unless I've missed something - you are still allowed ask for them????

Just not insist in advertising that they are essential......

handlemaster

screamer wrote: »

Landlords looking for bank statements... that’s a step too far. No way I’d give that level of personal detail to anyone.

why ? normal outside of ireland to give this information. Even if you rent a car thats worth 20k you have a precharge on your credit card. The price of a property far in exceeds this

Thinkingaboutit

Steve wrote: »

Just saying, those begrudging the Fallons for making a few bob from Daft need to realise they are also the owners of boards and are financing the forums we post on.

That aside, everything the government has done insofar as meddling in the private rental sector in the last decade has failed - I am hesitant to believe that imposing punitive legal sanctions on the advertisers will have any better outcome.

Yes, just the latest in a sequence of measures over this and the last government ensuring that the Dublin rental market is a disaster (not really functionally in any remotely efficient way) whether for renter or non REIT landlord. As has been happening, a good many landlords see no purpose in it if legislation and rules are wholly tilted in favour of the delinquent who knows the system. It can also be noted that the RTB are comically inefficient. There can be fifty coming to viewings of anything half decent. Thanks to this manifestly bonkers ruling from this random quango, this market shrinking rubbish will continue. Clown world stuff.

TheChizler

Subutai wrote: »

It's an allowable expense, and so essentially free furniture and appliances as revenue do not police which house it is placed into.

They're not 100% expensable surely? At most ~half free?

bucketybuck

Old diesel wrote: »

Unless I've missed something - you are still allowed ask for them????

Just not insist in advertising that they are essential......

So you could just say in the advert, "References will be requested" or something similar?

Tombo2001

I think to be fair people are looking at this the wrong way.

You aren't allowed to discriminate in rental lettings for reasons of HAP for example.

However some landlords might not know this.

If they appear to discriminate then they are leaving themselves open to litigation.
And if you spell it out clearly in the rental ad, then you wont be in a good position to defend your case.

This isn't a Daft.ie policy, its state law. Daft are doing landlords a favour here.

Old diesel

Asking for a reference isn't in itself the problem (in the eyes of the adjudicator).

It's the fact that you insist they are mandatory to be even considered.

The finding appears to be age related because it descriminates in the WRC opinion against young people who have never rented before.

The HAP thing is separate .

EU law over rides Irish law under Doctrine of Supremacy - basically meaning that where Irish law and EU law differ - EU law applies .

So if Daft are correct - then they should be able to overturn this .

Old diesel

bucketybuck wrote: »

So you could just say in the advert, "References will be requested" or something similar?

References preferred but not essential seems a logical way forward .

But you would need proper legal clarity on that - not some random poster on boards who is possibly misinterpreting the findings of WRC.

ted1

How about this, the government provide social housing. And let the private rental market provide housing to people re ting privately with their own money. Let the private landlord ask what he wants to , if perspective tenants have an issue they don’t need to apply

Old diesel

ted1 wrote: »

How about this, the government provide social housing. And let the private rental market provide housing to people re ting privately with their own money. Let the private landlord ask what he wants to , if perspective tenants have an issue they don’t need to apply

How about this - landlords know - or should know that it's illegal* to discriminate against HAP.

So don't be stupid and actually say you don't take HAP on a public add that ANYONE can find and see.

Every rule that came in against Landlords is because at some point some landlord acted badly.

*The rights and wrongs of that are a big matter in itself

ThunbergsAreGo

Delighted this is what IHREC are spending their time with.........

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

How about this - landlords know - or should know that it's illegal* to discriminate against HAP.

So don't be stupid and actually say you don't take HAP on a public add that ANYONE can find and see.

Every rule that came in against Landlords is because at some point some landlord acted badly.

*The rights and wrongs of that are a big matter in itself

What I’m saying is that the law is an ass and should be changed.
They need to stop socialising private rentals. It’s the reason why rent is so dear.

Portsalon

naughtb4 wrote: »

Delighted this is what IHREC are spending their time with.........

If Emily "career virtue signaller" Logan was abducted by aliens, it is beyond rational argument that Ireland would be a far better place.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

TheChizler wrote: »

They're not 100% expensable surely? At most ~half free?

Yeah, you’d get back about 50% of what you spent on them if you’re in the higher tax band. Some people do seem to think you can minus the full expense off the final tax bill for some reason. :eek:

Old diesel

ted1 wrote: »

What I’m saying is that the law is an ass and should be changed.
They need to stop socialising private rentals. It’s the reason why rent is so dear.

A change in the law on HAP would NOT bring down rents - unless landlords started getting out of HAP by the lorry load immediately.

It's clear from all the roaring and screeching about RPZs that what Landlords want is for rents to go even beyond current levels.

The market should set the rent we are always told

Caranica

What about rent a room ads? Specifically exempt from the equality legislation and backed up by wrc decisions?

ted1

Old diesel wrote: »

A change in the law on HAP would NOT bring down rents - unless landlords started getting out of HAP by the lorry load immediately.

It's clear from all the roaring and screeching about RPZs that what Landlords want is for rents to go even beyond current levels.

The market should set the rent we are always told

If the government provided social housing. It’d take people out if the private rental market. And prices would come down

I rent out properties to tenants, whose rent is paid by the council. I set the rent based on what the council will pay : https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/housing_assistance_payment.html#l4292e

Many landlords do similar. If they didn’t pay so much the rent would be cheaper

So to summarise the Mather doesn’t set the rate , the councils limits set the minimum rate.

Landlords are screeching about RPZ because if they have been charging below market rate they can’t raise it , this causes issues when they sell