Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,790 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Hugh Big Umbrella wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    Professionals only could be seen as basically a way of saying no HAP.

    That's why it's seen as a problem

    Edit wishful thinking on boards doesn't make Orla Jones wrong .

    The issue is that you can’t just say no HAP, no students, no one on the dole, no kids etc on the ad. It’s pure nonsense that a LL can’t specify exact criteria for who he/she does or does not want renting their property.

    Yet somehow we manage to somehow advertise other services without saying we don't want certain people using our service ...

    The percieved issue here by Ms Jones and others that might agree is that the terms she's saying are now out of order - are being used to deliberately try to get around the law.

    Even on here the following idea was put out there......

    "Enter into a tenancy with a HAP tenant - with the deliberate intention of never taking a HAP payment by never producing the tax clearence cert HAP needs to make payment.

    You then give the tenant termination notice when they can't pay the full rent ....."

    Now Ms Jones may not specifically have seen that idea itself but she's clearly sussed that kind of trying to find ways of doing what the law says you can't by sneaky tactics and deliberate wording .

    It's fairly simple really - if you know stuff is against the law - dont be stupid enough to flag your intention to not adhere to the law in your add.

    Frankly the blame here should also go to anyone stupid enough to say no HAP even though the law specifically says no HAP.

    Landlords need to understand that every law that annoys them came about in response to some landlord behaviour that wasn't seen as fair.....


  • Options
    #93
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Old diesel wrote: »
    Yet somehow we manage to somehow advertise other services without saying we don't want certain people using our service ...

    Shops, public houses and other businesses, reserve the right to refuse admission and/or to conduct business, with whomsoever they choose (they just don't have a formal list).


  • Options
    #94
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Subutai wrote: »

    The post you were responding to makes multiple references to the RTB while talking about their tribunals coming from a certain section of society.

    Always amazes me to see people talk about others finishing primary school while they've the reading comprehension of someone struggling to do so.

    Presumably it was your own, finely tuned, exceptionally acute comprehension skills that led you to believe that my comment that: "I have had some personal experience of the WRC ....." meant that I was referring to the RTB! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #95
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,790 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    Yet somehow we manage to somehow advertise other services without saying we don't want certain people using our service ...

    Shops, public houses and other businesses, reserve the right to refuse admission and/or to conduct business, with whomsoever they choose (they just don't have a formal list).

    When a landlord has an IT professional and a HAP tenant stood before him - he isn't obliged to choose the HAP tenant.

    He just needs to manage to not give HAP as the reason for choosing the IT professional. Or better still have a policy where a successful applicant can expect to hear if they are getting on offer within 48 hours of viewing or other non give a reason type policy.

    The best way in the future is to have a procedure that's similar for ALL LLs and agents .

    So if 9 professionals and 1 HAP apply - the 8 Professionals and the 1 HAP get the exact same process.

    References - can still ask for them - it's just officially stating they are essential that seems to be illegal.


  • Options
    #96
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Old diesel wrote: »
    When a landlord has an IT professional and a HAP tenant stood before him - he isn't obliged to choose the HAP tenant.

    He just needs to manage to not give HAP as the reason for choosing the IT professional. Or better still have a policy where a successful applicant can expect to hear if they are getting on offer within 48 hours of viewing or other non give a reason type policy.

    The best way in the future is to have a procedure that's similar for ALL LLs and agents .

    So if 9 professionals and 1 HAP apply - the 8 Professionals and the 1 HAP get the exact same process.

    References - can still ask for them - it's just officially stating they are essential that seems to be illegal.

    But why the need for all this nonsense wasting everyone’s times rather than just allow the LL state from the start that HAP won’t be accepted (and the various other things that aren’t allowed be stated).

    If a LL won’t accept HAP no rule will force him to so all these silly pc nonsense rules Do is waste everyones time and end up with the same result.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    99problems1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 391 ✭✭99problems1


    Jaysus.

    Language or adverts has no impact on housing at all.

    If someone doesn't want to rent to a student or someone on HAP, you can't make them do it.

    Will this "females only" lark also be scrapped?


  • Options
    #98
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    99problems1 wrote: »
    Jaysus.

    Language or adverts has no impact on housing at all.

    If someone doesn't want to rent to a student or someone on HAP, you can't make them do it.

    Will this "females only" lark also be scrapped?

    For a tenant LL relationship that's already illegal. RAR however it's a specific exception.


  • Options
    #99
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,061 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    For a tenant LL relationship that's already illegal. RAR however it's a specific exception.

    It is but the wrc are still hearing gender discrimination cases in rent a room scenarios, it's ridiculous and a waste of time and money.


  • Options
    #100
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    Old diesel wrote: »
    I think the references were viewed as discrimination on age grounds as young people starting out will have none.

    This is actually something the housing sector needs to look at in future ......

    How can you get started as a tenant if you need something you can't possibly have as a first time tenant - a landlord reference.

    Is it any different to employers requiring you to have "x" years experience in a similar role, or in the sector etc.


  • Options
    #101
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    This is what happens when you outsource public/social housing, then try to apply not for profit rules to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Hugh Big Umbrella wrote: »
    The issue is that you can’t just say no HAP, no students, no one on the dole, no kids etc on the ad. It’s pure nonsense that a LL can’t specify exact criteria for who he/she does or does not want renting their property.

    Say they said they don't want Muslims, Nigerians etc, would that be ok with you?


  • Options
    #103
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,407 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    terrydel wrote: »
    Say they said they don't want Muslims, Nigerians etc, would that be ok with you?

    The landlord should be able to choose who he wants looking after his large investment


  • Options
    #104
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭rightmove


    terrydel wrote: »
    Say they said they don't want Muslims, Nigerians etc, would that be ok with you?

    Ppl make sense of the world when the PC brigade force nonsense. LL will choose who they want and hope to make the correct decision, a decision the government are making harder and harder


  • Options
    #105
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    rightmove wrote: »
    Ppl make sense of the world when the PC brigade force nonsense. LL will choose who they want and hope to make the correct decision, a decision the government are making harder and harder

    So you are ok with discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, skin colour, religion etc. Thanks for clearing that up. Nothing to do with any pc brigade. Bigotry plain and simple.


  • Options
    #106
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If you are renting to students Vs a family is a very different business. As I'm sure b&b for stags and hens Vs family holidays.

    With the new ruling you just have to interview everyone and waste everyone's time.


  • Options
    #107
    10pennymixup
    Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭10pennymixup


    terrydel wrote: »
    Say they said they don't want Muslims, Nigerians etc, would that be ok with you?
    rightmove wrote: »
    Ppl make sense of the world when the PC brigade force nonsense. LL will choose who they want and hope to make the correct decision, a decision the government are making harder and harder
    terrydel wrote: »
    So you are ok with discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, skin colour, religion etc. Thanks for clearing that up. Nothing to do with any pc brigade. Bigotry plain and simple.

    Man that's some leap...you should try out for the Olympics.

    They didn't bite when you asked your leading question, yet you still went and labelled them a bigot. Very few are OK with racism and even less willing to admit it even in anonymity on a forum, so not the cleverest way to have asked.

    What LL's have a problem with is not being able to chose the best tenant for their property without running the risk of being hauled to the WRC for discrimination.

    Try it sometime, spend 20 minutes on the phone with someone you showed the house to but rejected. They trying to goad you in to saying you didn't give them the house because of discrimination.

    Not because when I googled their name up came several court appearances/ jail sentences, one in reference to a riot in Mullingar where properties were thrashed (made the 9 o'clock and still on youtube). The wife the same for shop lifting.

    That conversation ended with my family and I being threatened and a promise that the house would be burnt to the ground.

    Are you going to label me a bigot because I didn't give them the house. The way the government is heading, soon LL's might have no choice.


  • Options
    #108
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Hugh Big Umbrella wrote: »
    The issue is that you can’t just say no HAP, no students, no one on the dole, no kids etc on the ad. It’s pure nonsense that a LL can’t specify exact criteria for who he/she does or does not want renting their property.


    It certainly is. When the government started forcing social housing obligations on private landlords and home owners, you knew that they had no social housing plans.


    Abdicating responsibilities has been the mantra of this incompetent FG led government for the past 8 years.


  • Options
    #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    terrydel wrote: »
    Say they said they don't want Muslims, Nigerians etc, would that be ok with you?

    Yes I’d have no issue with it, they should be able to choose who they want in their property based on whatever criteria they wish.

    The fact is they are going to choose who they want regardless but there has to be this big pantomime of a LL wasting his time pretending he is considering x, y and z as a tenant when he hasn’t a chance of renting to them while at the same time wasting the time of x, y and z.


  • Options
    #110
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭rightmove


    terrydel wrote: »
    So you are ok with discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, skin colour, religion etc. Thanks for clearing that up. Nothing to do with any pc brigade. Bigotry plain and simple.

    You seem to be ok with putting words in ppls mouths. How many properties have you had trashed??


  • Options
    #111
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    @Nox Don't get hauled into a you're a "racist" "xenophobic" side tracking arguments. Its a sideshow, nothing more.


    Private landlords should have the right to enter into private agreements with whomever they wish. It is after all, their property, not the governments.

    That private home owners state possible suitability requirements is to ensure they get reliable tenants, who have the ability to pay the demanded rent without any damage being done to their private property. These are not discriminatory requirements.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    STB. wrote: »

    Private landlords should have the right to enter into private agreements with whomever they wish. It is after all, their property, not the governments.

    That private home owners state possible suitability requirements is to ensure they get reliable tenants, who have the ability to pay the demanded rent without any damage being done to their private property. These are not discriminatory requirements.

    I'd really like to see the landlords taking a class action against the State for its every-increasing dilution/abuse of the constitutional right to private property.

    (Although I concede that this is easy for me to write, as a non legally qualified, non property owning sideline observer.)


  • Options
    #113
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Portsalon wrote: »
    I'd really like to see the landlords taking a class action against the State for its every-increasing dilution/abuse of the constitutional right to private property.

    (Although I concede that this is easy for me to write, as a non legally qualified, non property owning sideline observer.)

    The IPOA gave a presentation to an Oireachtas Commitee back in February. It was disjointed, and shockingly all over the place if I remember correctly.

    Certainly some of the policies and responsibilities that this government have abdicated onto private landlords could well be proven to be anti competitive. It would require an organised representative organisation to do challenge it though.

    The government have been very good at rolling out so many ridiculous responsibilities on private owners to cover up their own lack of engagement or planning for social housing and affordable housing areas. They have played the greedy landlords card very well to cover up their own incompetence. Meanwhile social housing responsibilities have passed to private owners. This needs to change.


  • Options
    #114
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    "If you wish, please include all documentation you think will support your application for this property"


  • Options
    #115
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    What about posting something like the below in your advertisement?

    The following items will have no influence on an application, all applications are treated equally:
    - professional position
    - bank statement - 12 months
    - employment reference
    - previous LL reference
    - anything else that a LL would like to not include in their decisions process that if provided will clearly not have any influence on your application.


  • Options
    #116
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Equal status gone mad when not everybody has the wherewithal to rent the same property

    How the feck are banks not falling foul of anti discrimination laws when they won't loan out money to people who cannot afford to pay them back.

    What meaning in law does this decision have ? Daft would be daft not to challenge this.


  • Options
    #117
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    STB. wrote: »
    Equal status gone mad when not everybody has the wherewithal to rent the same property

    How the feck are banks not falling foul of anti discrimination laws when they won't loan out money to people who cannot afford to pay them back.

    What meaning in law does this decision have ? Daft would be daft not to challenge this.

    Even worse than that, Social Welfare won't give me any free money just because I failed some sort of means test. Where's the equal status there?


  • Options
    #118
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Had my ad on daft taken down cos I said no couples please. Apparently that was discrimination.
    Emailed daft back and asked what or how am I to get around that. They told me to simply reword it to ‘ single room available for single guy or girl’ etc apparently that’s not discrimination.

    Go figure


  • Options
    #119
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Yep, and if you list single man or woman in the advertisement, then the discrimination accusations will come from the "gender neutral" or trans people.
    I can say "people", right? Or is that not allowed these days.
    Ireland is going down a wacky slippery slope ..........


  • Options
    #120
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,061 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    You could say replies by email only and no free email providers?

    I have always done replies by email only and that lets you weed a lot of trouble out. Social media and Google searches help cut the list down further.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    alias no.9
    Registered Users Posts: 6,274 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    If your property is in an RPZ with the rent capped, your tenant selection criteria will automatically become risk averse. The ability to pay, the reliability of payment, the lowest risk of damage or antisocial behaviour. Anybody who expects different is quite simply deluded.

    When you have a landlord who takes on new tenants once every few years, nobody will never be able to show bias on their part at any statistical level. The 'protected status applicant' was third on the shotlist of 20 applicants, but there was only one property available. Its simply not possible to enforce equality measures where all but one applicant is being rejected.

    Having general rules about discrimination are good from the point of view of avoiding specific instances of a person being told I'm not letting my property to an [insert derogatory term for ethnic/racial/social grouping] but I'm not sure it does a whole lot to help them find accommodation. Pushing it to a point where an add is censored for mentioning references seems to be a waste of effort which could be expended on positive measures somewhere else.

    However, for the new large scale landlords, you absolutely can show bias and even apply quotas. If its ok to mandate a % of new build to sell developments be social housing, then applying a similar rule to build to let or even landlord with a certain number properties is hardly a big stretch. Perhaps this is a motivating factor in the apparent determination to move more and more of the rental stock from individual landlords with a handful of properties to large scale REITs.


Advertisement