Refused Apartment

johnnyskeleton

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

It’s pure prejudice that a ‘single man’ would be refused an apartment on just those grounds. Just think about for a second: a single man could be anyone. A single man who is a dentist, a garda, an accountant… whatever really.

Instead, people think a single fella will be getting up to high jinx (based on a stereotype) and forget that plenty of couples engage in tomfoolery as well. There seems to be disagreement in the thread over the legality of it (around whether they’re exempt or not) but pursue the matter and see what comes of the whole thing. You fill in a few papers and wait for your case to be called. Hardly something that will distract you from putting your energy into finding another place. Good luck.

My rough rule of thumb is that:
A) in a room share, asking for someone of the same sex is exempted;
in a flat/house share, asking for someone of the same sex is probably also exempted;
C) in a flat/house share, asking for someone of the opposite sex (or say 1 girl 2 guys seeking 1 more girl to share) to keep the gender balance is a bit trickier to justify
D) a landlord refusing to give a tenancy to someone on gender grounds is discrimination.

The touchstone of discrimination is that it is done for reasons other than to prevent embarrassment / difficulty for the other existing occupants.

As an aside, there was a time when being a single person meant that you could usually knock a few quid off the price of a one/two bed gaff, on the basis that there would be less wear and tear etc. Obviously that is no longer a consideration for some people!

Frank Lee Midere

athtrasna wrote: »

Surely the bottom line is it's the landlord's apartment and given the demand for rented property the landlord has their pick of tenant. The landlord can use whatever criteria they want to choose the tenant, they can draw lots if they want. All any prospective tenant should be told either "yes we would like to rent to you" or "sorry, the landlord has chosen to offer the apartment to another tenant". End of. It's the idiotic agent who messed up here but the bottom line is the landlord chose someone else to rent their property to. End of.

This is like some of the threads that have cropped up in Consumer Issues lately...people seeking compensation/action over something and nothing.

Sorry OP, better luck next time. Instead of spending time and energy getting annoyed about a text, get back out there and keep looking. Good luck!

Or sue the landlord for discrimination?

Does nobody understand the law?

athtrasna

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Or sue the landlord for discrimination?

Does nobody understand the law?

The landlord didn't say it, the agent did. The landlord could easily have gone through a list of potential candidates and whittled them down with throwaway comments, or in fact the agent may have advised on the least troublesome tenant categories from their professional experience.

It's not discrimination, it's a judgement call. A discrimination case is likely to fail if the landlord/agent can prove there was a more suitable applicant, better references, more steady income etc. I don't see a judge appreciating a case like this taking up court time.

doolox

Unless the LL bought just now then a lot of them are operating at a loss and are in debt to the banks. They will try and make the safest decision they can and unfrotunately single men are not the safest at the present time.

Single women tend to have safer and more stable jobs and are in more demand as carers, nurses and teachers, the new economic powerhouses of the current times.

Single men too often are in trades and junior grade professions that require a lot of travel and changing jobs as work runs out in one place etc.

Until housing becomes plentiful again LL's can pick and choose who they rent to and fear very little from the Govt. They will not be stupid enough to advertise the reasons for their choice of tenants.

As time moves on the Govt will have to open up the rental market in Dublin and other comparative job hotspots or people will not be able to move from jobs deserts to the job hotspots especially for min wage/ non wage positions that are commonly available.

In effect the parents of the current generation are subsidising hiring employers by making it possible for people to work fulltime for €200 pw, the rate for many jobbridge positions nowadays. No way someone from the Midlands renting an apartment in Dublin could afford to work for that without help from a parent or working partner.

The govt will be faced with dole claimants unable to move to where the work is and take up otherwise reasonable job offers UNLESS they get involved in building or providing accomodation to moderate a critical shortage in housing.

We will all suffer as a result.

athtrasna

Ben Skinny Thinker wrote: »

shame they are not enforced
Have a look on daft.ie, that amount of rooms for rent that say "females only" is crazy.

Renting a room is a definite exception from Equality Legislation http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/sharing_accommodation_with_your_landlord.html

You are not protected by the Equal Status Acts 2000-2011

MouseTail

athtrasna wrote: »

It's not discrimination, it's a judgement call. A discrimination case is likely to fail if the landlord/agent can prove there was a more suitable applicant, better references, more steady income etc. I don't see a judge appreciating a case like this taking up court time.

That's fine, but OP has proof the Agent discriminated against him on 2 grounds. It doesn't matter if the Agent can show he gave it to a couple with better references.
Is it worth the hassle or cost of a private case, will the Equality Authority bring it? Probably not.

borderlinemeath

How can a landlord NOT discriminate though? To pick at random would be foolhardy, bad business acumen and detrimental to his investment. There has to be a level of discrimination in order for the landlord to pick from the sheer volumes of tenants that want to rent these days. Gone are the times when a LL rented to the first person to turn up with the deposit and the willingness to take the property.

OP, did you think you were a shoo-in to get this property? The only way I could see it as proper discrimination would be if you were the best candidate of all the prospective tenants. Given the fact that you admitted you're just moving out of home would suggest you have no references, and that would also go against you.

I can see why you're pissed off, but what do you hope to achieve? As another poster said a judge would probably consider it a waste of court time, at best you would expect a letter to be sent to the EA from the Equality Authority. The EA would likey tell the agent in question, "don't be so stupid as to give a reason, but blacklist this guy from our rentals, he likes to cause hassle". And unfortunately that's how things tend to happen, it's not right, but discrimination happens every day, everywhere, just sometimes it's not so blatant. You should choose your battles wisely, move on, look for a better place and expect more refusals, it's very difficult to secure a property rental at the moment, and you need to be a bit schmoozy with EAs rather than get them into hot water for a throwaway remark.

TrishSimon

The LL / agent probably does not want to rent to a single lad because they may have had a bad experience with a single lad before as in parties, noise, wrecking the place etc...which then costs money to repair. Its a personal choice they pay the mortgage and any other fees incurred to agents so if they dont want to rent to a certain person they don't have to.
Personally I am am landlady and I won't rent to couples, only to people on their own partly because its a one bed apartment but mainly because I've had couples in my apt on several occasions they always wreck it and its a new apartment, they moan about everything and neighbours complained when one couple in particular where arguing all the time so now I have a lovely girl there since Feb 2013 and its all working out brilliant. I have the apartment finished to a really high standard so the tenant has no reason to complain so there you go that's my personal choice on tenants so its probably the same for this LL. You probably weren't going to have mad parties each weekend or make noise but the LL doesnt know that so is playing it safe.

minusthebear

Hilarious thread. Landlord can rent to whoever he wants based on any personal reason. It's his/her property/business after all! It might not be fair or ethical but that's life.

fl4pj4ck

minusthebear wrote: »

Hilarious thread. Landlord can rent to whoever he wants based on any personal reason. It's his/her property/business after all! It might not be fair or ethical but that's life.

of course they can, according to you. not according to the letter of law

Grandpa Hassan

fl4pj4ck wrote: »

of course they can, according to you. not according to the letter of law

The only way to abide by the law therefore is to choose the tenant by putting all the names in a hat and pulling one out!

Wonder how many landlords do that....

TrishSimon

I'm amused this thread is still going, the LL can choose who they want to live in the apartment they pay the mortgage and fees and tbh its just tough luck if you don't get picked to live there and there are plenty more places to rent.
I personally didnt give a second thought to the 9 other people who came to view my apartment when I advertised it and I am sure this LL is the same.

fl4pj4ck

What is amusing is the amount of people that are willing to advise to act against the law from behind their keyboards. Granted, it's not an easy decision to make, but if you don't intend to let your house with the respect to the law, then just don't do it - or face consequences.

Grandpa Hassan

fl4pj4ck wrote: »

What is amusing is the amount of people that are willing to advise to act against the law from behind their keyboards. Granted, it's not an easy decision to make, but if you don't intend to let your house with the respect to the law, then just don't do it - or face consequences.

You consistently will not elaborate on how you would pick. Another poster came out with the same kind of chat as you, until he let on that he would pick the person with the best job, or most able to afford the rent.....thereby, or course, discriminating against those of a lower socio economic status.

I assume therefore that when selecting a tenant you would instead draw straws, or toss a coin, or pull the names out of a hat.

dar100

TrishSimon wrote: »

I'm amused this thread is still going, the LL can choose who they want to live in the apartment they pay the mortgage and fees and tbh its just tough luck if you don't get picked to live there and there are plenty more places to rent.
I personally didnt give a second thought to the 9 other people who came to view my apartment when I advertised it and I am sure this LL is the same.

Your amusement is a consequence of your ignorance, in this matter. The LL can indeed choose who he wants to rent his property, once he is acting within the law, which, in this case he was not!

TrishSimon

dar100 wrote: »

Your amusement is a consequence of your ignorance, in this matter. The LL can indeed choose who he wants to rent his property, once he is acting within the law, which, in this case he was not!

I'm not in anyway ignorant dar100, I am a very experienced landlady who has had all sorts of tenants nice ones and not so nice ones who in turn cost me a fortune on repairs and redecoration, you on the other hand are seeking attention, he / she did not discriminate against you...did you ever think maybe they just didn't like you or you attitude??
Maybe when you eventually do get a mortgage and have to pay bills you will be mature enough to understand.
If you seriously have a problem with the decision then go to the prtb and see how they laugh you off the phone...grow up and use your time to find another apartment !

MadsL

TrishSimon wrote: »

I'm not in anyway ignorant dar100, I am a very experienced landlady who has had all sorts of tenants nice ones and not so nice ones who in turn cost me a fortune on repairs and redecoration, you on the other hand are seeking attention, he / she did not discriminate against you...did you ever think maybe they just didn't like you or you attitude??
Maybe when you eventually do get a mortgage and have to pay bills you will be mature enough to understand.
If you seriously have a problem with the decision then go to the prtb and see how they laugh you off the phone...grow up and use your time to find another apartment !

You post reads as:

1. I am better than you.
2. You are simply an attention seeker
3. You don't pay bills (I'm sure he does)
4. Put down based on maturity
4. Out and out suggestion to grow up.

Congratulations, you win the patronising post of the year award!

TrishSimon

MadsL wrote: »

You post reads as:

1. I am better than you.
2. You are simply an attention seeker
3. You don't pay bills (I'm sure he does)
4. Put down based on maturity
4. Out and out suggestion to grow up.

Congratulations, you win the patronising post of the year award!

No my post states the obvious that dar100 is immature and needs to grow up so what if the LL didnt give him the apt, is he worried about the other people who were also refused? I seriously doubt it.
I am in no way a patronising person I am telling him how it is and its tough if he doesn't like it, maybe if he was landed with a bill for 2800 for damage that people did to somewhere he owned then he would understand.
This LL obviously has had a bad experience with single lads so chose not to rent it to him just get over it !

Raphael

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The only way to abide by the law therefore is to choose the tenant by putting all the names in a hat and pulling one out!

Wonder how many landlords do that....

Illegal Discrimination and Discrimination are different. Equality legislation only governs the former.

Picking the tenant based on employment status, mode of dress, cleanliness of appearance, quality of references, all of these are legal forms of discrimination.

Picking them based on gender is an illegal form of discrimination. And if car insurance companies are now forbidden from gender discrimination, despite having legitimate evidence to back up male drivers as being more risky, why the hell should a landlord?

djimi

Raphael wrote: »

Picking them based on gender is an illegal form of discrimination. And if car insurance companies are now forbidden from gender discrimination, despite having legitimate evidence to back up male drivers as being more risky, why the hell should a landlord?

Car insurance companies still "discriminate" (ie profile) based on a host of other criteria, including age. It is illegal if they have the facts to back it up?

MadsL

TrishSimon wrote: »

No my post states the obvious that dar100 is immature and needs to grow up

Because he pointed out the EA is acting illegally?

so what if the LL didnt give him the apt, is he worried about the other people who were also refused? I seriously doubt it.

Many people have a sense of social justice - if I saw someone treated unfairly I would certainly say something. If they were treated illegally I would (and have) make a complaint.

I am in no way a patronising person

You were there.

I am telling him how it is and its tough if he doesn't like it,

But that is not the law.

maybe if he was landed with a bill for 2800 for damage that people did to somewhere he owned then he would understand.

Your business incurred a cost doing of business..."it's tough and if you don't like it"

This LL obviously has had a bad experience with single lads so chose not to rent it to him just get over it !

Why should he? The LL acted illegally or does the OP have to suffer the effects of all single men. Would it be fair to make the same racial assumption?

TrishSimon

You are all unrealistic and I many people have pointed out to dar100 that the LL decision was not illegal so just accept it and move on.

Grandpa Hassan

Geez.....is it not just easier to go find another apartment!!

MadsL

Tails142 wrote: »

If you read the act I link you'll see that the accomodation referred to relates to hotels, boarding houses etc.

A house or apartment being let individually by a landlord is considered 'small premises' under the act and is exempt under the Equality Act.

) Premises shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (d) of subsection (2) as small premises if—
(a) in the case of premises comprising residential accommodation for more than one household, there is not normally accommodation in the premises for more than three households, or
(b) in any other case, there is not normally residential accommodation in the premises for more than six persons in addition to a person mentioned in those paragraphs and any persons residing with that person.


You can go on crying in this thread all you want but no law is being broken by saying I dont want to rent my house to a single man.

Just to clear up this nugget of misinformation - The 2000 Act was amended by the Equality Act of 2004 49.—

Section 6 (disposal of premises and provision of accommodation) of the Act of 2000 is amended—

(a) by deleting subsections (2)(b) and (4), and

(b) in subsection (2), by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph (d):

“(d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person's home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person's private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home, or”,

and

(c) by adding the following subsection:

“(7) (a) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as prohibiting, in relation to housing accommodation provided by or on behalf of the Minister, different treatment to persons on the basis of nationality, gender, family size, family status, marital status, disability, age or membership of the Traveller community.

(b) Nothing in paragraph (a) shall derogate from any of the obligations of the State under the treaties governing the European Communities within the meaning of the European Communities Acts 1972 to 2003 or any Act adopted by an institution of those Communities.”.

(d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person's home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person's private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home, or

Means any property rented other than in your own home. Flat shares therefore may specify gender etc.

Raphael

djimi wrote: »

Car insurance companies still "discriminate" (ie profile) based on a host of other criteria, including age. It is illegal if they have the facts to back it up?

Personal Ethics, I'd say it's not discrimination - they're not going 'you're <25' they're going 'you're a member of this particular group of people who are more accident prone' - it's not the age they're discriminating on. This doesn't really apply to a landlord in my opinion, however, unless they have a big enough dataset to back this up - The last 3 lads I had in is not a big enough sample size.

Legally, I'd say using any of the 9 criteria could qualify as discrimination, based on the fact that gender based quotes got ruled to be discrimation. Would need a court case to happen to make something of it though.

Practically, I'd say there will never be a complaint, since all they did in response to the gender ruling was set insurance costs for women to the higher rate they'd been using for men. If someone took an age discrimination case against them, everyones car insurance would end up at under 25 rates.

TrishSimon wrote: »

You are all unrealistic and I many people have pointed out to dar100 that the LL decision was not illegal so just accept it and move on.

That's nice, but you and all those other people were wrong. It is not illegal to pick the tenant you like from a group, it IS illegal to pick based on criteria of marital status or gender.

wirehairmax

I think the landlord had a lucky escape. Imagine having to deal with a gob****e like this for the next year. OP run back to mammy if you don't like the conditions in the rental market at the moment. The tables have turned and its the landlords who have the upper hand now. Theres not the same amount of assholes going around now bragging that its a "buyers market" any more.
We rented our house again two weeks ago and we were able to turn away rent allowance, social welfares, the hagglers, the moaners, pet owners, the ones we didn't like the look of, the tracksuits, etc etc.
References were checked from both employers and previous landlord, I was even in their previous house before they moved out to see its condition.
We've been burned once too often and we said this time that the house could stay empty rather than let someone we didn't like into it. Its our house, we pay the mortgage, we maintain it, we both work too hard to be hassled and tormented by a whinging, moaning tenant who doesn't take care of our property which has happened.
I wish the landlord in this case the very best of luck in the future and say well done on his wise choice in refusing this idiot the tenancy of his hard earned property.

MadsL

TrishSimon wrote: »

You are all unrealistic and I many people have pointed out to dar100 that the LL decision was not illegal so just accept it and move on.

Read the Equality Act of 2004 and show us how it is NOT illegal.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0024/print.html

MadsL

wirehairmax wrote: »

I think the landlord had a lucky escape. Imagine having to deal with a gob****e like this for the next year. OP run back to mammy if you don't like the conditions in the rental market at the moment. The tables have turned and its the landlords who have the upper hand now. Theres not the same amount of assholes going around now bragging that its a "buyers market" any more.
We rented our house again two weeks ago and we were able to turn away rent allowance, social welfares, the hagglers, the moaners, pet owners, the ones we didn't like the look of, the tracksuits, etc etc.
References were checked from both employers and previous landlord, I was even in their previous house before they moved out to see its condition.
We've been burned once too often and we said this time that the house could stay empty rather than let someone we didn't like into it. Its our house, we pay the mortgage, we maintain it, we both work too hard to be hassled and tormented by a whinging, moaning tenant who doesn't take care of our property which has happened.
I wish the landlord in this case the very best of luck in the future and say well done on his wise choice in refusing this idiot the tenancy of his hard earned property.

If you don't like the business you are in and refer to your customers as "rent allowance, social welfares, the hagglers, the moaners, pet owners, the ones we didn't like the look of, the tracksuits" "whinging, moaning" and those who should run back to mammy, then why the fuck (serious question) do you not find another line of work?

Grandpa Hassan

I look forward to seeing how the OP gets on in court!

wirehairmax

MadsL wrote: »

If you don't like the business you are in and refer to your customers as "rent allowance, social welfares, the hagglers, the moaners, pet owners, the ones we didn't like the look of, the tracksuits" "whinging, moaning" and those who should run back to mammy, then why the fuck (serious question) do you not find another line of work?

Because they're not my customers and I don't owe them any favours or am in any way obliged to my tenants. They pay the rent and are supposed to respect my house and if they don't then out they go, no questions asked and no second chances given. There are too many people out there think the world owes them a favour and that they have all these "rights". Well they only have these rights in my house if they abide by my rules and the terms set out in the contract.
And I have many other lines of work and don't depend on a rental property for my income. Its an extra and that's all.