Refused Apartment

MadsL

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

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

A tightening of your sphincter I expect at the level of the award.

Grandpa Hassan

MadsL wrote: »

A tightening of your sphincter I expect at the level of the award.

I look forward to the verdict with interest. Make sure you stick a thread up when it happens....

wirehairmax

wirehairmax wrote: »

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.

You make me sad that I am currently looking for an apartment. You have a horrible attitude and sound like a terrible landlord.

MadsL

wirehairmax wrote: »

Because they're not my customers

Attitude very clear to see here.

and I don't owe them any favours

No, you owe them services under the law.

or am in any way obliged to my tenants.

The law says you are obligated.
http://www.prtb.ie/landlords/new-landlords

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.

1. It is a property you rent as a business not "your house".
2. You need to behave in accordance with the law, not your makey-up "no questions asked"

There are too many people out there think the world owes them a favour and that they have all these "rights".

Rights are not favours, that's why we call them rights.

Well they only have these rights in my house if they abide by my rules and the terms set out in the contract.

Entirely false under the laws of the land.

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.

Your level of professionalism as a landlord clearly shows that.

Ray Palmer

Raphael wrote: »

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

No it isn't discrimination point blank. It is judging somebody which is part of life and is not discrimination. You do have to judge if you can deal with a tenant and how they will effect neighbours

The OP was discriminated against. There are two issues, one did the LL say this and was it passed on by the letting agent. The other is did the letting agent say this himself.

Either way the agent has seriously messed up here and has acted incorrectly. They should be more than aware that this is not something you can say and certainly not something you document.

Bring a case against the agent and the LL. Both are in the wrong but the agent is most certainly an issue as he more likely to do this again. He should be telling the LL you can't do that.

It is illegal and clearly so. Anybody who thinks it isn't illegal is misunderstanding the section dealing with renting in your own home and shared accommodation.

Raphael

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No it isn't discrimination point blank. It is judging somebody which is part of life and is not discrimination. You do have to judge if you can deal with a tenant and how they will effect neighbours

discrimination:
the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated

What you're talking about isn't discrimination, it's illegal discrimination. Which is to say discrimination according to a criteria that it is not legal to discriminate along.

Discrimination itself is not illegal. Anymore than driving a car at 120kph is illegal. Just because it's illegal in some instances, doesn't mean it isn't legal in others.

"No RA" is legal discrimination. "No Smokers" is legal discrimination. "Professionals Only" is legal discrimination.

Grandpa Hassan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No it isn't discrimination point blank. It is judging somebody which is part of life and is not discrimination. You do have to judge if you can deal with a tenant and how they will effect neighbours

The OP was discriminated against. There are two issues, one did the LL say this and was it passed on by the letting agent. The other is did the letting agent say this himself.

Either way the agent has seriously messed up here and has acted incorrectly. They should be more than aware that this is not something you can say and certainly not something you document.

Bring a case against the agent and the LL. Both are in the wrong but the agent is most certainly an issue as he more likely to do this again. He should be telling the LL you can't do that.

It is illegal and clearly so. Anybody who thinks it isn't illegal is misunderstanding the section dealing with renting in your own home and shared accommodation.

The text alone is not evidence of this. How do we know that others didnt get texts saying that they didnt get it as they were a single girl. The issue may have been that he was single, not that he was male, and the LL wanted to rent to a couple. Which as has been pointed out in the posts above, is not illegal discrimination.

And what will such a case achieve? Even in the unlikely event that it did gain traction? Nothing. LLs will continue to rent to the demographic of their preference. They just won't send texts!

MadsL

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The text alone is not evidence of this. How do we know that others didnt get texts saying that they didnt get it as they were a single girl. The issue may have been that he was single, not that he was male, and the LL wanted to rent to a couple. Which as has been pointed out in the posts above, is not illegal discrimination.

And what will such a case achieve? Even in the unlikely event that it did gain traction? Nothing. LLs will continue to rent to the demographic of their preference. They just won't send texts!

TEXT: Sorry, you didn't get the apartment as you are a Black African.
*shrugs*
TEXT: Sorry, you didn't get the apartment as you are a lesbian.
*shrugs*
TEXT: Sorry, you didn't get the apartment as you are a Nordie.
*shrugs*

This all OK?

Raphael

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The text alone is not evidence of this. How do we know that others didnt get texts saying that they didnt get it as they were a single girl. The issue may have been that he was single, not that he was male, and the LL wanted to rent to a couple. Which as has been pointed out in the posts above, is not illegal discrimination.

And what will such a case achieve? Even in the unlikely event that it did gain traction? Nothing. LLs will continue to rent to the demographic of their preference. They just won't send texts!

Discrimination on the grounds of Marital Status is also illegal. It's one if the 9 things.

An improvement would be letting agency's discouraging LLs from doing so, as the discrimination could become obvious across their portfolio, and with a case on the books they're open to legal problems. Not to mention making it very risky to advertise in a discriminatory fashion, and putting a bit of fear in LLs, which might encourage them to obey the maw in this regard.

MadsL: Nordie is fine, actually. Regional discrimination is not illegal

MadsL

Raphael wrote: »

Discrimination on the grounds of Marital Status is also illegal. It's one if the 9 things.

An improvement would be letting agency's discouraging LLs from doing so, as the discrimination could become obvious across their portfolio, and with a case on the books they're open to legal problems. Not to mention making it very risky to advertise in a discriminatory fashion, and putting a bit of fear in LLs, which might encourage them to obey the maw in this regard.

MadsL: Nordie is fine, actually. Regional discrimination is not illegal

I was implying discrimination because of being a Protestant Nordie, which would be illegal.

Grandpa Hassan

Raphael wrote: »

Discrimination on the grounds of Marital Status is also illegal. It's one if the 9 things.

An improvement would be letting agency's discouraging LLs from doing so, as the discrimination could become obvious across their portfolio, and with a case on the books they're open to legal problems. Not to mention making it very risky to advertise in a discriminatory fashion, and putting a bit of fear in LLs, which might encourage them to obey the maw in this regard.

MadsL: Nordie is fine, actually. Regional discrimination is not illegal

I'm sorry.....but you can decide on the basis that there are two incomes rather than one. Therefore choose to rent to a couple. It is not illegal discrimination against marital status. The couple might not even be married.

Nothing you do will stop LLs from letting to whomever they want to based on their preferred demographic. Nothing. They just won't tell those that lost out why. Unless your proposition is that everyone who doesn't get picked as a tenant challenges it through the courts.

Geez....talk about tying up a court's time with rubbish like this!!

This is getting laughable at this stage.

MadsL

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I'm sorry.....but you can decide on the basis that there are two incomes rather than one. Therefore choose to rent to a couple. It is not illegal discrimination against marital status.

Nothing you do will stop LLs from letting to whomever they want to based on their preferred demographic. Nothing. They just won't tell those that lost out why. Unless your proposition is that everyone who doesn't get picked as a tenant challenges it through the courts.

Geez....talk about tying up a court's time with rubbish like this!!

This is getting laughable at this stage.

It is not laughable. You are allowed to think as you wish in Ireland, what you are not allowed to do is to express those thoughts in writing as a basis for a discriminatory decision in the provision of goods and services. That is against the law.

delthedriver

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No it isn't discrimination point blank. It is judging somebody which is part of life and is not discrimination. You do have to judge if you can deal with a tenant and how they will effect neighbours

The OP was discriminated against. There are two issues, one did the LL say this and was it passed on by the letting agent. The other is did the letting agent say this himself.

Either way the agent has seriously messed up here and has acted incorrectly. They should be more than aware that this is not something you can say and certainly not something you document.

Bring a case against the agent and the LL. Both are in the wrong but the agent is most certainly an issue as he more likely to do this again. He should be telling the LL you can't do that.

It is illegal and clearly so. Anybody who thinks it isn't illegal is misunderstanding the section dealing with renting in your own home and shared accommodation.

Correct and right.


Alternatively the OP could spend his energy on securing another apartment and enjoy life !

MadsL

delthedriver wrote: »

Alternatively the OP could spend his energy on securing another apartment and enjoy life !

Why are people who stand up for their rights in Ireland immediately castigated as having "no life" or "sad".

Really, really pathetic victim-shaming.


Perhaps someone who is felt up by a bouncer at a nightclub should stop complaining and go get a boyfriend and enjoy life!! :rolleyes:

Grandpa Hassan

MadsL wrote: »

It is not laughable. You are allowed to think as you wish in Ireland, what you are not allowed to do is to express those thoughts in writing as a basis for a discriminatory decision in the provision of goods and services. That is against the law.

So your issue is the text message. Not that LLs can make their own decisions about who they want to pick from a line up of tenants. Which the always will.

And as I said, we do not know whether it was because the OP was single, rather than male, and therefore deemed less able to pay the rent than a couple with two incomes. The message could have gone to single females as well.

Which would be a business decision akin to a bank choosing to lend less to a single guy with one income than a married couple with two incomes. Maybe you could take your bank to court

Grandpa Hassan

MadsL wrote: »

Perhaps someone who is felt up by a bouncer at a nightclub should stop complaining and go get a boyfriend and enjoy life!! :rolleyes:

Ha. Ridiculous comparison is ridiculous. You really don't do your argument any favours with statements like that

MadsL

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

So your issue is the text message. Not that LLs can make their own decisions about who they want to pick from a line up of tenants. Which the always will.

And as I said, we do not know whether it was because the OP was single, rather than male, and therefore deemed less able to pay the rent than a couple with two incomes. The message could have gone to single females as well.

Which would be a business decision akin to a bank choosing to lend less to a single guy with one income than a married couple with two incomes.

If a bank refused to lend to a single guy over a married couple with the same income in the same circumstances then he would have a case.

Equally a car rental company that refused to rent to a 74 year old got their asses kicked by the EA.

MadsL

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Ha. Ridiculous comparison is ridiculous. You really don't do your argument any favours with statements like that

Is the law broken in both incidents? The law does not indulge in "get a life" type comments nor whataboutery.

delthedriver

MadsL wrote: »

Why are people who stand up for their rights in Ireland immediately castigated as having "no life" or "sad".

Really, really pathetic victim-shaming.


Perhaps someone who is felt up by a bouncer at a nightclub should stop complaining and go get a boyfriend and enjoy life!! :rolleyes:

Oh dear! It is important in life to see the bigger picture. Time wasted on mini battles when there is a war to be won.


In the current climate rental property in Dublin is in great demand. The Op has been unsuccessful in securing a particular property. So while he is getting side tracked over rights the property war is raging.


Hardly castigating the OP, just advice.


As for you choice in nightclubs , I cannot comment. Each to their own.

MadsL

delthedriver wrote: »

Oh dear! It is important in life to see the bigger picture. Time wasted on mini battles when there is a war to be won.

What is it to you how the OP spends their time? Have you personally do anything to prevent unjustified discrimination and tried to win the war? Because I certainly have changed the policies of at least two insurance companies who were illegally discriminating based on nationality and am currently chasing the final one. Check my threads for the evidence of that. And yes there were a bunch of naysayers and 'can't change the system' heads like you having a go at me at the time.

In the current climate rental property in Dublin is in great demand. The Op has been unsuccessful in securing a particular property. So while he is getting side tracked over rights the property war is raging.

Property war :rolleyes:

Hardly castigating the OP, just advice.

Yes you are. You are denigrating his personality.

As for you choice in nightclubs , I cannot comment. Each to their own.

No opinion then? Girls should shrug that off as part of "the nightclub war"?

Grandpa Hassan

MadsL wrote: »

If a bank refused to lend to a single guy over a married couple with the same income in the same circumstances then he would have a case.

Equally a car rental company that refused to rent to a 74 year old got their asses kicked by the EA.

Ok....so LLs should ask every tenant for their salary slips. I see that going down well amongst the renters out there!

This is different to all your examples. In this case their is only one house. And many tenants. Only one can get it. And the LL has to make a choice. Pick one. And they will pick who they want to pick. The one they perceive as being the least risky. Which is a good business decision. Just not write it down!

delthedriver

MadsL wrote: »

What is it to you how the OP spends their time? Have you personally do anything to prevent unjustified discrimination and tried to win the war? Because I certainly have changed the policies of at least two insurance companies who were illegally discriminating based on nationality and am currently chasing the final one. Check my threads for the evidence of that. And yes there were a bunch of naysayers and 'can't change the system' heads like you having a go at me at the time.




Property war :rolleyes:




Yes you are. You are denigrating his personality.




No opinion then? Girls should shrug that off as part of "the nightclub war"?

Perhaps you need to get a life. All this fighting for rights and martyrdom ................Wow!

MadsL

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Ok....so LLs should ask every tenant for their salary slips. I see that going down well amongst the renters out there!

Or evidence that they can afford the rent. Seems reasonable? A standard form introduced that the bank fills out.

This is different to all your examples.

Some of them are you examples

In this case their is only one house. And many tenants. Only one can get it. And the LL has to make a choice. Pick one. And they will pick who they want to pick. The one they perceive as being the least risky. Which is a good business decision. Just not write it down!

Indeed. But I see you have given up trying to claim that what the LL did here was perfectly legal.

delthedriver

MadsL wrote: »

If a bank refused to lend to a single guy over a married couple with the same income in the same circumstances then he would have a case.

Equally a car rental company that refused to rent to a 74 year old got their asses kicked by the EA.

What has this got to do with a guy and his apartment??????????

MadsL

delthedriver wrote: »

Perhaps you need to get a life. All this fighting for rights and martyrdom ................Wow!

You don't change your stripes do you? Anyone who wants to change anything..they need to get a life. Kneejerk reaction.

I prefer a life of actively questioning if the way things are done are right and just, rather than someone passively aggressively throwing brickbats at anyone who is anything more than a sheep just doing as they are told.

MadsL

delthedriver wrote: »

What has this got to do with a guy and his apartment??????????

Ask Grandpa not me....

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

And as I said, we do not know whether it was because the OP was single, rather than male, and therefore deemed less able to pay the rent than a couple with two incomes. The message could have gone to single females as well.

Which would be a business decision akin to a bank choosing to lend less to a single guy with one income than a married couple with two incomes. Maybe you could take your bank to court

Grandpa Hassan

MadsL wrote: »

Or evidence that they can afford the rent. Seems reasonable? A standard form introduced that the bank fills out.



Some of them are you examples




Indeed. But I see you have given up trying to claim that what the LL did here was perfectly legal.

As far as I am concerned a LL can pick the tenant who they perceive as the least risky. I will continue to do so. The LL was perfectly entitled to choose based on his risk assessment. There is only one house. You just don't seem to recognise that. It is not like your insurance companies choosing to not offer a product. Once the LL has picked his tenant he has no further product to offer!!

And you do not know that what the LL did here was illegal. It may be that he wanted to rent to a couple as he perceived them as better able to afford it as they both had jobs.

You obviously haven't seen the huge resistance on this forum against giving LLs financial details. In any case , you would evidence salary details only in order to show affordability. But in your world, unless we rent the house tithe person with the highest salary, we will have you trying to take us to court!!

We will never agree. I, and other LLs, will continue choosing who we want to choose. Based on our own track record and opinions. And we'll make sure that we never wrote it down!

Let us know when you've persuaded the OP to go to court, persuaded a (presumably irritated) court to take the case , won a massive settlement, and made all LLs in the future justify in writing to the state every decision that they make, even if 50 people are going for 1 house

Funnily enough, I'm in my way to Ireland now to see that my tenants are ok and check out the house. It's been a year. I rented it to them as they were the ones I liked the most from about 20 applicants. So 100% on my 'prejudice' I guess

Good luck

Gmol

Yes this is illegal discrimination and you have proof of a sort, however if you perused it I'm sure the LL would claim he was misinterpreted or something to that effect by the EA. Best advice is look for something else

davo10

MadsL wrote: »

If a bank refused to lend to a single guy over a married couple with the same income in the same circumstances then he would have a case.

A.

Ah, this happens every day of the week. If a single guy gets a mortgage and loses his job then he can't pay the mortgage. If a couple who are both working get a mortgage and one loses their job, the other may still be able to pay the mortgage hense there is less risk for the bank. Same risk applied to renting to a single person verses a working couple, I think you might have proved your own viewpoint to be flawed.

MadsL

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

As far as I am concerned a LL can pick the tenant who they perceive as the least risky. I will continue to do so.

You are entitled to chose the tenant as long as you make that decision outside of the nine grounds.

The LL was perfectly entitled to choose based on his risk assessment. There is only one house. You just don't seem to recognise that. It is not like your insurance companies choosing to not offer a product. Once the LL has picked his tenant he has no further product to offer!!

Read the law again...

And you do not know that what the LL did here was illegal.

We do, as it was disclosed by text.

It may be that he wanted to rent to a couple as he perceived them as better able to afford it as they both had jobs.

Conjecture.

You obviously haven't seen the huge resistance on this forum against giving LLs financial details. In any case , you would evidence salary details only in order to show affordability. But in your world, unless we rent the house tithe person with the highest salary, we will have you trying to take us to court!!

Absolutely NOT what I said. The bank could prove ability to pay, salary would not be revealed.

We will never agree. I, and other LLs, will continue choosing who we want to choose. Based on our own track record and opinions. And we'll make sure that we never wrote it down!

Much like employers still discriminate on racial grounds.

Let us know when you've persuaded the OP to go to court, persuaded a (presumably irritated) court to take the case , won a massive settlement, and made all LLs in the future justify in writing to the state every decision that they make, even if 50 people are going for 1 house

Quite an extrapolation from my encouragement of the OP - are you afraid to justify your decisions in some way?

Funnily enough, I'm in my way to Ireland now to see that my tenants are ok and check out the house. It's been a year. I rented it to them as they were the ones I liked the most from about 20 applicants. So 100% on my 'prejudice' I guess

That of course uttterly guarantees that there will be no damage to your house.

Good luck

Likewise.