Refused Apartment

MadsL

davo10 wrote: »

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 wrong.

Ahem...

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/March/DEC-S2013-001-Full-Case-Report.html

" I am also making an order under section 27(1)(b) of the Acts, and I order the respondent to amend their procedures in order to ensure that applications for mortgages secured on the family home in the sole name of married persons are given appropriate consideration regardless of the marital status of the applicants and in accordance with the provisions of the Equal Status Acts."

Mr. Incognito

I found this trainwreck of a thread and although I work in the law every day I don't actually know the answer to the question of whether this sort of text would actually be illegal or not. So I had a look.

The applicable Acts are the Equal Status Act 2000-2012

Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation.


6.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in—
(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,
(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or
(c) providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

“premises” includes any immovable property for the purposes of the Act. In the law immovable property is what is known in common terms as land and all other moveable property would be goods.

The Section 5 an earlier poster referenced does not apply as it refers to goods and services. In any event the service is being provided to the landlord and not the prospective viewers by the Estate Agent.

The exemptions are clearly listed

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—

(a) the disposal of any estate or interest in premises by will or gift,

(b) the disposal otherwise of such an estate or interest where—

(i) the person making the disposal or another person who has an estate or interest in the premises or a person who is a near relative of either of them intends to continue to reside, or in the immediate future to take up residence, in the premises or a part thereof, and

(ii) the premises in question are small premises,

(c) any disposal of such an estate or interest, or any provision of accommodation or of any services or amenities relating to accommodation, which is not available to the public generally or a section of the public,

(d) the provision of accommodation in premises where—

(i) the person providing the accommodation or a person who is a near relative of that person intends to continue to reside, or in the immediate future to take up residence, in the premises or a part thereof, and

(ii) the premises in question are small premises,

or

(e) the provision of accommodation to persons of one gender where embarrassment or infringement of privacy can reasonably be expected to result from the presence of a person of another gender.

As such we can see that it doesn't apply to disposing or terminating an interest in property. Equally where there is a cause of embarrassment to current tenants (such as current females in occupations) then it is okay to limit the scope to that gender.

As such the landlord has no criticism under these grounds (disposing or terminating an interest)

It is likely that one can apply that the only ground that can apply is providing accommodation or services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to apply same.

The real problem here is the text. Is that sufficient grounds for discrimination?

On a narrow ground it might be, however there is the element of heresay. The Estate Agent said that the landlord said. That is not enough to ground discrimination in law, written or not. We do not know the reason for the statement by the landlord. He could have other objective grounds that his instruction was based on. Such as financial security of a young single man (perfectly reasonable) and this could have been misinterpreted. We don't even know if the landlord said it. May the EA didn't like you for any reason under the son and blamed the LL. This happens every day.

The basis of discrimination is that one is refused BECAUSE of one of the said grounds. This is not apparent.

The second problem is the quantum of loss. What has the OP suffered? A half hour out of his day for a viewing. He has not be singled out for ridicule, belittled or dare I say discriminated (within the meaning of the acts) against in any way. He received a text saying that he was unsuccessful. He then took to Boards to rant and got a willing rabble to gang up against the phantom landlord. The court will need more evidence than his own inflated sense of injustice.

Discrimination is a horrible thing. To be prejudiced against because of who you are essentially. As such it should not be bandied about lightly and comparing the plight of the OP with Rosa Parks and sexual assault is the most lazy type of sensationalist nonsense possible. I really wish we could ban this sort of thing but Godwin's Law will always hold true.

It's likely you could find a solicitor to disagree with me and would kindly take 5K on account to tee up a misguided application. I suggest it would be put to better use presenting a more affable front to the next estate agent who will recommend you to the next landlord.

delthedriver

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I found this trainwreck of a thread and although I work in the law every day I don't actually know the answer to the question of whether this sort of text would actually be illegal or not. So I had a look.

The applicable Acts are the Equal Status Act 2000-2012



“premises” includes any immovable property for the purposes of the Act. In the law immovable property is what is known in common terms as land and all other moveable property would be goods.

The Section 5 an earlier poster referenced does not apply as it refers to goods and services. In any event the service is being provided to the landlord and not the prospective viewers by the Estate Agent.

The exemptions are clearly listed


As such we can see that it doesn't apply to disposing or terminating an interest in property. Equally where there is a cause of embarrassment to current tenants (such as current females in occupations) then it is okay to limit the scope to that gender.

As such the landlord has no criticism under these grounds (disposing or terminating an interest)

It is likely that one can apply that the only ground that can apply is providing accommodation or services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to apply same.

The real problem here is the text. Is that sufficient grounds for discrimination?

On a narrow ground it might be, however there is the element of heresay. The Estate Agent said that the landlord said. That is not enough to ground discrimination in law, written or not. We do not know the reason for the statement by the landlord. He could have other objective grounds that his instruction was based on. Such as financial security of a young single man (perfectly reasonable) and this could have been misinterpreted. We don't even know if the landlord said it. May the EA didn't like you for any reason under the son and blamed the LL. This happens every day.

The basis of discrimination is that one is refused BECAUSE of one of the said grounds. This is not apparent.

The second problem is the quantum of loss. What has the OP suffered? A half hour out of his day for a viewing. He has not be singled out for ridicule, belittled or dare I say discriminated (within the meaning of the acts) against in any way. He received a text saying that he was unsuccessful. He then took to Boards to rant and got a willing rabble to gang up against the phantom landlord. The court will need more evidence than his own inflated sense of injustice.

Discrimination is a horrible thing. To be prejudiced against because of who you are essentially. As such it should not be bandied about lightly and comparing the plight of the OP with Rosa Parks and sexual assault is the most lazy type of sensationalist nonsense possible. I really wish we could ban this sort of thing but Godwin's Law will always hold true.

It's likely you could find a solicitor to disagree with me and would kindly take 5K on account to tee up a misguided application. I suggest it would be put to better use presenting a more affable front to the next estate agent who will recommend you to the next landlord.

Well done !

MadsL

Mr Incognito you are quoting the 2000 Act if you wish to accuse me of sensationalism at least use the current law.

The 2004 Equality Act amends the 2000 Equal Status Act

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”,

Fkall

The easiest solution for landlords and agents to avoid potentially running foul of the equality laws is to only text the successful tenant

However renter might not find this solution very attractive.

MadsL

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The basis of discrimination is that one is refused BECAUSE of one of the said grounds. This is not apparent.

I think the text is clear.

The second problem is the quantum of loss. What has the OP suffered? A half hour out of his day for a viewing. He has not be singled out for ridicule, belittled or dare I say discriminated (within the meaning of the acts) against in any way.

But this has been more than made up for on this thread.

He received a text saying that he was unsuccessful. He then took to Boards to rant and got a willing rabble to gang up against the phantom landlord. The court will need more evidence than his own inflated sense of injustice.

Inflated? The law agrees with him.

Discrimination is a horrible thing. To be prejudiced against because of who you are essentially. As such it should not be bandied about lightly and comparing the plight of the OP with Rosa Parks and sexual assault is the most lazy type of sensationalist nonsense possible.

There is a difference between quantum and category. The OP sits within the same category of discrimination but not within the same quantum. Rosa Parks was raised in response to the argument that it is better to do nothing. Please do not be sensationalist about the thing you are calling sensationalism.

I really wish we could ban this sort of thing but Godwin's Law will always hold true.

Nothing to do with Godwin's law

It's likely you could find a solicitor to disagree with me and would kindly take 5K on account to tee up a misguided application. I suggest it would be put to better use presenting a more affable front to the next estate agent who will recommend you to the next landlord.

More victim-blaming. Shameful.

delthedriver

MadsL wrote: »

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.

It is your life!


You seem to revel in the struggle.


It would be interesting to get the view of the Op concerned having read all the views.


Does he wish to concentrate his efforts on a potential legal case , which he may lose or concentrate his efforts on getting a place to live.?


Madsl, respectfully I present this question to the OP, not you.


Your fight for human rights is honourable, though at times misguided.


I think we have read enough of your rants.


Let the Op speak for himself as to which course of action he would like to take.


Perhaps someone could even help him here??????

littleblackDRS

"MadsL wrote:

More victim-blaming. Shameful.

how in the name of god is this victim blaming? This seems to be a buzzword that's thrown out there.

MadsL

delthedriver wrote: »

It is your life!


You seem to revel in the struggle.


It would be interesting to get the view of the Op concerned having read all the views.


Does he wish to concentrate his efforts on a potential legal case , which he may lose or concentrate his efforts on getting a place to live.?


Madsl, respectfully I present this question to the OP, not you.


Your fight for human rights is honourable, though at times misguided.


I think we have read enough of your rants.


Let the Op speak for himself as to which course of action he would like to take.


Perhaps someone could even help him here??????

Are trying to censor me now those saying the LL is not acting illegally have been proven wrong?

No-one is preventing the OP from speaking nor is it up to you to moderate this thread.

I'd be delighted to hear which of my successful actions against the insurance industry in Ireland are "misguided" - perhaps in another thread. Conspiracy Theories perhaps?

As for revelling? Well, are you not also "revelling" by still posting? Clearly the only arguments you have left are ad hominum ones.

MadsL

littleblackDRS wrote: »

how in the name of god is this victim blaming? This seems to be a buzzword that's thrown out there.

It is the assumption that the OP did something wrong otherwise he would not be in this position. Hence the reference (shamefully from a moderate and sensible poster) that the OP needs to be more affable in his LL dealings when there is zero evidence that he was less than amenable. It is a subtle ad hominum but one nontheless.

davo10

I don't mean this to be derogatory, but is it possible that the EA thought it would be kinder to give OP this excuse for not allowing him to rent the apartment rather than telling OP the LL just didn't like him?

Mr. Incognito

MadsL wrote: »

Mr Incognito you are quoting the 2000 Act if you wish to accuse me of sensationalism at least use the current law.

The 2004 Equality Act amends the 2000 Equal Status Act

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”,

I quoted the applicable law up to 2012. The 2004 amendment you have quoted points to the exemption for rooms in the landlords house and is not applicable here.

I will not bother responding to your line by line post mortems. It's clear we disagree and I don't have the patience to get dragged into discussing nonsense tangents.

MadsL

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I found this trainwreck of a thread and although I work in the law every day

You give terrible advice then...not only the wrong Act but also...

It's likely you could find a solicitor to disagree with me and would kindly take 5K on account to tee up a misguided application. I suggest it would be put to better use presenting a more affable front to the next estate agent who will recommend you to the next landlord.

http://www.labourcourt.ie/en/Publications_Forms/Explanatory_Notes_-_ES-3_Form.pdf

You fill out a form to bring a case. No solicitor needed, nor €5000. Sensationalism eh?

MadsL

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I quoted the applicable law up to 2012. The 2004 amendment you have quoted points to the exemption for rooms in the landlords house and is not applicable here.

The 2000 Act says

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—
(d) the provision of accommodation in premises where—

(i) the person providing the accommodation or a person who is a near relative of that person intends to continue to reside, or in the immediate future to take up residence, in the premises or a part thereof, and

(ii) the premises in question are small premises,

That (d) is amended by the 2004 Act to read...

“(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”,

I will not bother responding to your line by line post mortems. It's clear we disagree and I don't have the patience to get dragged into discussing nonsense tangents.

Translation: I was wrong about the current equality law and cannot admit it, now back to tax law.

delthedriver

MadsL wrote: »

Are trying to censor me now those saying the LL is not acting illegally have been proven wrong?

No-one is preventing the OP from speaking nor is it up to you to moderate this thread.

I'd be delighted to hear which of my successful actions against the insurance industry in Ireland are "misguided" - perhaps in another thread. Conspiracy Theories perhaps?

As for revelling? Well, are you not also "revelling" by still posting? Clearly the only arguments you have left are ad hominum ones.

Actually I am not revelling in this wreck of a thread which you seem anxious to dominate. Respectfully I care less about your alleged successful actions against Insurance Companies, which is of little relevance to this unfortunate situation.
I am more concerned that someone is finding it difficult to find a place to live in Ireland's capital city.
Does the op wish to spend money on a deposit and rent on a flat or place his money on account with a solicitor in order to present a fairly weak case to the courts.
Would you prefer that this guy be homeless instead.
Right now he needs to present himself to a number of Letting Agent's who may assist in presenting him to a landlord with a suitable property.


Quite frankly speaking as a landlord I would not be interested in dealing with someone who is being coached by you. It would be a case of the property has been rented!
How dare you suggest I am moderating, you appear to be ranting off rather than thinking logically about how the OP can secure a place to live.

davo10

MadsL wrote: »

The 2000 Act says



That (d) is amended by the 2004 Act to read...

“(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

I'm not a solicitor but it looks to me as if this refers to renting a room in a persons home as opposed to a house/apartment.

I think if there is anything to be learned from this thread it is that if you don't like a perspective tenant, don't tell them why you won't rent to him and don't feed a troll.

MadsL

delthedriver wrote: »

Actually I am not revelling in this wreck of a thread which you seem anxious to dominate. Respectfully I care less about your alleged successful actions against Insurance Companies, which is of little relevance to this unfortunate situation.

Given they are discrimination legislation based, they are relevant.

I am more concerned that someone is finding it difficult to find a place to live in Ireland's capital city.

I'm sure as a landlord you are heartbroken that there is high demand for rental property. Perhaps it is more that you are concerned about being careful how you phrase your refusals?

Does the op wish to spend money on a deposit and rent on a flat or place his money on account with a solicitor in order to present a fairly weak case to the courts.

The Equality Tribunal does not require he hire a solicitor. He simply fills out this form. http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Publications_Forms/Equal_Status_Form_ES-1_-_pdf.pdf

Would you prefer that this guy be homeless instead.

Yes. Yes, I would. And on drugs. :rolleyes:

Right now he needs to present himself to a number of Letting Agent's who may assist in presenting him to a landlord with a suitable property.

Because that is mutually exclusive with making a Equality complaint.

Quite frankly speaking as a landlord I would not be interested in dealing with someone who is being coached by you. It would be a case of the property has been rented!

Coached? After he has already been refused?

How dare you suggest I am moderating, you appear to be ranting off rather than thinking logically about how the OP can secure a place to live.

I think you are utterly missing the point of this thread, which is the OP enquiring as to his rights in this matter rather than "Help! need a place"

MadsL

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not a solicitor but it looks to me as if this refers to renting a room in a persons home as opposed to a house/apartment.

Yes, it is the only EXEMPTION from the nine grounds in terms of the Act and renting.

MadsL

davo10 wrote: »

I don't mean this to be derogatory, but is it possible that the EA thought it would be kinder to give OP this excuse for not allowing him to rent the apartment rather than telling OP the LL just didn't like him?

Conjecture.

davo10

MadsL wrote: »

Conjecture.

Subjective.

MadsL

davo10 wrote: »

Subjective.

It is objectively conjecture since the poster was not there at the LL/Tenant meeting.

Unless you are playing the adjective game in which case...

Fluffy!

delthedriver

MadsL wrote: »

Given they are discrimination legislation based, they are relevant.


I'm sure as a landlord you are heartbroken that there is high demand for rental property. Perhaps it is more that you are concerned about being careful how you phrase your refusals?



The Equality Tribunal does not require he hire a solicitor. He simply fills out this form. http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Publications_Forms/Equal_Status_Form_ES-1_-_pdf.pdf




Yes. Yes, I would. And on drugs. :rolleyes:



Because that is mutually exclusive with making a Equality complaint.




Coached? After he has already been refused?



I think you are utterly missing the point of this thread, which is the OP enquiring as to his rights in this matter rather than "Help! need a place"

No issues with how I phrase refusals, in any case I have full occupancy of all my properties.



Ah your are the man!!! Oh! Oh! Perhaps woman?? Equality and all that!!!


Perhaps we will here DAR100's views before the night is out?

bumper234

MadsL wrote: »

Conjecture.

How?

Do you know op?

Have you seen op?


For all we know op could be a tracksuited junkie who turned up for the viewing in a souped up neon green micra with Bob Marley blasting from the stereo and a cloud of smoke the size of Leitrim coming from the window. LL "could" have based his decision on that but decided to "let him down gently" .

I'm not saying op is any of the above but sometimes people will make judgement calls on what they see (doormen, security, police do it all of the time) and no matter if right or wrong it's a well known fact that 1st impressions count and if op's 1st impression was a bad one then LL may have made the decision on that.

MadsL

bumper234 wrote: »

How?

Do you know op?

Have you seen op?


For all we know op could be a tracksuited junkie who turned up for the viewing in a souped up neon green micra with Bob Marley blasting from the stereo and a cloud of smoke the size of Leitrim coming from the window. LL "could" have based his decision on that but decided to "let him down gently" .

I'm not saying op is any of the above but sometimes people will make judgement calls on what they see (doormen, security, police do it all of the time) and no matter if right or wrong it's a well known fact that 1st impressions count and if op's 1st impression was a bad one then LL may have made the decision on that.

He could have been having anal sex with the LL's god-niece at the time for all the law cares, but the law is specific when it comes to his refusal - he cannot refuse the OP on one of the nine grounds. I don't know how to make that clearer and the number of so called 'professional LL' who do not know that here is staggering.

MadsL

delthedriver wrote: »

No issues with how I phrase refusals, in any case I have full occupancy of all my properties.



Ah your are the man!!! Oh! Oh! Perhaps woman?? Equality and all that!!!

Relevance?

Perhaps we will here DAR100's views before the night is out?

Why do you feel you need the OP's opinion in order to discuss the law?

Grandpa Hassan

MadsL wrote: »

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

It has worked out very well thankyou.

If you spent any time on this thread you would see how important it is that the LL and tenant have a good relationship. So I will continue to rent to those potential tenants that I have a good feeling about

And watch out for your court case based on a secondhand text message!

The_Morrigan

OP if you wish to take action against the landlord or agent based on an alleged discrimination then please seek professional legal advice.

/Mod