Estate agent to pay €3,000 to single mum for discrimination

Fian

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It is, under family status as being a parent of a child under 18 and civil status as being a single person.

Possibly also even gender - not many men are single mothers.

FishOnABike

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Gender, marital status, family status..... EA must have been going for the hat trick

Lux23

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is discrimination against marital or family status so yes it is.

To be honest I would imagine we will see more of these cases in the coming months and years. So many landlords are woefully (and wilfully maybe) ignorant of their obligations under a variety of legislation and seem to expect special treatment.

Samuel T. Cogley

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're right - it's two of them


http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/EqualStatusActsConsldtd_00_04.pdf/Files/EqualStatusActsConsldtd_00_04.pdf

pilly

I think we've established it's discrimination.

To me though the main problem was stupidity.

I understand why there are laws against discrimination, just don't think they ever work in practice.

mel123

Two questions:

1. Why would they not name the estate agent?
2. Why would you not rent out to a single mother, like whats the logic of it? i know it happens, but i never really thought about why...is it cause a kid will give your place more ware and tear, or you think no fall back if she doesnt pay rent i.e no partner to support her?

Markiemarkso

I think it is unfair the estate agent was fined when it was the landlord who stipulated he/she wanted to rent to a couple. The estate agent is only the "middle man." The case should have been against the landlord

Graham

Markiemarkso wrote: »

I think it is unfair the estate agent was fined when it was the landlord who stipulated he/she wanted to rent to a couple. The estate agent is only the "middle man." The case should have been against the landlord

The EA is the professional who should arguably know better and should have advised his client appropriately.

Samuel T. Cogley

mel123 wrote: »

Two questions:

1. Why would they not name the estate agent?

Why twist the knife. Why open yourself up to potential legal action if your jouros aren't that accurate at the best of times.

mel123 wrote: »

2. Why would you not rent out to a single mother, like whats the logic of it? i know it happens, but i never really thought about why...is it cause a kid will give your place more ware and tear, or you think no fall back if she doesnt pay rent i.e no partner to support her?

Well you can draw your own conclusions in reagrd to HAP being mentioned but irrelevant here. But also a single person, especially one with a child is less secure than a couple who are both working. Also there is the wear and tear issue.

the_syco

And this is why EA's either give bullsh|t answers or no answers; because if they answer truthfully, they get fined!

mrslancaster

LL's need to be very careful these days - they need to make sure they know all the legislation. I think that soon it will be too onerous and small LL's will get out of the business and leave it to the big operators so the 'easy-come-easy-go' days will be gone.

A single mum with a young child receiving HAP would probably be a very reliable tenant IMO as she would be unlikely to do anything that might leave her and her child open to becoming homeless and she would probably want to be settled for school.

Don't understand why the LL had an issue to be fair unless s/he didn't want the bother of all the paperwork the council wants..??

quadrifoglio verde

mel123 wrote: »

Two questions:

1. Why would they not name the estate agent?
2. Why would you not rent out to a single mother, like whats the logic of it? i know it happens, but i never really thought about why...is it cause a kid will give your place more ware and tear, or you think no fall back if she doesnt pay rent i.e no partner to support her?

With regards to number 2, excess wear and tear.

Parents have a place in grand canal dock, rent is the same as it was in 2010. Tenant has been there since 2007.
He stays there 4 days a week, flies in on Monday and flies home on Friday. The cooker and washing machine have literally never been used, as his employer looks after that for him.
In the last 10 years, they've only been called about a problem with the place once

Now compare that wear and tear to the wear and tear caused by a child. You just simply can't

The ideal tenant is someone who is going to be there very little. Someone who is mainly going to be using the place to sleep. Someone who isn't going to have loud parties.
A professional couple in their late 20s onwards is ideal. They're generally past the "let's trash the place" parties of the early 20s, they're not going to be there all the time, they'll tend to eat out a lot and if they stop paying the rent and you get an order for rent against them, you can chase them for it.

Ray Palmer

Do landlords have to accept HAP? I thought it was an agreement with the local council with a number of clauses. RA I understand can't be refused but HAP is a whole different deal.

Graham

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Do landlords have to accept HAP? I thought it was an agreement with the local council with a number of clauses. RA I understand can't be refused but HAP is a whole different deal.

From: http://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-good-and-services/what-does-the-law-say/housing/

On the 1st January 2016, the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 introduced “housing assistance” as a new discriminatory ground.

This means that discrimination in the provision of accommodation or related service and amenities against people in receipt of rent supplement, housing assistance payments or other social welfare payments is prohibited.

Mrs OBumble

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well you can draw your own conclusions in reagrd to HAP being mentioned but irrelevant here. But also a single person, especially one with a child is less secure than a couple who are both working. Also there is the wear and tear issue.

I reckon a clever lawyer could have some fun fighting something like this: the LL wanted two people who were working, s/he didn't care about their family status (ie whether they were f****ing each other or not), just the overall income stability.

Of course it would be hard to argue in a one-bed. But in a two or three quite easy: I just care that you have two incomes coming into the house.

FishOnABike

Could the "any payment under the Social Welfare Acts" inserted in section 3(b) of the Equal Status Act 2000 by section 13 of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 be interpreted broadly as including any of Jobseekers Benefit, Jobseekers Allowance, Family Income Supplement, Disability Allowance, etc... effectively preventing a potential LL from looking for any proof of income or employer references from a tenant?

Samuel T. Cogley

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I reckon a clever lawyer could have some fun fighting something like this: the LL wanted two people who were working, s/he didn't care about their family status (ie whether they were f****ing each other or not), just the overall income stability.

Of course it would be hard to argue in a one-bed. But in a two or three quite easy: I just care that you have two incomes coming into the house.

Well as a thick wannabe my take would be there's at least two grounds of some fairly clear legislation

The_Conductor

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Do landlords have to accept HAP? I thought it was an agreement with the local council with a number of clauses. RA I understand can't be refused but HAP is a whole different deal.

Yes- they have to accept HAP- however, the rent level does not have to have any cognisance of the HAP levels for a given area- aka if a landlord is seeking 6 months rent as a deposit and monthly rent of twice the local HAP limit- it is entirely acceptable- and if the HAP applicant can line their ducks up in a row- then all is well and good.

I'm helping someone let an executive apartment in Galway this week- we put a test add up on DAFT and had 15 applicants within 30 minutes. 9 of the 15 asked if HAP applicants were acceptable, we replied- of course they are. And they are. However, this is an executive letting of a 3 bed- marble floors, underfloor heating, US satellite tv links, 360Mb broadband included in the price and weekly house keeping/house cleaning. The other 6 applicants are on behalf of multinationals in the greater Galway/Shannon area (funnily enough two of them are from the same company- someone obviously isn't talking to their colleagues).

HAP is not a scheme under which landlords can discriminate- however- at the same time- if a prospective HAP tenant is applying for a property that a landlord is aiming at a different market altogether- its not fair to try and suggest if they don't get it- that somehow they have been discriminated against. The lack of HAP discrimination- simply puts a prospective tenant on a level playing field with any other prospective tenant- and they still have to satisfy any other conditions a landlord may impose on prospective tenants (such as the rent level, the number of months deposit being sought, the terms of the rental- such as whats included and what is not, valet/housekeeping (in an executive letting) etc etc).

Just because a HAP tenant does not get a property- does not mean they have been discriminated against- however, in the case here- the Estate Agent was nuts to put in writing what he put in writing- even if it was the express wish of the landlord. The EA should have known better- and hopefully the fine will serve as a shot across the bow of any other EA's (and indeed landlords) who may be unfamiliar with the law.

myshirt

Yeah, he walked into that one and gave her a slam dunk case.

However, don't be fooled, it is not much harder to argue a successful case where you don't have the benefit of this type of error in your arsenal. The perception out there is that of you don't write it down or say it, you'll be grand.

My own view is that this HAP scheme and the RPZ are too heavy handed. Yes, if you want to participate in this economy you must behave yourself and act responsibly. You can't cherry pick the good things and seek to exclude yourself from the not so good aspects. Participate in this economy, or don't. However, government need to take ownership for this issue and not transfer the legwork to others.

Cuddlesworth

None of this is new. In the job world, you never give a reason as to why you did or didn't hire one person over another for fear of any mistake or bad wording leading to a discrimination lawsuit.

pilly

myshirt wrote: »

Yeah, he walked into that one and gave her a slam dunk case.

However, don't be fooled, it is not much harder to argue a successful case where you don't have the benefit of this type of error in your arsenal. The perception out there is that of you don't write it down or say it, you'll be grand.

My own view is that this HAP scheme and the RPZ are too heavy handed. Yes, if you want to participate in this economy you must behave yourself and act responsibly. You can't cherry pick the good things and seek to exclude yourself from the not so good aspects. Participate in this economy, or don't. However, government need to take ownership for this issue and not transfer the legwork to others.

I don't understand what you mean by participating in the economy, what's that got to do with the discussion?

Samuel T. Cogley

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'm helping someone let an executive apartment in Galway this week- we put a test add up on DAFT and had 15 applicants within 30 minutes. 9 of the 15 asked if HAP applicants were acceptable, we replied- of course they are. And they are. However, this is an executive letting of a 3 bed- marble floors, underfloor heating, US satellite tv links, 360Mb broadband included in the price and weekly house keeping/house cleaning. The other 6 applicants are on behalf of multinationals in the greater Galway/Shannon area (funnily enough two of them are from the same company- someone obviously isn't talking to their colleagues).

Further to the previous conversation about corporate lets. The ones that aren't owned by a big multinational directly or indirectly through a letting company with 1000+ units the owners will do some varation of the above if legislation keeps going the way it is. It's practically written in - substantial refurbishment. I can't get market rent, I don;t want HAP, I don't want tenants I can't verify - feck the current tenants out, refurbish the place and do a corporate let.

The more and more this goes on the more it's seems this legislation isn't as badly thought out as it is taken at face value.

The_Conductor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Further to the previous conversation about corporate lets. The ones that aren't owned by a big multinational directly or indirectly through a letting company with 1000+ units the owners will do some varation of the above if legislation keeps going the way it is. It's practically written in - substantial refurbishment. I can't get market rent, I don;t want HAP, I don't want tenants I can't verify - feck the current tenants out, refurbish the place and do a corporate let.

The more and more this goes on the more it's seems this legislation isn't as badly thought out as it is taken at face value.

Yep. And if you can get a few units in the one development- it makes doing valet/housekeeping logistically a lot more feasible. It would also be questionable whether, or not, it continues to be classified as a residential letting- when you go corporate- which means you could potentially kill two birds with the one stone- and extinguish the preset rent-control level associated with the property- wholly aside from a refit/refurb to get into the corporate sector to begin with. The property I was involved with in Galway- did not need any refurb/refit to be of an exceptional standard (it also features a sauna and a wetroom). Its almost criminal that its only used a couple of days a month- but if that's how the companies want to use it- that's their business (and from the landlord's perspective- the wear and tear on it is probably nil).

Tombo2001

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes- they have to accept HAP- however, the rent level does not have to have any cognisance of the HAP levels for a given area- aka if a landlord is seeking 6 months rent as a deposit and monthly rent of twice the local HAP limit- it is entirely acceptable- and if the HAP applicant can line their ducks up in a row- then all is well and good.

I'm helping someone let an executive apartment in Galway this week- we put a test add up on DAFT and had 15 applicants within 30 minutes. 9 of the 15 asked if HAP applicants were acceptable, we replied- of course they are. And they are. However, this is an executive letting of a 3 bed- marble floors, underfloor heating, US satellite tv links, 360Mb broadband included in the price and weekly house keeping/house cleaning. The other 6 applicants are on behalf of multinationals in the greater Galway/Shannon area (funnily enough two of them are from the same company- someone obviously isn't talking to their colleagues).

HAP is not a scheme under which landlords can discriminate- however- at the same time- if a prospective HAP tenant is applying for a property that a landlord is aiming at a different market altogether- its not fair to try and suggest if they don't get it- that somehow they have been discriminated against. The lack of HAP discrimination- simply puts a prospective tenant on a level playing field with any other prospective tenant- and they still have to satisfy any other conditions a landlord may impose on prospective tenants (such as the rent level, the number of months deposit being sought, the terms of the rental- such as whats included and what is not, valet/housekeeping (in an executive letting) etc etc).

Just because a HAP tenant does not get a property- does not mean they have been discriminated against- however, in the case here- the Estate Agent was nuts to put in writing what he put in writing- even if it was the express wish of the landlord. The EA should have known better- and hopefully the fine will serve as a shot across the bow of any other EA's (and indeed landlords) who may be unfamiliar with the law.

EDIT - from further threads, you let to corporates rather than individuals.

myshirt

pilly wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by participating in the economy, what's that got to do with the discussion?

Everything. Absolutely everything. If you want to do any business in this country, you have to act responsibly. This does not involve attitudes such as 'I should be able to rent my property to whoever I want'.

Tombo2001

myshirt wrote: »

Everything. Absolutely everything. If you want to do any business in this country, you have to act responsibly. This does not involve attitudes such as 'I should be able to rent my property to whoever I want'.

Absolutely - and you also have to act commercially; what makes most commercial sense for me.

Insurance companies offer a far higher premium to customers they believe are higher risk, or don't sell them to them at all.

But for landlords to do same, its bad attitude?

the_syco

mrslancaster wrote: »

A single mum with a young child receiving HAP would probably be a very reliable tenant IMO as she would be unlikely to do anything that might leave her and her child open to becoming homeless and she would probably want to be settled for school.

And not leave if the HAP stops for any reason, because they'd then be homeless.

mrslancaster wrote: »

Don't understand why the LL had an issue to be fair unless s/he didn't want the bother of all the paperwork the council wants..??

And/or the cost of having to bring the property up to HAP standards.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Not being smart, but marble floors, underfloor heating and US Satellite TV links - so what. You will find plenty of people on HAP who can pay for this just as comfortably as the people in the multinationals.

Someone on HAP can afford 2000 a month for a two bed with maybe three months deposit?

Graham

the_syco wrote: »

And not leave if the HAP stops for any reason, because they'd then be homeless.

Often at the advice of some of the 'professional' tenants advocacy organisations. :mad:

pilly

myshirt wrote: »

Everything. Absolutely everything. If you want to do any business in this country, you have to act responsibly. This does not involve attitudes such as 'I should be able to rent my property to whoever I want'.

Lovely idealogical view of the world. Businesses are in business to make money, not to improve society despite what people may think.

That's reality.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

Everything. Absolutely everything. If you want to do any business in this country, you have to act responsibly. This does not involve attitudes such as 'I should be able to rent my property to whoever I want'.

Of course you should be able to let your property to who ever you want. The opinions of some people never cease to amaze me at times. Any property owner who doesn't very closely vet and carefully choose his tenants is a fool.

The estate agent is paying for his stupidity in this case and not knowing to lie.