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

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

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Imani CoolS Vitamin wrote: »
    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.

    Similarily it amazes be in 2017 that people belive a LL should be allowed to not let a property to someone becuase they're gay or black.


  • Options
    #63
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Similarily it amazes be in 2017 that people belive a LL should be allowed to not let a property to someone becuase they're gay or black.

    I see your point but how exactly do you see legislation changing this? It doesn't.


  • Options
    #64
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Imani CoolS Vitamin wrote: »
    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.

    Similarily it amazes be in 2017 that people belive a LL should be allowed to not let a property to someone becuase they're gay or black.
    As a landlord I have no issues at all with race or sexuality or nationality of tenants, however it is a business and the Irish govvie should let me choose my tenants based on risk/reward reasons. The socialist at the govvie and in this forum believe that this should not be allowed, they believe that we should act as a kind of charity. I strongly object to this and the hipocrisy that these socialist laws have created. We all know that a HAP tenant creates a lot more paper work, compulsory expensive auditing from council and he has nothing to loose if he/she overholds. We all know that children create more wear an tear. I cannot adjust rent to reward the increased risk. I have to lie instead. This is the definition of stupidity!


  • Options
    #65
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    GGTrek wrote: »
    As a landlord I have no issues at all with race or sexuality or nationality of tenants, however it is a business and the Irish govvie should let me choose my tenants based on risk/reward reasons. The socialist at the govvie and in this forum believe that this should not be allowed, they believe that we should act as a kind of charity. I strongly object to this and the hipocrisy that these socialist laws have created. We all know that a HAP tenant creates a lot more paper work, compulsory expensive auditing from council and he has nothing to loose if he/she overholds. We all know that children create more wear an tear. I cannot adjust rent to reward the increased risk. I have to lie instead. This is the definition of stupidity!

    I have absolutely no issue with that - in fact quite the opposite, the new legislation insisting on HAP/Rent allowance is a atep way too far and lazy at that - if they sorted the system out there would be plenty of landlords delighted to go with the security and it annoys me as a tax payer that the govenement and getting value for money in spending my tax €s by not leveraging that.

    However I do have a massive issue with people suggesting the LL should be the arbitar of who gets housed on the basis of they're own bias. That bias could be something like blacks are lazy or gay people won't have kids, it's not something that a lack of legislation should support. The vetting should decide the tenant, not preconceptions and I know I'm like a broken record on this but we need a proper credit referencing system to support this. For all a LL knows the single mum hasn't missed a bill in her life and the gay couple both in IT earning 200K between them can't keep €20 in the bank.
    pilly wrote: »
    I see your point but how exactly do you see legislation changing this? It doesn't.

    It doesn't mean we should not aspire to change it and legislate for it, occationally you'll get someone hence this thread. Not doing so in my mind is akin to say ah well, assualts happen, no point in having legislation againt them.


  • Options
    #66
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,662 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


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


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


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

    Absolutely.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    I have absolutely no issue with that - in fact quite the opposite, the new legislation insisting on HAP/Rent allowance is a atep way too far and lazy at that - if they sorted the system out there would be plenty of landlords delighted to go with the security and it annoys me as a tax payer that the govenement and getting value for money in spending my tax €s by not leveraging that.

    However I do have a massive issue with people suggesting the LL should be the arbitar of who gets housed on the basis of they're own bias. That bias could be something like blacks are lazy or gay people won't have kids, it's not something that a lack of legislation should support. The vetting should decide the tenant, not preconceptions and I know I'm like a broken record on this but we need a proper credit referencing system to support this. For all a LL knows the single mum hasn't missed a bill in her life and the gay couple both in IT earning 200K between them can't keep €20 in the bank.



    It doesn't mean we should not aspire to change it and legislate for it, occationally you'll get someone hence this thread. Not doing so in my mind is akin to say ah well, assualts happen, no point in having legislation againt them.

    It's not the same thing at all though Samuel, you can never legislate peoples thoughts away. To me all it does is cause people to lie more often.

    An assault is a physical thing, much easier to legislate.

    Do you genuinely believe that the legislation around LL's not being allowed to refuse HAP has changed the number of LL's who do?


  • Options
    #68
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,662 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Can I ask a general question here

    If people believe that this is discrimination, and not a commercial decision, on behalf of the landlord - can I ask you what you feel the basis for the discrimination is?

    Are you saying the landlord is misogynist?

    If not, then what?

    Do you really landlords are anti-women? Or anti single people?


  • Options
    #69
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    pilly wrote: »
    It's not the same thing at all though Samuel, you can never legislate peoples thoughts away. To me all it does is cause people to lie more often.

    An assault is a physical thing, much easier to legislate.

    Do you genuinely believe that the legislation around LL's not being allowed to refuse HAP has changed the number of LL's who do?

    It doesn't change the fact that the legislation should be there and adhered to. If you want a closer example, many LL's don't register with the RTB or pay tax, few get caught. No reason to remove the legislation.
    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Can I ask a general question here

    If people believe that this is discrimination, and not a commercial decision, on behalf of the landlord - can I ask you what you feel the basis for the discrimination is?

    Are you saying the landlord is misogynist?

    If not, then what?

    Do you really landlords are anti-women? Or anti single people?

    The LL is making a comercial decision on their own bias - that's the difference. A LL should be able to vet a tenant and frankly that vetting should be more transparent. The result of that vetting is what makes the decision not that the LL assumes a single mum is going to be a bad bet. Let's not foget in this case HAP was acceptable to the LL.


  • Options
    #70
    childsplay
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭childsplay


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    You can't discriminate against someone based on family status or on marital status. So a unmarried lady with a child would fit both of those categories or am l missing something?


  • Options
    #71
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Can I ask a general question here

    If people believe that this is discrimination, and not a commercial decision, on behalf of the landlord - can I ask you what you feel the basis for the discrimination is?

    Are you saying the landlord is misogynist?

    If not, then what?

    Do you really landlords are anti-women? Or anti single people?

    Its a discrimination in law- i.e. the landlord is not allowed to discriminate under a number of grounds- of which the fact that the lady in question is a single mother- is two such grounds.

    The landlord has an economic preference for a particular demographic- that is a working couple- his rent would be perceived to be more secure- and as they'd be in the property a lot less- there would be a commensurate lessening of wear and tear (and thus cost)- over that which there would be with a child present.

    So- the landlord has a completely economic reason for having a preference for a particular demographic- I'm sure he has absolutely nothing against single mothers or children in every day life.

    Unfortunately, from the landlord's perspective- there is a socialism/equilibrium motive behind the law governing equality- wholly aside from any other factor- the individual is entitled to be considered on a level playing field- to any other candidate for the tenancy. I.e. the landlord is not allowed to price the additional wear and tear or the possibility of overholding into the equation- they have to look at this as though this possibility doesn't exist.

    An intelligent landlord- would simply have gotten around this by other mechanisms- such as insisting on several months rent as a deposit- for example (and if the single mother with her child came up with the deposit- happy days- the landlord has his insurance against the additional wear and tear they'd create). Instead- the landlord came out with a blunt- 'I want a working couple'- which is discriminatory.

    So- the landlord could have gotten his way- legitimately- but instead- because of the instruction they gave the equally gormless estate agent- they are in breach of the equality legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Can I ask a general question here

    If people believe that this is discrimination, and not a commercial decision, on behalf of the landlord - can I ask you what you feel the basis for the discrimination is?

    Are you saying the landlord is misogynist?

    If not, then what?

    Do you really landlords are anti-women? Or anti single people?

    It's always going to be a grey line.

    If a landlord avoids tenant from a specific country or in specific age groups because from experience they know on average they are causing more issues, they will probably be called racist or ageist as individually it will cause them to discard very good tenants who wouldn't have caused any issue, even though statistically they might indeed have a valid point.

    It was not written down but I have heard before from an estate agent that a landlord had a specific issue with Indian tenants as in many cases their cooking style leaves long term odours in the kitchen which are difficult to get rid of.

    Had it been written down this would probably have been a straight forward case for racial discrimination (and indeed if I was Indian and mindful about this, I would be annoyed for being rejected purely based on my nationality). But on the other hand is it true that on average Indian people will use more spices than most other common nationalities in Ireland, leaving odours which might cost money for the landlord to get rid of? Probably so.


  • Options
    #73
    c montgomery
    Registered Users Posts: 2,122 ✭✭✭c montgomery


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Similarily it amazes be in 2017 that people belive a LL should be allowed to not let a property to someone becuase they're gay or black.

    LL only care about ability to pay the rent without delays and low maintenance tenants.

    I don't think gay/black/yellow/white etc... comes into it, sorry if that doesn't suit your inflammatory narrative.


  • Options
    #74
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    It doesn't change the fact that the legislation should be there and adhered to. If you want a closer example, many LL's don't register with the RTB or pay tax, few get caught. No reason to remove the legislation.



    The LL is making a comercial decision on their own bias - that's the difference. A LL should be able to vet a tenant and frankly that vetting should be more transparent. The result of that vetting is what makes the decision not that the LL assumes a single mum is going to be a bad bet. Let's not foget in this case HAP was acceptable to the LL.

    Still not a valid comparison. Plenty of LL's get caught for not registering their tenancies and paying tax. Again, it's a law easy to enforce.

    Legislation on thought processes never works. Ever.


  • Options
    #75
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,662 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    It doesn't change the fact that the legislation should be there and adhered to. If you want a closer example, many LL's don't register with the RTB or pay tax, few get caught. No reason to remove the legislation.



    The LL is making a comercial decision on their own bias - that's the difference. A LL should be able to vet a tenant and frankly that vetting should be more transparent. The result of that vetting is what makes the decision not that the LL assumes a single mum is going to be a bad bet. Let's not foget in this case HAP was acceptable to the LL.

    Bias is another word for discrimination.

    What bias are you talking about?

    Landlords are biased against single people? against women?


  • Options
    #76
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Bias is another word for discrimination.

    What bias are you talking about?

    Landlords are biased against single people? against women?

    Landlords are biased against any demographic who are likely to end up costing them more- and towards any demographic who are in a position to insulate the landlord from any financial loss- possibly through a significantly higher deposit?


  • Options
    #77
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,662 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Landlords are biased against any demographic who are likely to end up costing them more- and towards any demographic who are in a position to insulate the landlord from any financial loss- possibly through a significantly higher deposit?

    In other words they want to make sound commercial decisions.


  • Options
    #78
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    In other words they want to make sound commercial decisions.

    In a nutshell.
    However- the government has abdicated its responsibility to house its citizens and has created a regulatory regime such that the risk associated with certain classes of tenants- falls squarely on the landlord- rather than the state.


  • Options
    #79
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,662 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    In a nutshell.
    However- the government has abdicated its responsibility to house its citizens and has created a regulatory regime such that the risk associated with certain classes of tenants- falls squarely on the landlord- rather than the state.

    Whilst also signposting this very clearly to landlords, such that in the end nothing changes for the tenant.


  • Options
    #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It's impossible to enforce the rules around discrimination if LL are smart about it are there are very simple ways.

    When I was in charge of filling rooms in the houseshares I lived in I simply told every person (including the first person to view the room) that someone else had viewed and they had first refusal but I'd get back to them. The person I felt most fitted with the house then got the room and all the rest get told the "other person who had first refusal" took it.


  • Options
    #81
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,814 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Whilst also signposting this very clearly to landlords, such that in the end nothing changes for the tenant.

    It sounds like all the changes has been in the tenants favour.

    Nobody thinks a LL should be allowed to terminate a tenancy without proper notice but there have been numerous stories about property being thrashed, tenants leaving without paying rent due, using deposits to offset the last month's rent and other damage that cost LL's thousands to fix.

    It would be much fairer if both LL's and tenants had to stick to the rules.
    what can a LL do if a tenant pays no rent for three months and the LL follows all the right process to get the tenant to pay the rent but they skip off? A months deposit would only cover lost rent for one month.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    What a landlord can do is demand 3-6 months rent as a deposit- it would mean the number of prospective tenants for the property to be vetted would be significantly reduced- and the successful applicant for the property- would be far less likely to do anything that would risk their deposit.......?

    This one month rent for a deposit lark is a bit nutty- I have no idea how/where it came from?

    The other thing is- there should be far more property let unfurnished- unfurnished property actually gets a premium in Dublin/Cork/Galway these days- there are an interesting number of tenants including many people coming home from abroad- bringing all manner of furniture with them. You should see some of the massive beds coming in from the US- lots of them turn up at auctions- because they quite simply don't fit in Irish apartments- so the proud owners have to get shot of them........

    Unfurnished and several month's deposit- definitely is the way to go..........


  • Options
    #83
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,814 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    The_Conductor wrote: »

    This one month rent for a deposit lark is a bit nutty- I have no idea how/where it came from?

    Unfurnished and several month's deposit- definitely is the way to go..........



    1) It's been like that since my student days and that was many moons ago

    2_ That sounds like a much better option - I heard its like that in many other countries but how long would it take to become the norm here?


  • Options
    #84
    Busterie
    Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭Busterie


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    It was daft to say "couples only"
    It would be equally daft to say" it has been taken already".You will get the self appointed politically correct police ringing you up a few minutes later to check if is really taken.
    The best advice is "What ever you say say nothing".
    You could say you will have a raffle to see who gets it, or you gave it to the first person who was interested.
    No one can prove it was unfair.
    I recently had a property to rent and on past experience I would be reluctant to rent to a single woman.
    You will regularly get calls like:
    "The light in the hallway is gone you will have to come straight away to fix it.If one of the children falls down the stairs you will be responsible"
    or
    " The heating is not working you will have to fix it immediately".You then find they have run out of oil.
    Trust me it happens.
    Trust me it happens


  • Options
    #85
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    c montgomery wrote: »
    LL only care about ability to pay the rent without delays and low maintenance tenants.

    I don't think gay/black/yellow/white etc... comes into it, sorry if that doesn't suit your inflammatory narrative.

    It won't come into it for a lot of LL's but it will for some. The legislation is there and should remain. Sorry if that doesn't suit your narrative. My position on vetting and things like HAP have been made very clear, this isn't about that - it's about discriminating against someone on the basis of family status and arguably gender. You for some twisted reason just think that's less inflammatory than the other grounds.
    pilly wrote: »
    Still not a valid comparison. Plenty of LL's get caught for not registering their tenancies and paying tax. Again, it's a law easy to enforce.

    Legislation on thought processes never works. Ever.

    Plenty of people get caught out by the equality legislation. An example is in the OP. State of mind is frequently legislated - every single criminal offence requires mens rea to be proven. Always. Unless you're a Pole and the subject of a EWA.
    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Bias is another word for discrimination.

    What bias are you talking about?

    Landlords are biased against single people? against women?

    It was explained in the response I gave you. Discrimination is fine, if it's not one or the enumerated grounds. One can argue the rent allowance ground, but you can't rent to who you want. We, thankfully, don't live in that society anymore.

    It's nuanced, but it's not particularly difficult to grasp. Looking at two individuals one a single mother and one a single guy for a one bed - who do you pick? If your answer is I vet both of them thoroughly and pick the better tenant, fair enough.

    If the answer akin to 'she probably can't afford it - what if the kid gets sick she'll pay the doctor before me' or 'I prefer to let to women, they're tidier people, single mothers don't have parties' - that's assumptions and discrimination on the enumerated grounds.


  • Options
    #86
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Busterie wrote: »
    It was daft to say "couples only"
    It would be equally daft to say" it has been taken already".You will get the self appointed politically correct police ringing you up a few minutes later to check if is really taken.
    The best advice is "What ever you say say nothing".
    You could say you will have a raffle to see who gets it, or you gave it to the first person who was interested.
    No one can prove it was unfair.
    I recently had a property to rent and on past experience I would be reluctant to rent to a single woman.
    You will regularly get calls like:
    "The light in the hallway is gone you will have to come straight away to fix it.If one of the children falls down the stairs you will be responsible"
    or
    " The heating is not working you will have to fix it immediately".You then find they have run out of oil.
    Trust me it happens.
    Trust me it happens

    ...and people are arguing the legislation doesn't need to be in place. Sometimes it's stranger than fiction in here.


  • Options
    #87
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote:
    It was explained in the response I gave you. Discrimination is fine, if it's not one or the enumerated grounds. One can argue the rent allowance ground, but you can't rent to who you want. We, thankfully, don't live in that society anymore.


    You can keep repeating yourself over and over but the reality is yes a LL can rent to whomever they want. That is a fact and no legislation will change it.


  • Options
    #88
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Honestly guys- I think you're both arguing the same point. No point in continuing to go around in circles.


  • Options
    #89
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    pilly wrote: »
    You can keep repeating yourself over and over but the reality is yes a LL can rent to whomever they want. That is a fact and no legislation will change it.

    And you can continue to miss the point entirely. The situation on the ground is clear, the situation isn't perfect, the same applies to employment opportunities it's quite easy to get way with discrimination. However it's absolutely absurd to suggest that this is a reason not to have equality legislation or that groups shouldn't keep working against it.

    @the_conductor I'll leave it there I assume that was just a gentle nudge as it wasn't in bold.


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Busterie wrote: »
    It was daft to say "couples only"
    It would be equally daft to say" it has been taken already".You will get the self appointed politically correct police ringing you up a few minutes later to check if is really taken.
    The best advice is "What ever you say say nothing".
    You could say you will have a raffle to see who gets it, or you gave it to the first person who was interested.
    No one can prove it was unfair.
    I recently had a property to rent and on past experience I would be reluctant to rent to a single woman.
    You will regularly get calls like:
    "The light in the hallway is gone you will have to come straight away to fix it.If one of the children falls down the stairs you will be responsible"
    or
    " The heating is not working you will have to fix it immediately".You then find they have run out of oil.
    Trust me it happens.
    Trust me it happens

    You don't have to be a single mother to be an annoying tenant. My friend is a single mother on HAP and she avoids contacting her landlord as much as possible. You just need to get a feel for people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You don't have to be a single mother to be an annoying tenant. My friend is a single mother on HAP and she avoids contacting her landlord as much as possible. You just need to get a feel for people.

    Sure assuming a person will necessarily demonstrate a specific behaviour because they belong to a certain category would be wrong. But saying they are more likely do do so and therefore represents a higher potential risk can be correct.

    It's the same question really as to debate whether it is OK to charge higher car insurance premiums to young male drivers because statistically they cause more accidents. From the insurance company's perspective it can be justified be statistics and the fact that overall that demographics will cost them more. But on the other hand not all young male drivers are reckless and individually higher premium are unfair to the ones who drive safely.


Advertisement