# Banning rent supplement recipients from complex



## Gekko

Hi Folks

I'd be interested to hear people's views on the banning of rent supplement recipients from a multi unit development.

There are obviously social and economic arguments involved.

Personally I'm undecided. To be blunt all of the social problems in the complex in question (e.g vandalism, theft, drug crime, late night parties, intimidation etc) are caused by tenants in receipt of rent supplement. However, such a move might be viewed as extreme and morally questionable by some. It may also irritate landlords who happily accept social welfare recipients.

I've seen ads on Daft which specifically state that "rent supplement recipients need not apply" but perhaps a more formal and general exclusion would cause legal issues?

The above isn't my idea but I'm interested to hear people's thoughts.

Thanks.


----------



## gipimann

What happens to existing tenants if they lose their jobs and apply for Rent Supplement? Will they be asked to leave if the ban is introduced and enforced?


----------



## computerman

What about the situation where a property is rented to a couple working for a big company . Then 3 months into their contract both lose their jobs.

DO you kick them out? or sign the welfare forms? Can you carry the cost of the loss of rent till you evict them, redecorate and then look for working tenants.

Im caused to remember the situation prior to the celtic tiger when landlords would demand "no babys" but would want a 12 month lease. If a tenant concieved during the first month of tenancy there would be a baby nine months later - did the tenant break the contract?


----------



## Gekko

Like I said, not my proposal but I would have thought that your points would be easy enough to provide for.  Existing tenants becoming entitled to rent supplement would be okay.  However, prospective tenants in receipt of rent supplement would not be allowed into the complex.


----------



## terrysgirl33

Would it be more effective to have quick eviction for tenants causing antisocial problems?


----------



## shesells

I just don't know how this could be implemented (leaving aside the ethics and morals of it all) - every owner of the apartment legally signs to pay their fees and to obey the clauses of their lease & development rules. While it might somehow be possible to insert a clause (before purchase) that units may not be rented out, I don't see how you could dictate who the unit could be rented to legally.

There is ZERO chance of being able to bring this in retrospectively.

And what of the developments where a certain % had to be built as social housing? No way could this be done.


----------



## Gekko

It would obviously be difficult to implement but I'm struggling to identify any specific legal impediment.

Conditions are regularly changed in multi unit developments (e.g. owners can effectively be denied access to a complex in the event of their non payment of service charges with the introduction of fobs which may be deactivated).

Also, a lot of developments don't have social housing as they're from the era when developers could avoid providing social housing by paying money to the relevant local authority.

It's morally dubious to tar all rent supplement recipients with the same brush but if all of a development's social problems are being caused by such people, surely residents and owners are entitled to take action to protect their homes?

This is a tricky one.


----------



## DB74

It's not tricky at all

terrysgirl has the solution above


----------



## Gekko

terrysgirl33 said:


> Would it be more effective to have quick eviction for tenants causing antisocial problems?


 


DB74 said:


> It's not tricky at all
> 
> terrysgirl has the solution above


 
Surely it's more efficient to prevent problems rather than having to deal with them?

And unfortunately forcing an eviction isn't as easy as clicking one's fingers.


----------



## MrMan

terrysgirl33 said:


> Would it be more effective to have* quick eviction* for tenants causing antisocial problems?



No such thing I'm afraid.


----------



## Mrs Vimes

Rent supplement is really a matter between the tenant, welfare (or HSE) and the landlord.

How does the management company propose to find out who is in receipt of rent supplement?


----------



## Gekko

Mrs Vimes said:


> Rent supplement is really a matter between the tenant, welfare (or HSE) and the landlord.
> 
> How does the management company propose to find out who is in receipt of rent supplement?


 
I don't know - It's not my proposal.

Presumably it would be some kind of self assessment system and if a landlord or tenant were found to be in breach of the rules, their access to the complex could be restricted.

I understand that a number of complexes have introduced electronic fob systems for access to properties and that these fobs can be deactivated by the management company for breaches of their lease (e.g. non payment of service charges or breaches of house rules).

In practice, I would have thought that someone on a residents committee will "have a mate" who can find these things out.


----------



## Mrs Vimes

I would have thought "mates" in Dept of Social Protection are thinner on the ground since the Dolores McNamara googling got a few of them disciplined. Data protection is generally taken more seriously than it used to be.


----------



## terrysgirl33

I thought there was provision for a swift eviction in the case of anti-social behavior?  I can't find any links to it now though...


----------



## DB74

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

"The length of notice depends on the length of the tenancy.

...

Landlords can give less notice if the tenants are not keeping their obligations (28 days) or if there is serious anti-social behaviour (7 days). Anti-social behaviour includes violence, threats or intimidation as well as any persistent behaviour that interferes with neighbours."

Obviously I appreciate that it not as easy to actually get somebody out of the apartment but the legislation is there


----------



## shesells

Gekko said:


> It would obviously be difficult to implement but I'm struggling to identify any specific legal impediment.
> 
> Conditions are regularly changed in multi unit developments (e.g. owners can effectively be denied access to a complex in the event of their non payment of service charges with the introduction of fobs which may be deactivated).
> 
> Also, a lot of developments don't have social housing as they're from the era when developers could avoid providing social housing by paying money to the relevant local authority.
> 
> It's morally dubious to tar all rent supplement recipients with the same brush but if all of a development's social problems are being caused by such people, surely residents and owners are entitled to take action to protect their homes?
> 
> This is a tricky one.



The first legal impediment is that owners are only legally bound by the conditions detailed in their lease unless agreed at an AGM, under the articles of association of the company (ours requires 70% agreement of all owners) to add a new lease condition.

The access issue you refer to has to do with membership of the management company. An owner who has not paid their fees may not (again depending on original docs) be entitled to any benefits of the management company, including insurance, access to common areas etc. Choosing one type of tenant over another could not affect their membership of a management company.

To protect your investment and home, the most important thing is to be active in the management company, become a director etc. THEN you need to start documenting all the issues, bearing in mind it is SO much easier for a MC to take legal action against a landlord to evict problem tenants, than to deal with a difficult owner occupier. 

It should be in your deeds that if you sublet you are responsible for ensuring that your tenants comply with the development rules. If not, the landlord is open to legal action and I recommend encouraging the management company to follow this path. This is how we've gotten rid of some difficult tenants where the landlord was just happy to collect the rent and retreat home.


----------



## Gekko

shesells said:


> The first legal impediment is that owners are only legally bound by the conditions detailed in their lease unless agreed at an AGM, under the articles of association of the company (ours requires 70% agreement of all owners) to add a new lease condition


 
That's what's being proposed (to have this put in place at the AGM).

My query is whether such an addendum to the lease would stand up legally (i.e. from an equality/discrimination perspective) and whether people would be for or against such a move.

How would you feel about rent supplement recipients being excluded from your complex?


----------



## flattea2

We were recently 8 months evicting an anti social neighbour (in receipt of rent allowance) in our apartment block.

They caused a lot of damage to fixtures and fittings in the common areas and yet we are left with the bill.

I think if it was easier to evict anti social people then landlords may be more willing to accept rent allowance. And as an apartment owner I wouldnt have a problem with such people beside me as I believe innocent till proven guilty - as long as they could be gotten rid of quickly if problems arose.


----------



## Gekko

flattea2 said:


> We were recently 8 months evicting an anti social neighbour (in receipt of rent allowance) in our apartment block.
> 
> They caused a lot of damage to fixtures and fittings in the common areas and yet we are left with the bill.
> 
> I think if it was easier to evict anti social people then landlords may be more willing to accept rent allowance. And as an apartment owner I wouldnt have a problem with such people beside me as I believe innocent till proven guilty - as long as they could be gotten rid of quickly if problems arose.


 
If someone proposed the banning of rent supplement recipients from your apartment complex, would you vote for the proposal at the AGM?

On balance I think I would.

All of the antisocial behaviour in our complex has been caused by rent supplement recipients.  That's not tarring all rent supplement recipients with the same brush...obviously not all are troublemakers.  But there's obviously a higher concentration of troublemakers among rent supplement recipients.  It'd be easier in the long run just to ban them all.  The logic's similar to that of countries such as the US that ban individuals with criminal records.  Most will probably never reoffend but why take the chance?


----------



## computerman

Id sooner have a tenant on welfare than a working tenant who did not pay rent.


----------



## horusd

Gekko said:


> If someone proposed the banning of rent supplement recipients from your apartment complex, would you vote for the proposal at the AGM?
> 
> On balance I think I would.
> 
> *All of the antisocial behaviour in our complex has been caused by rent supplement recipients.* *That's not tarring all rent supplement recipients with the same brush...obviously not all are troublemakers. But there's obviously a higher concentration of troublemakers among rent supplement recipients.* It'd be easier in the long run just to ban them all. The logic's similar to that of countries such as the US that ban individuals with criminal records. Most will probably never reoffend but why take the chance?


 
Eh, all anti-social behaviour *to date*, and if you ban them all *you are* tarring all them with the same brush.  

By your logic, as blacks form a larger proportion of the US prison population, it would be acceptable to ban blacks too. 

Address the issue by dealing with the offending individuals, and not singling out a particular group carte blanche. I don't think you or anyone would think it fair to be judged on this basis.


----------



## Gekko

horusd said:


> Eh, all anti-social behaviour *to date*, and if you ban them all *you are* tarring all them with the same brush.
> 
> By your logic, as blacks form a larger proportion of the US prison population, it would be acceptable to ban blacks too.
> 
> Address the issue by dealing with the offending individuals, and not singling out a particular group carte blanche. I don't think you or anyone would think it fair to be judged on this basis.


 
Invoking racial discrimination is inflammatory and not particularly helpful.

If all social problems in a private complex are caused by rent supplement recipients, it's not unreasonable to explore the idea of banning such individuals.  It's not akin to banning African people.  Rent supplement recipients are not a race capable of being discriminated against.


----------



## horusd

I'm not invoking race per se, only arbitary discrimination per se. Rent supplement receipients are a group albeit not a racial one. Yet the proposal to ban them is to not based on their individual merits/demerits, merely and unjustifiably on their membership of that particular group. I'm not aiming to be provocative, but what you suggest is inherently unjust. If you have a problem with individuals who break rules, then you should deal with them as individuals.


----------



## MrMan

horusd said:


> I'm not invoking race per se, only arbitary discrimination per se. Rent supplement receipients are a group albeit not a racial one. Yet the proposal to ban them is to not based on their individual merits/demerits, merely and unjustifiably on their membership of that particular group. I'm not aiming to be provocative, but what you suggest is inherently unjust. If you have a problem with individuals who break rules, then you should deal with them as individuals.


 
This cannot be about ethics. To deal with trouble makers after the trouble leads to a serious loss of income and possibly reinvestment in terms of replacing damaged property. If you want a safe bet for your property, then you do decide upon which demographic is best suited to your needs. You are making a business decision and this fact often gets lost when dealing with rentals.
Regardless of the legislation that is present to deal with anti social tenants, the process for eviction is arduous and there is only one loser; the landlord.


----------



## horusd

MrMan I understand the OP's viewpoint, and I'm not trying to be overly dogmatic, but banning a group people as such, without any other evaluation, whether you call it applying "demographics" or excluding those on a rental supplement, is blanket discrimination without accounting for individual merits or otherwise. The OP seems to suggest this should be a policy of the management group. Can you see this pass muster with any judge?

I would imagine it would  run counter to equality legislation as discriminatory and be open to legal challenge. I would also imagine that trying to force this _en bloc_ with individual  independent owners of apts who may not agree, with be next to impossible to implement, if not entirely unenforceable, and again open to legal challenge.

In this case imo the ethical runs into the legal. The OP asked for an opinion, that's my 2 cents worth.


----------



## shesells

MrMan said:


> Regardless of the legislation that is present to deal with anti social tenants, the process for eviction is arduous and there is only one loser; the landlord.



But here's the difference with what the OP is trying to achieve. The issue isn't about the landlord losing, it's about the landlord's neighbours having peace. The MC can sue the landlord for their tenants breaching the development rules, leading the ll to evict by whatever means. If that ends up costing the landlord, so what, the neighbours have peace. 

Sounds heartless but we've had one set of bad tenants near us and I suspect the landlord had to pay them off when the MC threatened to sue him for breach of lease. Since then he's had lovely tenants  Lesson learned.

A blanket ban on RS tenants is not required.


----------



## Complainer

Gekko said:


> To be blunt all of the social problems in the complex in question (e.g vandalism, theft, drug crime, late night parties, intimidation etc) are caused by tenants in receipt of rent supplement.


How do you (or the proposers of this idea) know specifically who is causing the vandalism, theft, drug crime, intimidation etc?


----------



## shesells

Complainer said:


> How do you (or the proposers of this idea) know specifically who is causing the vandalism, theft, drug crime, intimidation etc?



And if they do, why have they not been reported to the Gardai and the CWO?


----------



## Gekko

Complainer said:


> How do you (or the proposers of this idea) know specifically who is causing the vandalism, theft, drug crime, intimidation etc?


 
That's a pretty silly question.

How do you think? Observation, vigilance, reports from other residents, discussions with the Gardai etc.

Incidents have of course been reported to the Gardai and troublemakers have been evicted but as other posters have suggested, it's a tricky process.  This proposal could be a vaccine rather than a cure.


----------



## Sunny

While I wouldn't agree with an outright ban (many genuine people on rent supplement), it is a legitiamte question. We had problems with one particular couple who were dealing drugs from their apartment in the complex while in receipt of rent supplement. (Arrested and Convicted before you ask). The landlord didn't care because he was getting rent from the State. The Guards told us to contact social welfare which we did but they didn't care (Their answer was they had to live somewhere). They eventually left because to be fair to the Guards, they decided to hound them but it did amaze me at the time, how little power a neighbourhood has to protect itself. Also amazed at the fact that we were paying a rent supplement to scumbags like this while ordinary decent people are struggling. Guess that is the world we live in.


----------



## Gekko

This is a very tricky one.

Would a multi unit development be a nicer place to live in the event that rent supplement recipients were not permitted to live there?  Yes.

Would such a ban be legal?  I think that it would.

Would such a ban be fair or morally acceptable?  That's the $64,000 question and probably not is the answer.

But if residents' lives are being made miserable by scumbags who all seem to be in receipt of rent supplement, it's not unreasonable to at least consider and discuss a general ban.  People love to invoke vague "rights" that don't actually exist.  Does the right of a rent supplement recipient not to be treated as a pariah even exist and if it does does it supercede the right of a homeowner to live in an environment free of fear and harrassment?


----------



## shesells

The clear way around this is to ban renting of apartments in the block. That way there is no discrimination.


----------



## Complainer

Gekko said:


> That's a pretty silly question.
> 
> How do you think? Observation, vigilance, reports from other residents, discussions with the Gardai etc.


If the mgmt company know specifically who caused the damage, then why don't they take action against those people or against their landlord to recover the costs incurred?



Gekko said:


> it's a tricky  process.  This proposal could be a vaccine rather than a cure.


It's by no means a vaccine. If you tried this approach based on gender, or race or sexual preference, it would indeed be specifically against equality law. As it is currently described, I don't think it would fall foul of equality law. It could possibly fall foul of competition law, as it would involve a number of service providers conspiring together about the service they provide.

But more importantly, it would fail a number of practicality tests. It is completely unenforceable. How would the management company know if any given tenant is on rent supplement? The idea of basing a legal requirement on a 'friend or a friend' info is ludicrous. You can't use information in a legal action if is has been gained illegally.

It is also very unlikely that the landlord owners in the property will pass a motion at a management company meeting. If they are renting to people on rent supplement, that is presumably because they don't have a mad rush of non-rent supplement tenants queueing up to rent the property. No landlord will vote to cut off a large portion of the rental market.

It's just a bit silly really. If particular tenants are causing problems, then you act within the law to address those problems.


----------



## Magpie

Complainer said:


> It is also very unlikely that the landlord owners in the property will pass a motion at a management company meeting. If they are renting to people on rent supplement, that is presumably because they don't have a mad rush of non-rent supplement tenants queueing up to rent the property. No landlord will vote to cut off a large portion of the rental market.
> 
> It's just a bit silly really. If particular tenants are causing problems, then you act within the law to address those problems.




They wouldn't need to vote for it to be passed, if they are in the minority of the complex. You rarely need 100% agreement to pass motions within a mgmt co. 

And the problem is that it isn't just individual tenants. We have the same problem in my development, its the same units being rented over and over to problem tenants. In our case one unit is only rented to tenants who have been evicted from elsewhere, and then the LL expressed surprise that they are anti-social criminals that ruin their neighbours peaceful enjoyment of their homes. 
What do you do when you have got rid of one lot of tenants only for them to be replaced by new tenants as bad or worse?


----------



## Complainer

Magpie said:


> They wouldn't need to vote for it to be passed, if they are in the minority of the complex. You rarely need 100% agreement to pass motions within a mgmt co.


True - though there are substantial numbers of landlords in many developments, and you still need to address the practicality issue. How will the management company know if a given tenant is on rent supplement?




Magpie said:


> What do you do when you have got rid of one lot of tenants only for them to be replaced by new tenants as bad or worse?


Like I said above, you take legal action against the individuals and/or the landlords for any costs incurred.


----------



## horusd

Gekko said:


> ....
> 
> *Would such a ban be legal? I think that it would.*


 

The Equality Authority can act on the grounds of "civil status". Perhaps someone familiar with the term can fully explain it, but on the face of it it could be a "catchall" clause and be grounds for a case like yours.  Why not discuss it with co-owners? If it's shot-down or supported then make more enquiries. Morally I think it plain wrong, but it's your call to pursue it.


----------



## Mommah

*Landlords view*

I have evicted 3 tenants  (2 groups)from my property for anti social behaviour and none of them were in receipt of rent supplement.

I have a few members of my family in receipt of rent supplement and none of them ever engage in antisocial behaviour.

I have rented to Rent supplement receivers and had no complaints about them.

So your suggestion seems farcical, patronising and extremely biased.


----------



## Complainer

horusd said:


> The Equality Authority can act on the grounds of "civil status". Perhaps someone familiar with the term can fully explain it, but on the face of it it could be a "catchall" clause and be grounds for a case like yours.


Nope - this is a recent change from marital status to civil status, reflecting the new civil partnership legislation.


----------



## dereko1969

when they came for the rent supplement recipients i did not stand up......

*When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.*


----------



## Magpie

Complainer said:


> Like I said above, you take legal action against the individuals and/or the landlords for any costs incurred.



How many times can a mgmt co be expected to do this against one property? We are now at 6 tenants in a row with appalling anti-social behaviour issues and I'm tired of dealing with it. 

does anyone know where one could get information on the rights of mgmt companies to control landlord/owner behavior? Can we do anything to force the LL to have tenants vetted by mgmt co? Any other suggestions?


----------



## Complainer

Magpie said:


> How many times can a mgmt co be expected to do this against one property?


How many times do you think the mgmt co will have to take action before the landlord realises that his bad tenant choices are costing him money?


----------



## Magpie

Complainer said:


> How many times do you think the mgmt co will have to take action before the landlord realises that his bad tenant choices are costing him money?



On experience, endlessly, since the LL neither seems understand or care about his responsibilities in any direction.


----------



## Complainer

Magpie said:


> On experience, endlessly, since the LL neither seems understand or care about his responsibilities in any direction.



He'll care when it hits his pocket. That's what hasn't been happening in the past.


----------



## Padraigb

Magpie said:


> ... Can we do anything to force the LL to have tenants vetted by mgmt co? ...



You shouldn't try to cure a wrong by by performing another wrong.


----------



## MrMan

horusd said:


> MrMan I understand the OP's viewpoint, and I'm not trying to be overly dogmatic, but banning a group people as such, without any other evaluation, whether you call it applying "demographics" or excluding those on a rental supplement, is blanket discrimination without accounting for individual merits or otherwise. The OP seems to suggest this should be a policy of the management group. Can you see this pass muster with any judge?
> 
> I would imagine it would run counter to equality legislation as discriminatory and be open to legal challenge. I would also imagine that trying to force this _en bloc_ with individual independent owners of apts who may not agree, with be next to impossible to implement, if not entirely unenforceable, and again open to legal challenge.
> 
> In this case imo the ethical runs into the legal. The OP asked for an opinion, that's my 2 cents worth.


Enforcement of any policy with a group of individuals with individual interests is almost impossible, but the idea is understandable. I don't see how there would be any legal challenge when it is a regular thing to view in classifieds ' no rent allowance' and many rent allowance tenants will ask 'do you accept rent allowance' so there is a culture present for want of a better word.


----------



## MrMan

shesells said:


> But here's the difference with what the OP is trying to achieve. The issue isn't about the landlord losing, it's about the landlord's neighbours having peace. The MC can sue the landlord for their tenants breaching the development rules, leading the ll to evict by whatever means. If that ends up costing the landlord, so what, the neighbours have peace.
> 
> Sounds heartless but we've had one set of bad tenants near us and I suspect the landlord had to pay them off when the MC threatened to sue him for breach of lease. Since then he's had lovely tenants  Lesson learned.
> 
> A blanket ban on RS tenants is not required.


It's not about lessons being learned, landlords don't go looking for bad tenants. The neighbours may get peace, but it won't be instant and it may run on for some time. I'm not saying that rent allowance tenants are any worse, but if you have a run of bad luck with a group, it's time to change. The main problem with RS tenants is that they don't have to fear any financial repurcussions, so they have little to lose when it all goes wrong, whereas a paying tenant has to worry about references and deposits etc.


----------



## Magpie

Padraigb said:


> You shouldn't try to cure a wrong by by performing another wrong.



I don't see how thats another wrong! If you have proved a complete inability to find yourself a vaguely respectable tenant over several years, should the other residents just sit back and wait for you to do it for another several years? 

The point is that, as usual, nice quiet law abiding people get walked over by anti-social tenants and careless landlords. And there is little recourse for residents or mgt co's that isn't very expensive and time consuming. What is wrong with trying to look out for our members interests, since that is after all the job?


----------



## Padraigb

Magpie said:


> I don't see how thats another wrong! ...



Assume for the purposes of the discussion that I am a considerate person who might be thought a good neighbour. Suppose there were a vacant property in your development available for rent and I viewed it and thought it suited my needs. If the owner of the property and I agreed on a tenancy, I would consider it a gross and inappropriate intrusion if I had to submit to interview by you before a lease could be signed. I would consider it even more inappropriate if you wanted to know how I was funding my rent: that's none of your d**ned business.

You are looking at the wrong remedy.


----------



## Sunny

We looked into suing a landlord whose tenants were causing the problems to make him take action. The legal advice we were given from one solicitor and a barrister was to forget it despite leases and house rules etc. It can be a serious problem and while I don't agree with banning rent supplement tenants or telling landlords who they can rent to or not, there has to be some sort of protection for neighbours.


----------



## minion

So rent allowance recipients cause the vast majority of antisocial behaviour in a complex?

They probably do.  Is the answer to ban them all.  I think it would would work.

But here is the exact same scenario.

Do non owner-occupiers renting the units from the landlords cause the vast majority of antisocial behaviour in a complex?

They probably do.   Is the answer to ban them all.  I think it would would work.

You see where this is going?


----------



## Yorrick

In New York potential tenants or buyers often have to be interviewed by a committee representing the existing owners to see are they"suitable" tenants ot owers.
It really is just another way of keeping out or allowing  in a particular class of owner


----------



## Purple

Yorrick said:


> In New York potential tenants or buyers often have to be interviewed by a committee representing the existing owners to see are they"suitable" tenants ot owers.
> It really is just another way of keeping out or allowing  in a particular class of owner



Yea, blacks, dogs and Irish.


----------



## Yorrick

I don't think there is any need to roll out the  Irish chip on the shoulder.  The Irish in New Yorks were as bad as the rest when they got the upper hand. Whites kept out blacks, Catholicis kept out Jews, Jews kept out Muslims. etc


----------



## micmclo

Some complexes ban vans owned by working tradesmen.
Now it's the rent supplement tenants

Who is next?


----------



## Purple

Yorrick said:


> I don't think there is any need to roll out the  Irish chip on the shoulder.  The Irish in New Yorks were as bad as the rest when they got the upper hand. Whites kept out blacks, Catholicis kept out Jews, Jews kept out Muslims. etc



Yes, it's called discrimination. In this case it is suggested that people are discriminated against because of income.  To me that’s about as ok as discrimination due to race or religion. So much for equality.

BTW, not allowing tenants to park commercial vehicles in a complex is not the same as not allowing the owners of commercial vehicles to rent there.


----------



## sean.c

Purple said:


> Yes, it's called discrimination. In this case it is suggested that people are discriminated against because of income.  To me that’s about as ok as discrimination due to race or religion. So much for equality.



The grounds for illegal discriminition are;

Gender
Marital Status
Family Status
Age
Disability
Race
Sexual Orientation
Religious Belief
Membership of the Traveller Community

Outside of those 9 categories, you can discriminate all you want.  

What will you do though if a good tenant (maybe even one of the people pushing this idea) loses their job and claims Rent Allowance?  The rule will have to be written carefully to allow for the refusal of tenants habitually claiming rent allowance, whilst permitting the retention of good tenants with changed circumstances.


----------



## Purple

sean.c said:


> The grounds for illegal discriminition are;
> 
> Gender
> Marital Status
> Family Status
> Age
> Disability
> Race
> Sexual Orientation
> Religious Belief
> Membership of the Traveller Community
> 
> Outside of those 9 categories, you can discriminate all you want.
> 
> What will you do though if a good tenant (maybe even one of the people pushing this idea) loses their job and claims Rent Allowance?  The rule will have to be written carefully to allow for the refusal of tenants habitually claiming rent allowance, whilst permitting the retention of good tenants with changed circumstances.



I’m aware of the grounds of discrimination under the equality act. That’s why I didn’t say it was illegal. I do consider it immoral and reprehensible.


----------



## Padraigb

There is also the matter of property rights, to which our constitution and our courts give considerable weight. If I owned a unit in an apartment block and wished to rent it out, it might be difficult to limit my right to do so.

I cannot imagine a judge having much sympathy for a management company blocking a letting solely on the basis of how the tenant's rent is funded.


----------



## ontour

Looks like it is legal to keep out students as well as social welfare tenants.  People who cook heavily spiced ethnic food are also fair game as it is not on the basis of their race, just their culinary skills.

I have to go and figure out if those people in tracksuits with Japanese import cars consider themselves a race.........


----------

