Aiding contreventions

[Openlaw15]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I would say no

If the LL does not take people on HB there is no discrimination against a person with disability. The agent is bound by the DPA not to pass on details

Although the same treatment is given to both disabled and non disabled tenants if the disabled person is worse off than his non disabled comparator in effect it is potentially indirect discrimination. Here's an example, an employer offers over-time to all employees but a disabled gentleman worker has no one to take him to work at that unsociable hour unlike the non disabled car drivers who can get there for the overtime. The disabled gentleman in consequence picks up less money than the other non disabled persons. Is this direct or indirect discrimination, and why?

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Although the same treatment is given to both disabled and non disabled tenants if the disabled person is worse off than his non disabled comparator in effect it is potentially indirect discrimination. Here's an example, an employer offers over-time to all employees but a disabled gentleman worker has no one to take him to work at that unsociable hour unlike the non disabled car drivers who can get there for the overtime. The disabled gentleman in consequence picks up less money than the other non disabled persons. Is this direct or indirect discrimination, and why?

That is indirect discrimination in my opinion. The PCP puts the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage.

It seems Noah has been persuaded. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[charitynjw]

Re: Aiding contreventions

That is indirect discrimination in my opinion. The PCP puts the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage.

It seems Noah has been persuaded. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

A defence to indirect discrimination is objective justification.

[Noah]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Openlaw
What are your thoughts on the housing issue

I most certainly have not been persuaded

[wales01man]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Unlikely the landlord will admit to refusal to rent because of HB and disability and to add my twopennyworth a Landlord wants the money if HB is stopped how is the tenant disabled or not going to pay .

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Openlaw
What are your thoughts on the housing issue

I most certainly have not been persuaded

You're a tough cookie. :hand:

- - - Updated - - -

Unlikely the landlord will admit to refusal to rent because of HB and disability and to add my twopennyworth a Landlord wants the money if HB is stopped how is the tenant disabled or not going to pay .

Indeed wales01man. Indecently, that is an actual problem I currently face.

- - - Updated - - -

A defence to indirect discrimination is objective justification.

Indeed. The act needs to be fair in simple terms.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Aiding contreventions

A defence to indirect discrimination is objective justification.

Yes an indirect discrimination could be defeated where there is an objective justification. It means in effect a principle of proportionality (pro rata, ie per part for per part (ie like for like) and legitimate aim (genuine reason).

[Openlaw15]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Openlaw
What are your thoughts on the housing issue

I most certainly have not been persuaded

As I previous stated, notwithstanding the same treatment is given to both disabled and non disabled tenants if the disabled person is worse off than his non disabled comparator in effect it is potentially indirect discrimination. The statutory protected characteristics are disability, gender, sex, age, race, and religion. A Landlord is a different scenario - he or she is merely an owner of land and is limited in resource than say a company employing workers. If the landlord were to refuse disabled people because they are receiving state benefits including housing it would not be direct discrimination because all persons on housing would be discriminated against, ie not just disabled persons. However, as disabled people are already disadvantaged in life it is likely they would be affected far more that others so potentially there is at least an argument for indirect disability discrimination affecting state benefits' recipients including house benefits. However, as Charity points out, a smaller landlord may have a defence by way of 'objective justification' if he/ she could prove that the treatment to the disabled person cannot be avoided. A larger landlord may find it more difficult to argue objective justification.

[Noah]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Hi Openlaw

I hadn't thought it through to such an extent but my basic reasoning was that so long as the landlord ( and many landlords are small concerns with a few properties) did not accept HB then if there was discrimination there would have been at least some case law.
I actually believe that in many cases some disabled people have greater access to social housing as in many areas you need to fulfil certain criteria to get on the waiting list.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Hi Openlaw

I hadn't thought it through to such an extent but my basic reasoning was that so long as the landlord ( and many landlords are small concerns with a few properties) did not accept HB then if there was discrimination there would have been at least some case law.
I actually believe that in many cases some disabled people have greater access to social housing as in many areas you need to fulfil certain criteria to get on the waiting list.

It doesn't require case law as it's a statutory protection. Case law would help though.

[Noah]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I realise it is statutory protection but I am sure many disabled people would have taken LL's to court if they refused to let based on HB entitlement , to be honest I think some more radical groups would have set out to find cases

[Openlaw15]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I realise it is statutory protection but I am sure many disabled people would have taken LL's to court if they refused to let based on HB entitlement , to be honest I think some more radical groups would have set out to find cases

Well, if they would have been taken to court perhaps we'd know. The problem is the statutory guidance is used as practice but it's not meant to be a universal panacea...as discrimination and indirect effect are not constants.

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Hi Openlaw

I hadn't thought it through to such an extent but my basic reasoning was that so long as the landlord ( and many landlords are small concerns with a few properties) did not accept HB then if there was discrimination there would have been at least some case law.
I actually believe that in many cases some disabled people have greater access to social housing as in many areas you need to fulfil certain criteria to get on the waiting list.

Hi Noah,

I have been denied access to social housing and I meet the definition of disabled (section 6 of the Equality Act). So there is a case and point for you.

Here is a recent case for you going right up to the Supreme Court:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/15.html

I am sure you agree there is little difference between evicting a disabled person as a consequence of their disability and not allowing them to enter a potential tenancy agreement as a consequence of their disability. In the above case the matter immediately turned to justification (proportionality).

It seems you have been reluctantly persuaded. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I'm sure Openlaw would agree that the landlord also has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to his 'strictly no housing benefits' criterion or policy.

[Noah]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Heisenberg
You need to remember that adjustments are proportionate so therefore a small landlord ( and I do not mean ronnie corbet (RIP) does not need to make the same adjustments as a housing association with 100's of properties

I am not convinced that there is a difference between the two examples you cite and of course you would need to prove the reason was disability

I know my local authority ( Tory bastards that they are) demand that you are either in the support group for ESA or on PIP /DLA.
This is the problem with disability in that it is such a wide area for example someone who is HIV+ is covered by the equality act even when healthy ( as most are). I would not expect that someone who was +ve to receive preferential treatment from housing however I would expect them to be allowed time off for clinics etc because those appointments can and do prolong the active life of such a person.