Aiding contreventions

[heisenberg]

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.

In my case (and the example I used reflects a realistic situation) I am on housing benefit purely due to my disability. This has been the case for a few years.

Indeed the adjustment needs to be reasonable. It is arguably unreasonable to refuse a disabled person a tenancy agreement because the landlord fears the council will suddenly stop paying housing benefit. Indeed housing benefit is probably a more reliable source of rent payments than, say, in circumstances where a tenant is a freelancer in a difficult economy.

[Noah]

Re: Aiding contreventions

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:

Having briefly read the judgement, reading legal judgements is not something that comes easily to me it seems

the appellant was within his rights to refuse some properties because of historic events

the accommodation was only temporary at best

The permanent property was suitable, at least nothing was said that made it unsuitable

the Housing association and the LA had tried their best to help so were within their rights

Having said that, I am extremely concerned by the amount of homelessness that is about in Britain today, it is wrong on every level

As previously said , every case is different and I am still not convinced that what you are saying has basis in law

My opinion and my personal belief as to what is right are not necessarily the same thing

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Heisenberg
I am not convinced that there is a difference between the two examples you cite

You mean you are not convinced there is no difference?

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Having briefly read the judgement, reading legal judgements is not something that comes easily to me it seems

the appellant was within his rights to refuse some properties because of historic events

the accommodation was only temporary at best

The permanent property was suitable, at least nothing was said that made it unsuitable

the Housing association and the LA had tried their best to help so were within their rights

Having said that, I am extremely concerned by the amount of homelessness that is about in Britain today, it is wrong on every level

As previously said , every case is different and I am still not convinced that what you are saying has basis in law

My opinion and my personal belief as to what is right are not necessarily the same thing

Indeed. I think the point that I was trying to demonstrate is that the case turned on the matter of justification as the first legal test was successful in that there was a connection between the disability and the eviction.

[Noah]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I am not convinced that there is a difference between issuing a S21 notice because a tenant goes onto HB and refusing to take someone as a tenant because they are disabled particularly if the LL is a small concern.

You need to remember that HB is paid in arrears whereas rent is usually paid in advance, if the LL has a mortgage the mortgage is due each month so they need the rent to pay that , if there are flats the LL will need to pay the service charge in advance as well . It is one of the many things I think are wrong with the benefits system



Trust me when I say that HB is no guarantee of regular payments as benefits departments are made up of jobs worths who stop benefit and ask questions later

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I am not convinced that there is a difference between issuing a S21 notice because a tenant goes onto HB and refusing to take someone as a tenant because they are disabled particularly if the LL is a small concern.

The law is drafted in favour of the disabled person. The matter turns to justification. Are you arguing that there is always justification in favour of the landlord?

You need to remember that HB is paid in arrears whereas rent is usually paid in advance, if the LL has a mortgage the mortgage is due each month so they need the rent to pay that , if there are flats the LL will need to pay the service charge in advance as well . It is one of the many things I think are wrong with the benefits system

I haven't had any problems.

Trust me when I say that HB is no guarantee of regular payments as benefits departments are made up of jobs worths who stop benefit and ask questions later

Again, I have had no issues for years. There are jobsworths everywhere unfortunately (including some tenants).

Indeed.

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Are you a landlord by any chance? :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I have to say this is exactly why I don't tell my landlord that I have been on housing benefit for the past few years. Not because the rent won't be paid but because people become unduly nervous and uncomfortable having this knowledge. The fact of the matter is that I have paid the rent in full over the past few years so there is of course no justification for having this negative attitude and I suspect the court would agree.

[wales01man]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Could this discrimination be turned to include banks who refuse to lend to a disabled person on benefits after all banks and landlords are in theory lending someone an asset money or a home and expecting a return in the banks case the principal sum and interest which is profit .
In the landlords case the property is the principal not cash but of value and the rent is paying that principal Capital outlay and a profit, both examples want to be sure in their minds they will get paid,

Interested in others views bringing discrimination claims into every thing makes no sense

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Could this discrimination be turned to include banks who refuse to lend to a disabled person on benefits after all banks and landlords are in theory lending someone an asset money or a home and expecting a return in the banks case the principal sum and interest which is profit .
In the landlords case the property is the principal not cash but of value and the rent is paying that principal Capital outlay and a profit, both examples want to be sure in their minds they will get paid,

Interested in others views bringing discrimination claims into every thing makes no sense

Wales01man, you are not comparing apples to apples here. Having a place to live is an essential requirement.

How would you feel if every landlord in England refused to let their property to you because you are Welsh?

[charitynjw]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I have another example:

A disabled person who is reliant on housing benefit due to his disability is looking for a property to rent. He approaches an estate agency with a view to seeing a property on the market. The respective landlord adopts a policy and/or criterion that he does not accept tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit. The agency informs the prospective disabled tenant of this whilst the landlord fails to make reasonable adjustments to that policy.

The disabled person requests the address details of the prospective landlord from the agency so as to issue a claim for indirect discrimination/discrimination arising from disability/failure to make reasonable adjustment claims. The agency refuses to provide these details to protect its client (the landlord).

Is the agency aiding a contravention (section 112) in these circumstances?

Just a gentle reminder that this LL case is hypothetical.

I, for one, would like to hear the hypothetical LL's side of the story.

[Noah]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I am not a landlord and rent my property

Lets put it this way, when I first needed to claim HB it took the council several months before they finally paid up, certainly enough to have the LL issue a S21 notice which they in fact did

Twice afterwards they suspended HB for no apparent reason and both times I only found out because no payment went into the bank and once was the Friday before Christmas so you can imagine how long that took to sort out!

I was lucky in that I had family who could lend me the money to pay my rent

As has been said many times , disability legislation is proportionate so a small business is not expected to make the same level of adjustments as a multinational.

As a hypothetical question I think you really are barking up the wrong tree

If you were already a tenant maybe you could argue that if you became disabled and the LL issued a S21 there was discrimination and the LL should make reasonable adjustments.

The question of course may be , are you able to work because as we all know this government believe that most disabled people are able to work and are just workshy scroungers

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

Just a gentle reminder that this LL case is hypothetical.

I, for one, would like to hear the hypothetical LL's side of the story.

It's an actual example charitynjw. This recently happened to me.

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

I am not a landlord and rent my property

Lets put it this way, when I first needed to claim HB it took the council several months before they finally paid up, certainly enough to have the LL issue a S21 notice which they in fact did

Twice afterwards they suspended HB for no apparent reason and both times I only found out because no payment went into the bank and once was the Friday before Christmas so you can imagine how long that took to sort out!

I was lucky in that I had family who could lend me the money to pay my rent

As has been said many times , disability legislation is proportionate so a small business is not expected to make the same level of adjustments as a multinational.

As a hypothetical question I think you really are barking up the wrong tree

If you were already a tenant maybe you could argue that if you became disabled and the LL issued a S21 there was discrimination and the LL should make reasonable adjustments.

The question of course may be , are you able to work because as we all know this government believe that most disabled people are able to work and are just workshy scroungers

That sounds unforgivable. How long ago was this? Did you raise a complaint?

I'm not able to work and have been through the dreaded assessment on more than one occasion (and we all know how harsh they can be).

[heisenberg]

Re: Aiding contreventions

This is how the agent responded:

"Unfortunately the landlord has stipulated no Housing Benefit on this property."

No justification other than that.

Indeed he had knowledge that I met the definition of 'disabled' and was claiming Housing Benefit for this reason. For all I know this was an impromptu policy.