Back in 2016 Mr Stephen Tyler was involved in a traffic accident which physically and mentally affected his day to day life. Mr Tyler had become reliant of the use of a wheelchair and required daily personal care, which was mainly provided by his wife even though Mrs Tyler, also needed to care for their two children.
Mr and Mrs Tyler were privately renting a property and Mr Tyler requested some home adjustments that would help make his home life easier, to which the landlord served a section 21 notice. Whilst enquiring about viewing three properties that would be suitable for Mr Tyler’s personal and family needs, Paul Carr Estate Agents had declared it was company policy to refuse any person in receipt of housing benefits. Despite the fact that Mr and Mrs Tyler never defaulted on paying their rent and paid their rent on time.
As the family were becoming homeless, they approached Shelter, who believed there was a case that could be made against Paul Carr Estate Agents for discrimination. The discrimination was based on Mr Tyler’s disability, which is one of the nine protected characteristics stated in the Equality Act 2010.
Her Honour Judge Mary Stacey ruled that: “There is no doubt that there was a blanket policy that no one in receipt of housing benefit would be considered for the three properties. It put the claimant and other disabled people at a particular disadvantage when compared to others. “To be told simply, because of his benefit status, that he could not apply for three properties which were perfectly located for his children’s school, his GP and health needs, and extended family support, would be distressing. She went on to say: “we make a declaration that the defendant has unlawfully indirectly discriminated against the claimant by imposing a PCP [Provision, Criteria or Practice] that those in receipt of housing benefit could not apply to those three properties.
On 8 September 2020 Mr Tyler won his legal trail at Birmingham County Court.
As with a previous out of court settlement in a “no DSS” case, claiming housing benefit is not a protected characteristic. Both cases relied on the principle of “indirect” discrimination. In other words the action was not in and of itself the problem. The problem was that the action had a disproportionate effect on a group of people who did share a protected characteristic, in the first case single mums (sex discrimination) and in this case disability.
Obviously any “No DSS” policy would be likely to fall foul of any group who could show they were disproportionally affected by that decision. Whist agents do not have to accept all tenants regardless, each tenant should be assed as an individual and their ability and track record of paying the rent should be considered.
Although these cases were about refusing to consider benefit claimants, similar claims could be made, for example, if all benefit claimants had to have a guarantor as a policy. This is because it is an offence to treat a group with a protected characteristic less favourably than those without that characteristic.
Recent Comments