UK Landlord Forum / Life

Good eve,

A long term, good tenant of a property I manage has contracted an illness which has left him disabled therefore has had to leave his job and sign on to Universal Credit and PIP. The tenant would like to remain in the property (a house share with 4 tenants on separate contracts) as the physical move itself would be near impossible for him. The landlord unfortunately doesn't want to continue with the tenancy as the tenant won't be paying with their own money, despite a crystal clear record in rent payments (on time and in full). After hours of trying to research the legalities of this (including all 4 units of the MOL NFOPP study material and Equality Act 2010) the best I can find is "indirect discrimination arising from disability" coming from a supposed solicitor commenting on a post on this fine forum. There's not much in terms of answers on the gov.uk website either.

If you know of any other answers to this or have gone through a similar thing I'd appreciate it. I have a feeling it may turn ugly..

Thanks

I don't know the legal rights of the tenant,but the landlord's reasoning seems both callous and also silly from his own point of view.Unlike many working people,this man's circumstances could keep him as a tenant for many years.The benefits he receives should also offer security for rent payment.I don't generally take people on benefits,but have some of experience of what can go wrong when tenants are paying out of their own money!     

The vibe I get from the OP is that they are preparing for a battle with the Landlord, on behalf of the Tenant... but that is a complete misunderstanding of the role of a Manager / Agent. The Manager / Agent works for the Landlord and carries out their instructions. If the Tenant here is a actually a Tenant, on an AST, then a simple Section 21 (no fault eviction) will suffice - the Landlord need provide no reasons as to why they're evicting the Tenant - whether that be disability, expected future failure to pay, wariness of modification requests that may come along down the line - it doesn't matter, and it needs no justification. And, as Manager / Agent, it shouldn't matter to the OP (really). A Section 21 cannot be defended against... unless certain procedures have not been followed.

Yes,at the end of the day the landlord has the last word. The agent is not meant to act as an advocate for the tenant.Landlord's reasons are his own business.You have to admit though that it is a novelty to hear of an agent with a heart.I mean, he stands to gain by this disabled man going,new tenant equals more fees.

Yes... and no.

A letting agent is the agent of the landlord, and hence need to act in accordance with the principle's instructions. However, that does not mean that the agent can act illegally. Section 15 and 35 of the Equality Act 2010 is directly relevant here. I suspect that mean for OP that they have to refuse the instructions, even at the risk of losing the landlord as a client.

It is open to a tenant to raise a disability discrimination defence when faced with a claim for possession. Legal aid should be available assuming the tenant don't have too much money in the bank. If you want to give some basic advise to the tenant, tell them to contact their council, Shelter, and solicitors.

"The landlord unfortunately doesn't want to continue with the tenancy as the tenant won't be paying with their own money, despite a crystal clear record in rent payments (on time and in full)."

I think it's a jump to assume the Landlord wants to end the tenancy because of disability, from what is stated by the OP certainly. Now, whether there is legislation (possibly in the Equality Act too) that says you cannot discriminate against a person because they aren't paying for something with their own money, I don't know... but Landlords obviously get away with this day-to-day... not wishing to commence letting to people in receipt of benefits, and ending existing tenancies because Tenants start to receive benefits (the whole dynamic changes for a Landlord). Even if the aforementioned jump is assumed; it's difficult to prove.

Disability is the reason that the Tenant will no longer pay with their own money, and the fact the Tenant will not be able to pay with his own money is the reason the Landlord has cited for wanting to end the tenancy. The reason at the outset could, of course, be a different reason - but the result could be the same.

Quote from: Hippogriff on September 06, 2018, 03:27:39 PM
Landlords obviously get away with this day-to-day... not wishing to commence letting to people in receipt of benefits, and ending existing tenancies because Tenants start to receive benefits (the whole dynamic changes for a Landlord).

Yes, and it was well reported not that long ago that someone claimed indirect discrimination against a LA for "No DSS" and the LA settled instead of letting it go to trial and risking losing. Such a case will surely reach the courts at some point.

It is indeed a high bar to overcome, with in depth legal arguments, which is why help from Shelter & own solicitors would be highly advised here. The council may be able to help with some advice, and also in terms of social housing that the tenant should have a priority for due to the disability, and temporary or emergency housing if the tenant is made homeless through eviction in the mean time.

Thanks all. Just to point out I wasn't preparing to 'battle' with the landlord, I just know the landlord would be in a vulnerable position should the tenant take this to court because of the complex legalities surrounding his situation, so it is with the LLs best interests at heart to advise on/warn about the issues that may arise.

It's clear there's no one answer for this and the tenants decided to take legal action. Pain for us and LL but will be interesting to watch the case.