UK Landlord Forum / Life

I have been refused an apartment on the basis that I am on maternity leave!

I have been renting an apartment for 8 months from my landlord who are a large company. I've asked to downsize to a smaller cheaper apartment in the same building as my husband is frequently traveling so we need less space. They accepted me giving notice to change apartments but have told me now that I won't be accepted by referencing as I'm not working. I have submitted bank statements showing savings 3x years rent and I've also paid my rent on time every month with them. By switching apartment I would be reducing my rent but by refusing me I have to continue to pay the higher rent to them so it's not a matter of them worrying wether I can afford the rent. But they said their company policy is I have to have income not savings, surely this is discriminatory against women as we are the only ones who have to take time off work to have babies. My husband is not on the contract it's purely in my name as he mostly works abroad,

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/discrimination-in-housing/checking-if-its-discrimination/check-if-your-housing-problem-is-discrimination/ - try it out? I've never done it.

On the face of it it would certainly seem hard to explain away as anything else... obviously we only have one side of the story. If you have it in writing that their decision is based on something you can work with, run with it...

"Maternity leave" is a provision for female employees.  If you're on maternity leave in the sense that you have an employer and a legal right to return to a job with that employer, then yes, you should consult a professional adviser about whether their behaviour amounts to unlawful sexual discrimination.

However, landlords are not obliged to let property to people without an income.

Yes I have it in writing that they are turning me down as I'm not working due to maternity.
Not officially on maternity as my job was abroad and so I've come back to the UK and won't be returning to a job in UK after and am not receiving maternity income.
Yes landlords are allowed to turn down a tenant who isn't working because they can't afford to pay. But I've clearly shown that I can afford it via high savings and this would be illogical argument for them as by turning me down for not being able to afford the apartment I will have to continue to rent the more expensive apartment from them

We understand the situation, I guess we are saying it sounds like you would have a case of some kind... how you progress that is your next question.

The additional information you give does put a slightly different complexion on things.It sounds like it's the fact that you are not on recognised maternity leave,with an income and a given date to return to work that has caused the problem. I have never requested details of prospective tenant's savings or other assets,just proof of being in regular employment with sufficient income.Savings can eventually run out if you intend living off them.It could be difficult to prove discrimination.Can't your husband simply apply for one of the other apartments, using his income and references?The fact he works away a lot is irrelevant.

Hippogriff thank you it was a very helpful link. Certainly would appear to fall under indirect discrimination against maternity and I'm still within the 26 weeks special protected group as well. They can't justify declining my references due to not working as I've provided a lot of evidence of affordability and I'm continuing to pay them rent therefore there is no risk to them

Heavykarma. My savings are adequate for 3 years living, anyone working could lose their job and would they then afford rent? My husbands job is not uk based, he's not earning here or living with me full time so no it can't bebdone under him.

Quote from: Nicola on May 03, 2019, 03:44:38 PM
Hippogriff thank you it was a very helpful link. Certainly would appear to fall under indirect discrimination against maternity and I'm still within the 26 weeks special protected group as well. They can't justify declining my references due to not working as I've provided a lot of evidence of affordability and I'm continuing to pay them rent therefore there is no risk to them

If you're within 26 weeks of having given birth, then it's a simple case of direct discrimination if you have it in writing that it's due to you not working due to maternity. If their explanation was that it's due to you not working without the underlying reason, then it's going to be a harder indirect case. Speak to an actual solicitor specialising in such matter.

This is part of one of their reply's. They are offering me a 6 month contract paid fully up front instead of the 12 month contract paid monthly like I currently and like everyone else.

"I understand you do not want 6 month contract, however this is the only option to go for that you should be able to pass references at your current situation;

If you apply for a standard 12 moth contract, you need to be employed and have sufficient monthly income from employment to be able to pass references; you mentioned that you are on maternity, which is likely paid as statutory (I am just assuming, it can be different), you will not pass references based on this, I have double checked with referencing company;

Unfortunately we cannot accept savings, I understand it might sound complicated and frustrating, however this is the policy and cannot change anything here"

Nice and clearly rejected on the basis of not working for maternity and aware that I it's their policies that exclude me not my ability to pay

Obectively looking at what you quoted, the reason you were rejected was because you do not have the necessary income they want, not because you were on maternity. If you were on maternity leave while employed and paid normal and not statutory, you'd probably pass their referencing. See a specialist about the chances of an indirect case here, what the realistic remedy would be if you win, and what the likely timeframe's going to be, then make your decision on how you wish to proceed.

To be honest, the offer of a six month contract paid up front sounds pretty reasonable to me, given that you're not working but have ample savings. A few months' lost interest isn't going to amount to shiny buttons in the current climate, and the landlord is no more likely to end your new tenancy in six months' time than they are to end your current one in four months. You're going to have something much more important in your life than arguing over whether your landlord has unintentionally breached sexual discrimination legislation.

Hmm, agreed. I was certainly operating under the impression they were offering you nothing... saying, effectively, you had to stay put, like it or lump it. But what is being offered is a 6 month fixed term (which can then roll-on) and the annoyance is that they want you to pay the whole 6 months up front... well, "so what?" would be my next question? If it's £1,000 per month rent, then it's a £6,000 outlay in month 1 rather than leaking out over 6 months... is it the principle of this that matters or the interest you will lose? Because if it's the latter (which is the more pragmatic consideration) then it's going to be peanuts... and, I would say, not worth the aggravation (for yourself, I mean). If it's the 6 months vs. the 12 months, again - so what? One assumes they don't just turf you out after the 6 months... that they do another 6 months, or 12, or rolling.

Choosing this fight would seem unnecessary and like a form of self-punishment... without a clear - certainly not guaranteed -outcome. Even raising the spectre of this in any of your communications back (and I'm not saying you would) could cause the other side's whole approach to change (negatively, or positively). Keep schtum. Be clever.

I ain't saying it doesn't sound wrong... I'm saying it's not worth it (not just on principle)... you can obviously feel very free to disagree, because it probably stinks (to you).