What just happened?
A York County Court has ruled that the use of the ‘No DSS’ letting ban is unlawful, due to indirect discrimination.[1] The case was brought by the charity Shelter on behalf of a disabled single mother who enquired about renting a two-bedroom property in the city and was told her application would not be considered as she was in receipt of housing benefit.[2]
What does this mean?
“DSS” refers to the Department for Social Security. Although no one claims benefits from the department anymore, the term has been widely used in rental property advertisements as a blanket ban on renting to tenants in receipt of any kind of state benefit.
Research by the UK Charity Shelter, who have been at the forefront of the fight against DSS discrimination, shows that 60% of adults on housing benefit are women with figures further clarifying that 95% of single parents receiving housing benefit are female.[3] In addition, Shelters research found that those in receipt of disability benefits are three times more likely to also receive housing benefit.[4] This shows how women and those with a disability are more likely to be disproportionally affected by the ban. For this reason, district Judge Victoria Elizabeth Mark confirmed that the ban is unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex and disability, and contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010.[5]
This is a landmark case and it is the first time that a case like this has been heard to completion in a UK court. Although Shelter have been fighting to end DSS discrimination and have pursued several other claims, they have all settled at an early stage without a ruling on indirect discrimination.[6]
The judgement, therefore, sets an example to letting agents that the application of this unjust rule is unlawful and should deter letting agents from using the ban in the future for fear of litigation. The decision it is likely to be equally applicable to landlords who privately advertise properties, to not do so would be unjust. The only exception may be those landlords with buy-to-let mortgages with terms that do not allow landlords to rent properties to tenants in receipt housing benefit. Although there is support from the Residential Landlord Association (RLA) for reform, and, Metro Bank has already taken this step[7] providing hope that there will be a true effort to stamp out this form of discrimination within the rental market.
Although the judgement does not infer that those in receipt of benefits who apply for rental properties will always receive the tenancy, or that, they cannot have their application rejected. It does ensure that everyone will have equal access to tenancies and each prospective tenant is judged on their individual ability to sustain a tenancy, as opposed to closing the door on every applicant receiving benefits.
Under the Act, there is a defence to indirect discrimination which allows a discriminatory practice where it can be shown to be “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.[8] No such defence was brought in this claim and it is difficult to see how a letting agent could raise this in any future claims and, that a court would uphold such a notion.
It is important to note that as the case was decided in a country court, it does not set a binding precedent. This is because precedents are set by superior UK courts and applied to those courts below them in the hierarchy. However, a county court is one of the UK’s lowest level of courts with no courts sitting beneath it, therefore there are no courts on which their judgements are binding. It is, however, difficult to imagine that other courts would make a different judgement especially in the absence of a legitimate defence.
At Law Miracle, we believe that everyone should have fair and equal access to housing irrespective of their presumed financial circumstances and welcome the judgment for change.
Written by Gabriella Cinotti
Assessing Firms:
#JMWsolicitors #SlaterandGordan #Penerley #talbotslaw #Stephensons #EllisJones #OTSSolicitors #KingsleyNapley
References:
[1] Maddy Moore, No DSS: Landmark court ruling confirms housing benefit discrimination is unlawful (Shelter website, July 14th 2020)
[2] Patrick Butler, 'No DSS' ruled unlawful after mother rejected by lettings agency (The Guardian, July 14th 2020)
[3] Shelter and National Housing Federation (NHF), Stop DSS Discrimination report, (Shelter, August 2018)
[4] ibid
[5] Neil Shaw, Court ruling bans landlords from saying ‘no DSS’ as discrimination (Cambridgeshire live, July 14th 2020)
[6] Maddy Moore, No DSS: Landmark court ruling confirms housing benefit discrimination is unlawful (Shelter website, July 14th 2020)
[7] Nathaniel Barker, Major Bank to end ‘no DSS’ private landlord mortgages (Inside Housing, June 12th 2019)
[8] Section 19, (2) (d) of the Equality Act 2010
Disclaimer: This article (and any information accessed through links in this article) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.