Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
The High Court has ruled that the Government’s Right to Rent scheme breaches human rights law.Under the Right to Rent landlords are responsible for checking the immigration status of their tenants with the prospect of prosecution if they know or have “reasonable cause to believe” that the property they are letting is occupied by someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK. It was introduced by Theresa May as Home Secretary as a key plank of the Government’s ‘hostile environment’ for illegal immigrants.The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) joined with Liberty to intervene in a case brought by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) to have the policy declared as incompatible with human rights on the grounds that it was leading to discrimination against non-UK nationals who might be in the country legitimately and British ethnic minorities.Recent research by the RLA found that the fear of getting things wrong led to 44 per cent of private landlords being less likely to rent to those without a British passport. It found also that 53 per cent of landlords were less likely to rent to those with limited time to remain in the UK, whilst 20 per cent said that they were less likely to consider letting property to EU or EEA nationals. Similar findings have been found by the JCWI. Significantly, during the course of the case government research emerged which confirmed a significant proportion of landlords were unwilling to rent to people without British passports.Delivering his verdict in the High Court today, Mr Justice Martin Spencer ruled that the scheme breached the European Convention on Human Rights on the basis that it led to discrimination against non-UK nationals with the right to rent and British ethnic minorities.In a damming verdict, Mr Justice Spencer, referring extensively to argument and evidence provided by the RLA, concluded that discrimination by landlords was taking place “because of the Scheme.” He went on to conclude that “the Government’s own evaluation failed to consider discrimination on grounds of nationality at all, only on grounds of ethnicity.”The Judge continued by finding that the Right to Rent “does not merely provide the occasion or opportunity for private landlords to discriminate but causes them to do so where otherwise they would not”, describing such discrimination by landlords a being “logical and wholly predicable” when faced with potential sanctions and penalties for getting things wrong. He concluded:“The safeguards used by the Government to avoid discrimination, namely online guidance, telephone advice and codes of conduct and practice, have proved ineffective. In my judgment, in those circumstances, the Government cannot wash its hands of responsibility for the discrimination which is taking place by asserting that such discrimination is carried out by landlords acting contrary to the intention of the Scheme.”The ruling comes following a report published last year by David Bolt, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, which concluded that the Right to Rent has “yet to demonstrate its worth as a tool to encourage immigration compliance” and that the Home Office was “failing to coordinate, maximise or even measure effectively its use, while at the same time doing little to address the concerns of stakeholders.”Academics at Oxford University suggest that the foreign-born population is almost three times as likely to be in the private rental sector compared to the UK-born population.The RLA and the JCWI have written to the Home Secretary seeking an urgent meeting.John Stewart, Policy Manager for the Residential Landlords Association, said:“Today’s ruling is a damning critique of a flagship Government policy. We have warned all along that turning landlords into untrained and unwilling border police would lead to the exact form of discrimination the court has found.“We call on the Government to accept the decision, scrap the Right to Rent, and consider what else can be done to sensibly manage migration, without having to rely on untrained landlords to do the job of the Home Office."Chai Patel, Legal Policy Director for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said:“There is no place for racism in the UK housing market. Now that the High Court has confirmed that Theresa May’s policy actively causes discrimination, Parliament must act immediately to scrap it. But we all know that this sort of discrimination, caused by making private individuals into border guards, affects almost every aspect of public life – it has crept into our banks, hospitals, and schools. Today’s judgment only reveals the tip of the iceberg and demonstrates why the Hostile Environment must be dismantled.”SEE ALSO - Right to Rent - what landlords need to knowUP NEXT - Right to Rent - High Court challenge date setDON'T MISS - Right to Rent - lack of IDNOW WATCH:
Vanessa Warwick Landlord and Co-Founder of PropertyTribes.com **If you have got value from Property Tribes, find out how you can support it in remaining a free to use community resource**
An excellent result! Well done JCWI, RLA and Liberty. This type of government policy with regard to unpaid, untrained landlords being used as border force was always unlawful in my view.
Anyone know what this mean for the future of the checks?
Will the requirement be abandoned or just altered slightly?
Just not rolled out to Wales, Scotland and NI for the moment. Will have to await what the Gov does now re england
At last, some positive news. Let's hope it's enough to have the law repealed.
Does this High Court ruling mean that a landlord can now justifiably ignore their legal obligations under Right to Rent, not least because it's not inconceivable that they could be accused of racial discrimination.
No, the requirement remains in place, as do the penalties.
Anthony Gold Solicitors
We had an NLA meeting about this and the opinion was
it is wrong to ask landlords to do this task
it’s nice to see the courts back up that opinion
if only the govt would work with use and ask us an opinion we might get somewhere
Learn Change and Adapt ?????
All comments are for casual information purposes only. If you wish to rely on any advice I have given please ensure you obtain independent specialist advice from a third party. No liability is accepted for comments made.
This is good news for the bigger picture but means my wages will go down as a result I guess
I didn`t mind being a Border Guard for the Government that much
I was never going to do their work for free though
I upped my tenant processing fee by £50 to cover my costs
Jonathan Clarke. http://www.buytoletmk.com
To be fair though with the banning of tenant fees coming into force soon that's kinda immaterial.
True. That revenue stream is indeed about to be extinguished
That loss of income will be retrieved in other ways... eg higher rents
Every action has a reaction