we where not told no children allowed.

Guest101

mummy2be1996 wrote: »

but we told them in the application that there will be a child living at the property. The agency has to pass the application to the landlord for him/her to accept the offer. it is a semi (it is around the corner from my mother-in-law so we know the people who live next door and both sides have kids)

honestly it doesn't matter, maternity discrimination applies

iammumtoone

Guest101 wrote: »

honestly it doesn't matter, maternity discrimination applies

So the OP is covered now as she is pregnant but what when the baby is born, no maternity discrimination to fall back on and a child in the house where the tenancy agreement doesn't allow it.

Even if they are covered for the full agreement as maternity protection when they signed, what after the year is up (or whatever the agreed term is).

Surely it would be better for the OP to either get the clause sorted/removed or find somewhere else that is more likely to be a long term let.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

honestly it doesn't matter, maternity discrimination applies

Guest101 wrote: »

Maternity is covered


here you go https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/discrimination-in-housing/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination-in-housing/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination-in-housing/

But if the OP moves in with a no children clause (which is legal) the landlord could start to evict for breach of contract the day the baby moves in.

A Section 8 notice on Ground 12, that's a 2 week notice ground (whether the court would grant it is anther question). and its not discriminating against the mother, its against the other occupants, the baby, so no maternity discrimination.

edit to add

I'm NOT on the landlords side if they choose to do this, but just giving my interpretation of the law, so OP can be aware.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

But if the OP moves in with a no children clause (which is legal) the landlord could start to evict for breach of contract the day the baby moves in.

A Section 8 notice on Ground 12, that's a 2 week notice ground (whether the court would grant it is anther question). and its not discriminating against the mother, its against the other occupants, the baby, so no maternity discrimination.

edit to add

I'm NOT on the landlords side if they choose to do this, but just giving my interpretation of the law, so OP can be aware.

My understanding is that the OP would be protected for 26 weeks after birth

agrinnall

Guest101 wrote: »

My understanding is that the OP would be protected for 26 weeks after birth

And if they pay the requested higher deposit they will be covered for at least the full duration of the tenancy - and of course, if no damage is done then the deposit will be returned and it will have cost them nothing. I think you are making a discrimination argument just for the sake of it, rather than because there is any necessity for it.

Guest101

agrinnall wrote: »

And if they pay the requested higher deposit they will be covered for at least the full duration of the tenancy - and of course, if no damage is done then the deposit will be returned and it will have cost them nothing. I think you are making a discrimination argument just for the sake of it, rather than because there is any necessity for it.

Im simply stating the law. most tenancies are 26 weeks anyway

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

My understanding is that the OP would be protected for 26 weeks after birth

OP would be protected from maternity descrimination, however the baby is not, and by moving them into the house they become party to the tenancy.

Put it another way.

If the OP does not move the baby in (say the baby lives with the in laws) and the landlord evicts, that would be covered by maternity discrimination, evicting because a baby is living in the property is not maternity discrimination.

Its like claiming the OP can take a baby into a nightclub because the rules don't apply for 26 weeks after giving birth, when in fact they do, the mother is protected, so they cant stop her going clubbing BECAUSE she has had a baby, but they can stop her going if she has a baby with her.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

OP would be protected from maternity descrimination, however the baby is not, and by moving them into the house they become party to the tenancy. - no they don't.

Put it another way. - a wrong way

If the OP does not move the baby in (say the baby lives with the in laws) and the landlord evicts, that would be covered by maternity discrimination - it would be anyway , evicting because a baby is living in the property is not maternity discrimination. - Politely, you are talking nonsense

Its like claiming the OP can take a baby into a nightclub because the rules don't apply for 26 weeks after giving birth, when in fact they do, the mother is protected, so they cant stop her going clubbing BECAUSE she has had a baby, but they can stop her going if she has a baby with her.

Your example is terrible and literally does not apply to tenancy law

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

Your example is terrible and literally does not apply to tenancy law

You seem to have a firm grasp on the sections of the Equality Act 2010 and how it applies to tenancy's, can you please enlighten us, rather than give one word answers?

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

You seem to have a firm grasp on the sections of the Equality Act 2010 and how it applies to tenancy's, can you please enlighten us, rather than give one word answers?

I've already shared the applicable link, it's a big piece of legislation, what exactly would you like to know?