we where not told no children allowed.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

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

I'll get you started.

Schedule 4 applies to let premises

Schedule 4

The duty in relation to premises to let

3(1)This paragraph applies where A is a controller of premises to let.
(2)A must comply with the first and third requirements.

(3)For the purposes of this paragraph, the reference in section 20(3) or (5) to a disabled person is a reference to a disabled person who is considering taking a letting of the premises.

(4)In relation to each requirement, the relevant matter is becoming a tenant of the premises.

(5)Sub-paragraph (2) applies only if A receives a request by or on behalf of a disabled person within sub-paragraph (3) for A to take steps to avoid the disadvantage or provide the auxiliary aid.

(6)Nothing in this paragraph requires A to take a step which would involve the removal or alteration of a physical feature.

(7)Sub-paragraph (9) of paragraph 2 applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.


so the landlord must follow requirement 1 and 3

the first requirement

"The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage."

the third requirement

"The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid."


No where does the landlord say you cant move children in if you've just given birth. so by excluding a mother who has just given birth is not disadvantaging her over any other mother, so the first requirement is satisfied.

the third requirement is not relevant.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

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

I've done it for you.

Quoting the relevant parts, and why they don't apply or are not discrimination.

I await your 1 word reply.

FBaby

Is this argument really necessary? In all likelihood, the 'no children' is a standard requirements, however, having spoken with the Landlord, they have agreed that this could be dismissed in your case as long as a higher deposit was agreed.

The agent is too busy to have picked up that the contract still states 'no children' so as already pointed out, just cross this out with your initials and return.

martinsurrey

FBaby wrote: »

Is this argument really necessary? In all likelihood, the 'no children' is a standard requirements, however, having spoken with the Landlord, they have agreed that this could be dismissed in your case as long as a higher deposit was agreed.

The agent is too busy to have picked up that the contract still states 'no children' so as already pointed out, just cross this out with your initials and return.

its more for posterity, if anyone reads this thread, having an incorrect answer that throws around Acts and discrimination incorrectly could lead them down a nasty path.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

The exemption is from the whole act, only the parts I have quoted apply to premises that are not exempt.

again, you are wrong.

going to save time on this - the act applies, that section doesn't.


Here's where it does...


Pregnancy and maternity discrimination: non-work casesE+W+S
This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
(1)This section has effect for the purposes of the application to the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity of—
(a)Part 3 (services and public functions);
(b)Part 4 (premises);
(c)Part 6 (education);
(d)Part 7 (associations).
(2)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if A treats her unfavourably because of a pregnancy of hers.
(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.
(4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding.
(5)For the purposes of this section, the day on which a woman gives birth is the day on which—
(a)she gives birth to a living child, or
(b)she gives birth to a dead child (more than 24 weeks of the pregnancy having passed).
(6)Section 13, so far as relating to sex discrimination, does not apply to anything done in relation to a woman in so far as—
(a)it is for the reason mentioned in subsection (2), or
(b)it is in the period, and for the reason, mentioned in subsection (3).


Part 4 - premises http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/4

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

its more for posterity, if anyone reads this thread, having an incorrect answer that throws around Acts and discrimination incorrectly could lead them down a nasty path.

Indeed.....


shame you mixed up schedule 4 with part 4

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

that is leading exactly to what i quoted...

I quoted schedule 4 and the parts of the act it refers to.

thank you for agreeing with me.

I'm quoting PART 4, not schedule 4..... seriously stop digging, give the shovel back and do some reading.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm quoting PART 4, not schedule 4..... seriously stop digging, give the shovel back and do some reading.

I have.

"(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others."

Is the crux of the matter.

If the landlord does not let ANY child live in his houses, he is not discriminating against a new mother, he is discriminating on age, which is allowed.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

I have.

"(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others."

Is the crux of the matter.

If the landlord does not let ANY child live in his houses, he is not discriminating against a new mother, he is discriminating on age, which is allowed.

Not quite, he's charging a higher deposit based upon her being pregnant.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

Not quite, he's charging a higher deposit based upon her being pregnant.

He's charging a higher deposit based on the OP wanting the option to move a child in.

Subtle difference.

OP could get around it by NOT moving a child in.