We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
we where not told no children allowed.
Comments
-
honestly it doesn't matter, maternity discrimination applies
There's no maternity discrimination, the mother is not being discriminated, she would be more than welcome to rent the place, she just can't have a child in the premises (whether hers or other).
Some flats have no children in the lease covenant, age restriction is legal, we have them everywhere from clubs to movies and properties.EU expat working in London0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »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.
Cant afford another red card, so politely - I disagree with you, but will end it there.
The law protects the OP for 26 weeks after birth, which in many cases is the length of the tenancy.0 -
always_sunny wrote: »There's no maternity discrimination, the mother is not being discriminated, she would be more than welcome to rent the place, she just can't have a child in the premises (whether hers or other).
Some flats have no children in the lease covenant, age restriction is legal, we have them everywhere from clubs to movies and properties.
This is nothing to do with age, as the child isn't born....0 -
-
martinsurrey wrote: »Asking for a higher deposit to remove the child clause IS about age.
The clause refers to ALL children, not just the unborn one.
want to borrow my shovel?
There's no mention of removing the clause, and even if there was. The child isn't paying the deposit.
The Op is pregnant and to move it (in 4 days, before the child is born) she is asked to pay a higher deposit than was she not to be pregnant. That is unlawful discrimination
It literally has nothing to do with the future child.
Im not sure why im even bothering.
OP and anyone else reading this, believe me, or Surrey, or ask CAB, or pay for solicitors advice.0 -
Irrelevant who pays, and we can imply that is what is proposed, as the op has told us about the clause, and that in order to move in a higher deposit is required, I doubt they would say you can move in but still no children.There's no mention of removing the clause, and even if there was. The child isn't paying the deposit.
Not because she is pregnant, but because she wants to move a child in at some time.The Op is pregnant and to move it (in 4 days, before the child is born) she is asked to pay a higher deposit than was she not to be pregnant. That is unlawful discrimination
then why is the no child policy quoted in the OP's opening post, and is what has caused this to become an issue?It literally has nothing to do with the future child.
I'm not sure eitherIm not sure why im even bothering.
on that we agreeOP and anyone else reading this, believe me, or Surrey, or ask CAB, or pay for solicitors advice.0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »Irrelevant who pays, and we can imply that is what is proposed, as the op has told us about the clause, and that in order to move in a higher deposit is required, I doubt they would say you can move in but still no children.
Not because she is pregnant, but because she wants to move a child in at some time.
then why is the no child policy quoted in the OP's opening post, and is what has caused this to become an issue?
I'm not sure either
on that we agree
Just curious and not trying to restart this, but lets imagine the situation is an employment one.
"No X, I'm not sacking you because your pregnant, I'm sacking you because there is a child moving in to your home in the future" (assume under 2 years employment - for avoidance of doubt under 2 years can be sacked for any not discriminatory reason) - what would your stance be then?0 -
Absolutely and that is why she is being shown the property and going through the process, it would be discriminatory not to do so.This is nothing to do with age, as the child isn't born....
i.e. Letting Agency doesn't show me properties because I am pregnant.
When birth happens, the mother would be very welcome to keep renting the flat, however no child can be brought inside the premise cause the LL does not allow them.
The LL does not know if the mother intend to have the child sleep somewhere else.
When a woman has a child, despite popular belief she doesn't become above the law.
The mother has options:
A) find another property that has no children restriction
continue with the property keeping in mind she won't be able to bring the child in EU expat working in London0 -
Just curious and not trying to restart this, but lets imagine the situation is an employment one.
"No X, I'm not sacking you because your pregnant, I'm sacking you because there is a child moving in to your home in the future" (assume under 2 years employment - for avoidance of doubt under 2 years can be sacked for any not discriminatory reason) - what would your stance be then?
Well, the child is not connected to the job in any way, so is fundamentally different.
unfair dismissal is covered by the Employee Rights Act 1996
para 98 gives you the definitions of a fair dismissal, which includes the below, so I would say its not a fair dismissal as its not a capability ground, or a conduct ground, or any of the other fair grounds.
"In determining for the purposes of this Part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show—
(a)the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and
(b)that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.
(2)A reason falls within this subsection if it—
(a)relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,
(b)relates to the conduct of the employee,
[F388(ba)F389 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]
(c)is that the employee was redundant, or
(d)is that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment.0 -
always_sunny wrote: »Absolutely and that is why she is being shown the property and going through the process, it would be discriminatory not to do so.
i.e. Letting Agency doesn't show me properties because I am pregnant.
When birth happens, the mother would be very welcome to keep renting the flat, however no child can be brought inside the premise cause the LL does not allow them.
The LL does not know if the mother intend to have the child sleep somewhere else.
When a woman has a child, despite popular belief she doesn't become above the law.
The mother has options:
A) find another property that has no children restriction continue with the property keeping in mind she won't be able to bring the child in
Thankfully that's not how tenancies work and the child can be there whenever they want...
If the LL chooses to evict that's also possible.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards