we where not told no children allowed.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

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.

Well the child isn't related to the tenancy either. A child cannot have a tenancy.

Unfair dismissal only applies after 2 years service, prior to that its only unlawful dismissal - ie for being pregnant.

So I could sack you for wearing green socks if I wanted to for example

always_sunny

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

That is how tenancies work in England, have a look at Shelter. There could be a multitude of reasons, for example a flat with a restrictive covenant which the LL would have no control over.

The question is really for the OP, why does she want to go ahead with this AST despite the fact that she has been made aware of the restriction. The Letting agency would be fairly limited in what they can say because of these discrimination laws you talk about.

If the letting agency says to the OP, "listen lady, we cannot let you the place cause of you upcoming child" they would be absolutely breaching laws. So they cannot, however they have made the OP aware and the OP decided to go ahead so the letting agency can only take the application seriously.

The OP could ask the Letting agency how enforceable is that restriction? Why is it there?
She could try strike it out and sign and see if the LL countersign the AST.

At the end of the day, the OP is entering a contract with the LL to abide rules and having no children is within the legality. It is the OP responsibility to ensure that the agreement she gets herself into does not clash with her responsibilities, the LL is complying on his/her end.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

Well the child isn't related to the tenancy either. A child cannot have a tenancy.

funny

the governments own template AST has children mentioned in it, AND the tenants obligation to ONLY let people named in the AST occupy...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/model-agreement-for-a-shorthold-assured-tenancy

section 2 "Other Occupiers"

Dont forget that that's only an example, the the LL could replace the children allowed with children NOT allowed

Failure to follow the terms of the lease, see a section 8 notice, as I said MANY posts ago.

Guest101 wrote: »

Unfair dismissal only applies after 2 years service, prior to that its only unlawful dismissal - ie for being pregnant.

So I could sack you for wearing green socks if I wanted to for example

I used unfair as you specifically stated over 2 years.

edit

sorry, you said under 2 years. I miss read, my bad.

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

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?

Obviously the dismissal would be unlawful if the employer had any other employees.

Assume the EE wasn't pregnant, would they still get sacked?

if the ER says " well you might have a child in the future, so you are sacked" well that applies to every employee (you could adopt), so they would have to sack everyone.

then we would get into article 8 of the human rights act... could be an interesting court case.

Need more info on that one.

mummy2be1996

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your help we have had an email back from them. they have now taken it out of the contract that we are not allowed a child in the property and we don't have to pay the higher deposit anymore.

Guest101

let's remember tenancies are also governed by consumer protection on unfair terms and that the notice for breach of tenancy is discretionary. ( and I did say the LL could evict if they wanted to ). The law still allows the tenant to have exclusive possesion ( choose who can and cannot be there ) and quiet enjoyment ( live in the property without undue interference ) - so the ground could be defended.

- my point was the LL cannot realistically stop the child being there, but could seek to end the tenancy ( which takes months ).

Even if she was the only employee, it's clear that it would be unlawful based upon pregnancy not age ( even though that would apply in general to employment law ) and this is no different.

Human rights act I believe wouldn't apply as that's to do with the relationship with the state.

Guest101

mummy2be1996 wrote: »

Thanks for your help we have had an email back from them. they have now taken it out of the contract that we are not allowed a child in the property and we don't have to pay the higher deposit anymore.

Glad to hear it

martinsurrey

Guest101 wrote: »

let's remember tenancies are also governed by consumer protection on unfair terms and that the notice for breach of tenancy is discretionary. ( and I did say the LL could evict if they wanted to ). The law still allows the tenant to have exclusive possesion ( choose who can and cannot be there ) and quiet enjoyment ( live in the property without undue interference ) - so the ground could be defended.

- my point was the LL cannot realistically stop the child being there, but could seek to end the tenancy ( which takes months ).

so now you agree its NOT a breach of the Equality Act?

in which case you are agreeing with what I said in my first post.

section 8 ground 12 is 2 weeks notice, find a quiet court, then petition the high court, you could be gone in a month.

Guest101 wrote: »

Even if she was the only employee, it's clear that it would be unlawful based upon pregnancy not age ( even though that would apply in general to employment law ) and this is no different.

Human rights act I believe wouldn't apply as that's to do with the relationship with the state.

HRA places an obligation on the state to take positive actions to stop material breaches by private entities (in effect the laws must prevent breaches of the HRA by private entities).

glad to hear OP.

Guest101

martinsurrey wrote: »

so now you agree its NOT a breach of the Equality Act? - I didn't say the clause was in all cases, just that the OP is pregnant.

in which case you are agreeing with what I said in my first post. - I agree outside of pregnancy ( and the 26 weeks following - I don't think I e said otherwise apologies if I did )

section 8 ground 12 is 2 weeks notice, find a quiet court, then petition the high court, you could be gone in a month. - given this is a consumer relationship ( unless something has recently changed ) I believe it must be the court nearest to the consumer. And you must convince the Court to allow escalation. Neither of winning the case or the escalation are guaranteed. And high court enforcement must now also serve notice like bailiffs.



HRA places an obligation on the state to take positive actions to stop material breaches by private entities (in effect the laws must prevent breaches of the HRA by private entities).

glad to hear OP.

Fair enough - I'm not fully aware of HRA. I'll take your word for it

always_sunny

Guest101 wrote: »

Fair enough - I'm not fully aware of HRA. I'll take your word for it

Actually I am not even sure why the Equality Act was brought up in the topic!